FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 1063.PDF
'LIGHT, 3 August 1961 165 ieen together at an Aer Lingus twenty-fifth anniversary reception in .ondon recently are (centre) Mr Geoffrey Rippon, MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation; Mrs Rippon; and Mr Geoffrey Pitt, the airline's new general manager for Britain operate from the start at a load factor of 60 per cent. Over the past en years the independents had been finding new markets and had been opposed in their exploitation by BEA, and eventually these new markets iad proved profitable for both the independents and BEA. Some .ompetition would be beneficial, although too much could be harmful; n some places there was none at present. Next, summing up the general case for Cunard Eagle applications, was Vlr Ashton Hill. He referred to Mr Marking's summary of BEA's arguments in objection to the applications, and said that BEA had produced no proof in support of their submissions. In a previous case the Board had not accepted the view that a second British operator would not increase the British share of the traffic. Cunard Eagle had operated European services in the past and contended that they had venerated new traffic. Mr Porter was next invited to make a final speech for the applications bv Tradair. He first asked whether, in view of the nature of Tradairs proposed services, BUA had withdrawn their objections to the applica- tions. Counsel for BUA said that, in principle, they had done so. Mr Porter then said that he would briefly underline points he had made in his opening speech. Emphasizing the creative type of services operated by Tradair in the past, he said that the applications before the Board were not calculated to undermine any existing services or rate structures. He appreciated Mr Milward's compliments and tinal comment; it was a pity that Mr Collingwood could not agree with itis chief executive, but this showed that democracy lived even in the heart of BEA. Tradair was applying for permission to cater exclusively for inclusive tour traffic, and wanted to remain in this market and develop it on regular lines. Public Muoting 21 thon umcrod a new phase the hearing ofindividuu! applications. The first application was therefore A.1002. from British United Airways, for a twice-daily service between London (Gatwick) and Paris (Le Bourget). Presenting the case. Mr Gardiner said that he would produce one piece of paper for each route, and call one witness to say that what was on il was correct. He then produced the document which the Board numbered A.1002/BUA1, consisting of statistics relating to the London - Paris route, with comments. In I960 approximately four million people had travelled between the United Kingdom and France, and of these approximately 1.5 million had gone by air. This figure was increasing at an average rate of 8.5 per cent per annum. The annual capacity requested by BUA was 93.440. which represented 3 per cent of the total air traffic UK - Paris at 35 per cent load factor, 4.3 per cent at 50 per cent load factor and 5.1 per cent at 60 per cent load factor. If the BEA estimate of 17 per cent traffic growth were to prove correct the percentage of traffic carried by BUA would be halved. Viscounts And One-Elevens Only Mr Gardiner then called his witness. Mr Whybrow, to confirm that the figures presented in support of the applications had been extracted from documents already introduced in evidence. He also confirmed that BUA intended to use only Viscount and BAC One-Eleven aircraft on this route. Mr Marking, for BEA. cross-examined Mr Whybrow. He first asked, with reference to a statement that BUA would accept either Le Bourget or Orly as the airport for Paris, whether the French would approve Le Bourget. Witness suggested that the French might be prepared to accept a service from the complementary London airport io the complementary Paris airport. Mr Marking pointed out that BEA were not allowed to use any airport other than Le Bourget. The Board invited BEA to put the case for their objection and Mr Marking called Mr Collingwood as his witness. Mr Collingwood dealt with the question of bilateral agreements, which, he said, con- trolled the possibility of the intervention of BUA bringing about any increase in the total British share of the traffic. BEA suggested that this was ruled out by the terms of the bilateral agreement with France. This agreement controlled the total British traffic, and its terms would prevent any increase in the British share of the total capacity offered. The first section of the agreement provided for limiting of capacity and the second section provided that this capacity should be divided 50-50 between the carriers of the two countries, details being decided by inter-airline arrangements. At present. BEA and Air France were each providing 50 per cent of the capacity and carrying 50 per cent of the traffic on the routes they operated. Skyways were also operating a route which the French maintained was equivalent to a London - Paris but tolerated because of the lower fares. BOAC had been licensed by the ATAC to operate a daily service between London and Paris but this had been totally rejected by the French unless BEA were prepared to reduce their capacity by the amount to be provided by BOAC. It therefore seemed that, however traffic might develop, there was no escape from the provisions of this agreement. Counsel for BUA cross-examined Mr Collingwood. He asked why- Mr Collingwood had not read a further paragraph of the annex to the bilateral agreement, and Mr Collingwood replied that he had not wanted to read too much. Mr Gardiner said he appreciated that. The paragraph he had referred to concerned provision for the revision of the capacity agreement. Mr Gardiner then said that he would ask no more questions about inter-governmental agreements. The matter had been brought up by BEA and he had therefore dealt with it. but it was his submission that these agreements were not the concern of the Board. It was within the power of the Minister to instruct the Board to refuse a licence if he felt that this was desirable, but he had not done so in this case, or in the case of any of the other applications being heard at this meeting of(he Board. The case for the objection by Skyways was presented by Mrs Whittaker. She said that the Coach-air formula had been designed to prevent material diversion of traffic from BEA. Skyways felt that if any other operator than BEA were approved to operate from Gatwick to Paris it should be Skyways. Skyways had had considerable experi- ence of the restrictions imposed by bilateral agreements and confirmed all that had been said on this score by BEA. For six years Skyways had had approval from the French to operate 21 flights per day. but the French had recently proposed to reduce this frequency. Skyways, acting on advice they had been given, had continued to operate to the frequency for which they were licensed and one of their aircraft had been impounded. An interim agreement had been made, under which their flights were reduced to about 2.000 per annum. Skyways hoped thai the Government would be able to re-negotiate this on more favourable terms, bui Hit1 French regarded the Skycoach service as a London - Paris schedule. The case for the objection by East Anglian Flying Services (Channel Airways), stated by Captain Parsons, was based on their experiences with the French authorities. They had had troubles similar to those experienced by Skyways. BUA's application A.1004. for a daily service between Gatwick and Brussels, came up next. BUA produced a document similar to that used in support of their previous application, and Mr Whybrow confirmed its contents. Before stating the case for BEA's objection to this application. Mr Marking addressed the Board. He said that Mr Gardiner had made it perfectly clear that he thought that inter-governmental relations were no concern of the Board. He himself submitted, however, that it was the Board's duty to consult with the Minister on any matter affecting bilateral agreements, and to consider the implications of these agree- ments in relation to the Act. Mr Gardiner had said that Section 2 (3) provided for the Minister to order the withdrawal of any application which might affect negotiations with another government. Mr Marking did not agree that that was sufficient. The Board should, and must, consider the possible effects on inter-governmental relations. Mr Collingwood again gave evidence. He said that the agreement affecting Brussels provided for less detailed regulation of the traffic proportions. It was a "Bermuda type" agreement and provided for fair and equal opportunity to the carriers of both countries. The question was how far could the proportions carried by the two countries' airlines be varied. As far as Brussels was concerned, BEA was currently slightly out-carrying Sabena. This alone might not be a bar to a small additional capacity being allowed to British carriers. However, on routes to places other than Brussels from places in southern England, UK carriers were well ahead, through the activities of a number of independent operators. Because of this disparity in favour of British operators it was unlikely that Belgium would agree to any service likely to increase the differential unless BEA's capacity were correspondingly reduced. Questions From Mr Gardiner Cross-examining on behalf of BUA. Mr Gardiner asked whether the bilateral agreement did not provide specifically for the designation of more than one airline by references to one or more airline(s) and to fair and equal opportunity for the airline(s). Mr Collingwood agreed that the agreement was worded in that way. The next application to be heard was A. 1133, by Overseas Aviation, for a service between Gatwick and Ostend. The case for Overseas was presented by Mr A. Pink, who apologized to the Board for the absence, due to illness, of Mr E. Hessey. Mr Pink said that his company had made no general case in applica- tion or objection as it was not their policy to object to other companies' activities, and they had not the necessary resources to produce the masses of paper which seemed to be required. He asked that the applica- tion be modified to include modified Canadair North Stars (otherwise known as DC-4s or Argonauts). Mr Gardiner for BUA asked what Bristol 170s Overseas Aviation owned. Mr Pink said that they owned none at present. Mr R. W. Davies, for Dan-Air, said he understood that Overseas Aviation had no current licence for passengers not accompanying vehicles; could Mr Pink suggest why the Board should grant them this right? Mr Pink said that they had applied for the right because such passengers helped to increase the revenue. He then called Mr R. Myhill, chairman and managing director of Overseas Aviation. Mr Myhill said that the object of the service would be to carry cars and he was prepared to delete from the application passengers other than those accompanying cars. With regard to the configuration of the North Star aircraft, his company had just bought 15 of these from TCA and had not yet finally decided on the modifications to be made to them. Initially they would use Bristol 170s. • (Continued overleaf)
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
