FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 1134.PDF
236 FLIGHT, 17 August 1961 AIR COMMERCE This was the scene at El Paso, Texas, on August 3 as police opened fire on a Continental Airlines Boeing 707 after an attempt was made to "hi-jack" it to Cuba. A note on the attempted piracy appears on page 239 ATLB PUBLIC MEETING 21 (Continued) HERE is continued our summary of this important Air Transport Licen-sing Board hearing. As usual we have felt it right to sacrifice some topi- cality in order to maintain a reasonably full record of these proceedings. CUNARD EAGLE'S application A.1054 for a service London-Dublin came next. Presenting the usual table of figures and routeinformation, Mr Ashton Hill commented on the high traffic growth rate, the existing air services and the great disparity between the carry-ings of BEA and Aer Lingus. He said that there was apparently nothing in the new bilateral agreement to prevent the designation of two or eventhree British operators; the high traffic potential showed that there was plenty of room for additional carriers and Cunard Eagle had thereforewithdrawn the objection which they had made to BUA's application. Pressed by Mr Marking of BEA to say how many operators hethought the route could support, Mr Ashton Hill said that that would depend on BEA's future frequencies: he understood from Aer Lingusthat they were at present carrying 92 per cent of the traffic and BEA only 8 per cent. Mr Marking said that Mr Ashton Hill mustn't believeall he heard. Mr Ashton Hill, giving evidence for CEA's application for a servicefrom Manchester and/or Liverpool to Dublin, said that Manchester - Dublin was at present served by Aer Lingus and BEA, Liverpool-Dublin by Aer Lingus only. He was briefly cross-examined by Mr Marking on proposed frequency and route to be operated and said thatCEA intended to operate Manchester-Liverpool-Dublin, but might not call at Liverpool if BEA did not. He agreed that CEA might operatea separate service Liverpool-Dublin. Mr Collingwood, witness for BEA's objection, said that the bilateralwas the same as that controlling London - Dublin. It referred to Man- chester and/or Liverpool; BEA were at present operating only Man-chester - Dublin, but, if the traffic increased, hoped to make a call at Liverpool. It was possible that they might operate two separate routes—;one Manchester - Dublin and the other Liverpool - Dublin. He agreed with the Board that Aer Lingus were already operating in this way. Questions From The Board In answer to further questions from the Board, Mr Collingwood saidthat he was doubtful when BEA could hope to reach parity with Aer Lingus. He agreed that they were short of capacity to put on this route. Mr Ashton Hill asked whether Aer Lingus were offering six times theBEA capacity on the route; Mr Collingwood said that BEA operated seven flights weekly and Aer Lingus 46. Re-examined by Mr Marking, Mr Collingwood confirmed that theintroduction or Vanguards would clear the present shortage of capacity: the load factor during the winter 1960/61 had been under 50 per cent. Mr Oswald next called his witness for the British Transport Com-mission's objections. The next Dublin application was A.I 119, by Starways, for a servicefrom Chester to Dublin. The Board was informed that the Welsh Advisory Committee strongly supported the application. Mr Nancepresented the application. He said that this was a new development; there was at present no service from the Chester area to Dublin. Licencesheld by Starways covered Hawarden (Chester) but they could not develop regular services there owing to lack of facilities. They had haddiscussions with the de Havilland Company, who were prepared to provide all the technical facilities needed if Starways could guaranteethat landing fees would bring them in approximately £5,000 per annum; Starways would themselves provide passenger handling facilities. Captain G. K. Leigh, general manager of Starways, said that theyhad been interested for two years in the possibility of developing Hawarden and wanted to run services from that airfield to Dublin,Jersey, the Isle of Man and Belfast. They had applied to the Board for various services but were unable to operate them from Hawardenbecause the initial development cost there would be £7.000 to £10,000. The de Havilland Company could not provide the facilities required forless than £5,000 to £6,000 per annum, about 1,200 landings per annum. The alternative aerodromes were Liverpool—28 mies away, with theQueens Ferry, the toll and the tunnel to negotiate—and Manchester (Ringway) was 42 miles by road. There was therefore little likelihoodof diversion of traffic from services operated to and from these airports. The population in the catchment area which Hawarden would servewas i to J million. Mr Marking cross-examined and asked Captain Leigh to stateStarways' proposed frequencies; Captain Leigh said they proposed 10 flights per week with DC-3, DC-4 or Viscount aircraft. He did notknow when Starways would get their second Viscount. Speaking to the BEA objection, Mr Marking said that he had nowitnesses to call, but BEA felt that there was no need for a further international airport in that part of England. Next came application A.I 134, by Oversea? Aviation, for a serviceJersey - Cardiff - Dublin. Mr Norman Bradshaw, sales manager of Overseas, said that they would probably start at a frequency of twoflights per week with Argonauts. The IATA fares would be applied, but Overseas would like to be able to use the 17-day excursion fare anyday of the week. Mr Bradshaw suggested that the Aer Lingus service from Dublin to the Channel Islands was inadequate, and there was noBritish operator on the route. Mr Jenkins spoke to Jersey Airlines" objection, which was based on their existing operations Jersey - Exeterand Exeter- Dublin. Cunard's Turin Application Business continued with the hearing of application A.1061, byCunard Eagle, for a service between London and Turin. Mr Ashton Hill said that CEA had first applied, unsuccessfully, for a scheduledservice to Turin in 1954. BEA had subsequently applied, CEA had re-applied and BEA had been licensed in 1958. There was alreadyheavy IT traffic to Turin and this could be carried at ITX rates on a scheduled service. Mr Marking asked why Mr Ashton Hill had sug-gested that the opening of the service might be postponed. Mr Ashton Hill explained that the Board might suggest deferring the opening of asecond service in view of the recent start of operations by BEA and the probability that the route was not yet built up. Mr Marking then asked whether Mr Ashton Hill thought that theItalians would agree to a second British operator on the route and Mr Ashton Hill replied that present CEA schedules did not prejudiceBEA under the bilateral agreement. His answers to further questions about Italian interpretation of the agreement led to the Chairman ofthe Board asking how all this helped. Mr Marking said that he wanted to demonstrate Italian restrictiveness; Mr Ashton Hill had implied thatCEA had no difficulty in getting the rights they wanted. He then asked whether Mr Ashton Hill thought that CEA would get the Turin rightsthey wanted without detriment to BEA. Mr Ashton Hill said they would. Mr Collingwood was then called as BEA's witness for their objectionand was asked to explain the special implications of the bilateral. Mr Collingwood said that the Anglo-Italian bilateral agreement gaverise to more argument than any other because British carriers were doing much better than Italy's growing airline. BEA alone operated to Turin,Naples, Sardinia and Sicily and last year carried 86 per cent of the traffic on the service to Venice. 63 per cent to Milan and 57 per cent toRome. To this average of well over 50 per cent were to be added the 10 per cent carried by BOAC to Rome, the far from inconsiderabletraffic on special IT flights, and the CEA services to Pisa and Rimini. The Italians were trying to reduce the imbalance and would be operatingCaravelles Turin-London next summer. The future was likely to be harder for British operators. This applied particularly to high-frequenc>routes. Any services approved for independents to points already served by BEA in Italy would be at the expense of BEA's rights on the route. Cross-examining, Mr Ashton Hill asked about BEA's interest inAlitalia and was told that they no longer have either a financial interest or representation on the board of the company. Mr Ashton Hill alsomade the point that CEA negotiate their own traffic rights in Italy. A.1008, heard next, was an application by BUA for a service fromGatwick to Milan. The usual BUA document was introduced by Mr McDonnell and confirmed by Mr Whybrow. Cross-examining MrWhybrow, Mr Marking suggested that this was a route which BEA could be expected to find profitable and had been selected by BUA forthat reason. Mr Whybrow said that BEA did not make sufficient information available to permit the identification of their profitableroutes. He did not accept Mr Marking's routine invitation to add to the arguments already advanced as to why BUA should be licensed. Cunard Eagle's application, A.1059, came next, also for a service toMilan. Mr Ashton Hill said that Milan was a great centre served by
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
