FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 0381.PDF
What capacity is asked for?—Mr Cyril Harvey FLIGHT, 23 March 1961 wondered, would it—and will it in the future—make any differenceto the arguments that are put forward, the manner in which they are put, and the decisions that are made? This was the first timethat there had been a public hearing into the licensing affairs of British air transport. A table had been set aside for the Press: but itwas curious that none of the daily newspaper air correspondents was in attendance at the long-awaited birth of greater public ac-countability in this public service industry. Was this because the business of the first hearing was uncontroversial and unlikely toproduce a good story ? The programme included six applications from two small inde-pendents. Air Safaris and East Anglian, for the transfer of licences for inclusive tours—services already approved by the Minister forother operators who, for one reason or another, are unable to take them up. A number of independents had objected to these transfers,so this re-hearing was necessary. As the chairman pointed out, the need for the services had already been approved. The secretary, Mr J. E. Barnes (seated on the chairman's right)read out the applications. The general procedure was then as follows. The chairman would invite the applicant's representativeto state his case, and then the applicant's travel agent would add his support. The objector, and in some cases objectors, would then beinvited to state their cases. Surprisingly, no one stood up to speak (it had also seemed ratherodd that no one rose when the Board made their entrance). The applicants and objectors sat along one side of a long, court-room-width table facing the Board, and each had in front of him—rather scruffily inscribed on a piece of cardboard—the name of his firm. There was no smoking, as com-manded by another rather scruffy notice pinned to the big wall-sized world atlas behind the Board. From time to time, and morefrequently as the proceedings warmed up, the members of theBoard would ask questions. For example, when one objector al-leged that his traffic would be diverted, Sir Friston How asked:"Yes, but would you like to go into that a little further?" Whatdid the objector mean, he asked, by wasteful competition—"haveyou excess capacity? How can you tell that there is insufficienttraffic?" The chairman, Mr A. H. Wilson, as a chairman should, wouldsum up an argument with a quietly rhetorical: "As I understand it, you have a licence for a closed-group operation which you weredoing without a licence last year, and now you want a licence for . . . ?" Occasionally, Mr Wilson would interrupt an argument thatseemed to be getting a bit confused. For example: "What is it that you want precisely, in terms of capacity?" Or, to a travel agent,"we cannot deal with an application from you. All we can deal with is an application from an operator." Mr Cyril Harvey addressed one objector, who was being accusedof what amounted to irregular practices by a travel agent: "All I have heard from Mr — so far is that he does not like the presentstate of affairs and that he is proceeding to operate without a licence"—did he or did he not agree with [the travel agent] that hisservices had been advertised in the general Press? Mr E. Baldry asked an applicant: "In your application you statethat some changes are going to be made in your company?" Assured that these were inhand, he said: "As long as you have money in the bank?'" Yes, the applicant said. Undoubtedly the most effective spokesmanamong the operators was Mr Ashton-Hill of Cunard Eagle. A veteran AT AC campaigner,he deployed his arguments with skill and force, addressing all his remarks, regardless of whetherhe was answering a question put by a member of the Board, to the chairman. His words wereclear, his arguments unmuddled, and he sup- ported his arguments with facts and figures. One got the impression that good presenta- tion and, above all, a clear voice matter con- siderably. There was no doubt that the atten- tion of some members of the Board was not wholly arrested by the rather jumbled murmur- Seated, / to r: Sir Friston How; Mr Cyril Harvey; Mr A. H. Wilson (chairman); Mr W. P. James. Standing, I to r: Mr D. H. Isaacs, assistant secre- tary; Mr ]. E. Barnes, secretary; Prof R. G. D. Allen; Mr C. Bagnall; Mr £. Baldry "Flight" photograph proceedings 389 ings of one or two witnesses, one of One of the ladieswhom was asked by the chairman to who recorded the speak up. Certainly their attention wasarrested by the applicant whose ap- proach was: "We feel it is entirelywrong to be put at a disadvantage by a new operator ... we think it patentlyunfair ... we consider it to be most unfair ... we feel very strongly aboutit . . ." and so on. But here was an airline falling into the trap of over-emphasis, and not supporting its case with facts and figures. There was not much doubt that the Boardwas unimpressed, if not actually unsympathetic. There were no explosive moments, as there will be when the bigguns of the corporations open up (contingents from both BOAC and BEA—a particularly strong one from BEA—could be observedamong the audience). But there were some mild fireworks when a travel agent accused a particular objector of advertising group-charter services to the public, though the bookings his company had taken had been, he said, "ethical." "1 would like to say," this travelagent went on, "that [the objecting airline] has advertised his services to the general public ten times more than we have." His own firmhad had a number of enquiries from people who had had "a rough time" with the company concerned, and who knew nothing aboutthe Midlothian Travel Association. "The hundredth time 1 saw their advertisement," the agent went on, "I phoned them up,spoke to Mr — and asked if he could take a booking to Malaga. He said he could. When I asked him about the Midlothian TravelAssociation, he said: 'Oh, that's just something we operate and if you buy a ticket you become a member.' In actual fact," this speakerconcluded, " he is diverting traffic from us." There was laughter in court. The chairman asked the "accused" whether he would like toanswer. Rather wanly the airline representative concerned said: "This only serves to emphasize our difficulties in trying to sell theservice we have pioneered." He was further questioned by the Board about the validity of the allegations. Shortly after that he leftthe court room. Somehow this little interlude was disquieting. Here we had anairline operator being accused, in public, of what amounted to sharp practice—accusations entirely unsupported by written or anykind of independent evidence. No doubt the allegations could have been so supported, but in principle it seemed quite wrong for a manto be pilloried in public without a shred of evidence except that supplied by the accuser. The hearings were over by 3.50 p.m. The court rocm emptied,leaving the members of the Board to deliberate upon their verdicts. What was the verdict on the Board? Perhaps it might be bestexpressed as: "On the whole they handled the thing quite well, but this was only a gentle preliminary training exercise. Their mettlewill not really be tested until the Cunard Eagle v. BOAC North Atlantic case opens on April 18—and even then it will be a year ortwo before a considered verdict can be returned." Yesterday, March 22. the Air Transport Licensing Board was clue tohear BEA's case for new commodity rates for motor car parts on the Birmingham - Manchester route, to which British Railways were object-ing; the corporation's case for an optional traffic stop at Birmingham on their Manchester- London- Milan route, to which Cunard Eagle andBritish United were objecting; and Channel Air Bridge's case for a Southend - Ostend service for day return excursion passengers only, towhich Cunard Eagle and East Anglian were objecting.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
