FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1960
1960 - 1261.PDF
FLIGHT, 5 August 1960 195 AIR COMMERCE Comments on a Rough Drafta INIONS about this or that aspect of the new civil aviation licensing legislation have very often had to be qualified with the remark: "Oh well, let's wait to see what the Regulations say . . ." A draft of these Regulations, which are necessary in order toimplement the provisions of the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, has been laid before Parliament, and circulated by the Ministryto interested parties. They are asked to submit their comments by September 16. A note on the six classes of air service licenceproposed appeared in last week's issue. With one notable exception, which will be examined in amoment, the draft Regulations convey the impression of a Ministry leaning over backwards to give the new Air TransportLicensing Board as much' authority as possible, and to abolish the secret-court mystique that has been so unhealthy a feature of theAir Transport Advisory Council system in the past. For example: —(1) All hearings by the Board will be in public—"unless the Board shall otherwise decide in relation to the whole or part of aparticular case" [R.12(3)]. This is the most enlightened regulation of the lot, and it is to be hoped that the conditional qualificationwill be sparingly invoked. (2) All applications for new services will be available forinspection by any person [R.4(8)]. (3) The Board's reasons for its decisions will be published[R.10 (11) and (12)]. This is important because it means that the reasons for negative decisions will be always known—withthe one exception which is examined in a moment. (4) Appeals against the Board's decision's will be held in publicby an independent commissioner, "unless he shall otherwise decide"—a qualification which again one hopes will be sparinglyinvoked [R. 14(18)]. It is ruled also that if the Minister rejects the appeal-commissioner's recommendation, he "shall give hisreasons" for so doing [R.14(15)]. The regulations should make it clear that these reasons will be published. « * * But the main weakness is to be found in Regulation 10(13):"If the Board are obliged by subsection (3) of section 2 of the Act to refuse an application, an indication to that effect shall besufficient reason for their decision." The reference here is to that part of the Act which reads as At this simple ceremony at Filton on June 27 Mr C. F. Uwins, deputy chairman of the Bristol Aeroplane Company, handed over Ghana's Britannia 309 to Mr E. Ayeh-Kumi, HE the Ambassador and minster plenipotentiary for Ghana follows: "If the application would in [the Minister's] opinioninvolve the negotiation with the government of some other country or territory of rights which it would be inexpedient for the timebeing to seek, the Board shall forthwith refuse that application." There has always been concern that this part of the Act bids fairto undermine the authority and independence of the Board. We quote from Flight of February 26, page 283: — "There are immense opportunities for Ministerial interventionhere. There will seldom be any corporation or independent application (other than those for domestic or cabotage routes)which will not have to be interpreted in the context of Britain's international traffic rights. Thus every application will, it seems,first be scrutinized in this light by the Minister; if it looks politically tricky the Board will be told to refuse it ... Traffic rights are anintegral part of air transport, and the regulatory authority should have explicit powers to initiate policy and to interpret agree-ments. As it is, such powers will remain in the Ministry." As matters stand the Minister can direct the Board to veto,on vague and unsubstantiated grounds of diplomatic inexpediency, any application for an international service—and that will be that.Traffic rights will be a closed shop, the stewards of which will be the Ministry. No applicant will be able to argue his case forentry before the Board: the Minister alone will be the arbiter of what is "inexpedient." We foresee here a source of greatfrustration for the operators—and for the Board. Other Weak Points There are other weaknesses: (1) The regulations should pro-vide for the Board to call for and disseminate facts and figures about Britain's air transport industry, so that everyone, not leastthe industry itself, has a full picture (which it does not have now) of how British civil aviation is getting on. (2) The regulationsshould require that, if anyone—including the Minister—makes any "representation" to the Board under section 4(1) of the Act,then that representation should be published. Otherwise this bit of the Act may become a vehicle for a lot of quiet Ministerialintervention. (3) Transcripts of proceedings should always be available to any person, and not only in the event of an appeal[Rl?(15)] Finally, the draft Regulations diminish somewhat our fears*that "it will be disappointing if the new Licensing Board is frustrated by operators who feel that they only have to wave asecret pool agreement at the Board to ensure that their opera- tions will be protected." As has been previously emphasized,any pool practitioner can object to an application under section 2(2)(g) of the Act. But Regulation 9 gives the Board the powerto call upon the objector to "provide all such information and documents" as may be relevant. This is most important, becauseit is essential for the Board to have access to pool agreements. This would be an even better Regulation if it required that suchinformation should be made public. Pools may be good things— but they must be seen to be good things. If there is a case forthem then let it be discussed in the open. But none of the 20 proposed Regulations actually under-mines the Board's authority, such as it is. They appear to be the work of a Ministry which—while reserving unto itself powersover the Board that, in our view, are too great—has nevertheless sponsored legislation which is a big improvement on that whichwent before. J. M. R. "'Pooling and the Public," "Flight," June 24, page 855. Helicopter services to Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport take about ten minutes by Mi-4P from the Moscow heliport. There ars 20 flights a day
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
