FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 1135.PDF
FLIGHT, 17 August 1961 237 In these seats, revealed by the remarkably engineered swing tail of the CL-44, Seaboard still hope to carry passengers as "top-off" on transatlan- tic cargo schedules. A new application has been made to the CAB. Fare would be about £48 London - New York; it would be a strictly no- frills service, baggage allowance would be 661b, and passengers would get six hours' notice of seat-availability AIR COMMERCE . . . scheduled services and many IT flights: CEA would expect to transfertheir own IT traffic to the scheduled services, carrying it at ITX rates. Mr Ashton Hill, cross-examined by Mr Marking, said he thoughtthere was room for four operators on the route. Asked whether he thought the Italians were likely to license CEA without prejudice to BEAsrights, Mr Ashton Hill said that this old argument had been trotted out when CEA had applied for services to Pisa and Rimini. He did notknow what would happen in this case but suggested that a satisfactory solution could be reached by negotiation with the Italian authorities. Mr Collingwood was called as witness for BEA's objection to theBUA and CEA Milan applications. He said that it was, in his view, inconceivable that the Italian Government would grant rights to addi-tional British operators without prejudice to BEA. Turning to the question of the effects of the bilateral agreement.Mr McDonnell for BUA asked Mr Collingwood how the Anglo-Italian agreement differed from other Bermuda-type agreements. Mr Colling-wood said that it was overlaid with modifications covered by a number of confidential documents. The Board asked Mr Collingwood about the proportion of the trafficwhich Alitalia might be expected to carry in the future. Mr Colling- wqod said that he thought the Turin service would have little effect onMilan traffic; the Genoa service would be more important. He expected that Alitalia's capacity would equal BEA's within five years. Cunard's Venice Application Next came application A.1057, from Cunard Eagle Airways, for aservice between London and Venice. Mr Ashton Hill said that the route catered mainly for seasonal tourist traffic. If they were able to startoperations in 1963 CEA would probably run once weekly in the summer only. Mr Marking, in cross-examination, asked whether Mr AshtonHill thought that the Italians, who had just reached parity with BEA on this route, would allow a British share of traffic greater than thatcarried by Alitalia; he suggested that the Italians would insist on cutting the BEA share to accommodate CEA. Mr Ashton Hill did not agreeand said that he did not recognize the existence of a fixed British share of the traffic. The Board next heard application A. 1267. by Tradair. for a servicefrom Southend to Venice. Cross-examined by Mr Marking. Mr Porter, after presenting his case, agreed that Tradair intended to operate ascheduled service—restricted, he added, to the carriage of ITX traffic on a round trip basis at the I ATA fares. Mr Collingwood then gave evidence for the BEA objection. He saidthat there was no difference in the effect of the bilateral agreement on this route. Mr Porter suggested to Mr Collingwood that the Italian Governmentmight continue to view the Tradair operations ("regularization of IT traffic") as special flights outside the terms of the bilateral agreement.He said that the Tradair general agent in Italy had quoted an official of the Italian Ministry of Aviation as saying that he thought the Ministrywould take a liberal view. Mr Collingwood's reply indicated that he did not set much store by the opinion of an Italian civil servant. Re-examining, Mr Marking asked his witness whether he was awarethat the Director General of Civil Aviation in Italy had told Mr Milward, during the latter's recent visit to Italy, that BEA would have to accepta cut in their capacity if other British operators were licensed. There were some protests about this question and the manner in which it wasput, but a member of the Board restored peace by asking whether the Director General of Civil Aviation was not also an Italian civil servant. The next application. A. 1023. for a service between Gatwick andNaples from May to October, was from BUA; Mr Whybrow confirmed the contents of the usual BUA supporting document. Cross-examining,Mr Marking suggested that BUA were seeking to skim the cream of the dense summer traffic on the route. Mr Whybrow agreed that BUA wouldexpect an initial load factor of only 35 per cent and Mr Marking then asked whether he would agree, assuming that the BEA capacity had tobe cut back by the amount of the BUA capacity, that the difference between the normal BEA load factor and BUA's 35 per cent would be aloss suffered by British civil aviation. Mr Whybrow said that, assuming all these things, he would agree. Mr Marking suggested that, on thesame assumptions, any traffic carried by BUA would be traffic taken away from BEA and Mr Whybrow, with the same proviso, agreed. Mr Porter next presented Tradair's application, A.1270. also for aservice to Naples. He said that there was a large and growing demand for air travel to Naples and the local tourist board was most encouragingand anxious to press the Italian Government not to place any restric- tions on tourist flights to Naples. Mr Porter therefore hoped thatoperations by Tradair on this route would have no effect on the bilateral. Mr Collingwood, witness for BEA's objection, again said that hebelieved that BEA's capacity would have to be cut back if another British carrier were licensed on the Naples route. Almost all the airtraffic between England and Naples was being carried by BEA. Under the terms of the bilateral agreement, capacity offered by the twocountries' operators was considered on a country-tq-country basis and the Italians had complained of imbalance of capacity on this basis. Mr Gardiner, for BUA, suggested that IT traffic had been created bythe independent airlines and asked whether the independents were diverting traffic from BEA or the other way round. He referred to the use b> Mr Marking of the phrase "'BEA permitted share of traffic" inspeaking of the Anglo-Italian bilateral agreement, and asked what agreement, or what clause of the bilateral agreement, limited BEA'sshare of the traffic. Mr Collingwood said that this was limited by confidential agreements between the two governments. The next application, from BUA, was A.1006, for a four-times-weeklyservice from Gatwick to Rome. Mr McDonnell introduced the usual BUA document for this route and it was confirmed by Mr Whybrow.Mr Marking, cross-examining, asked whether Mr Whybrow did not think that 18 airlines provided enough competition; Mr Whybrow saidthat not enough of them were British. Mr Marking asked whether Mr Whybrow knew that BOAC had a large unused capacity over this routeand whether he did not think that BUA would be likely to cause a reduction in the capacity BEA and BOAC were permitted to offer.Mr Whybrow repeated the suggestion that the independents, the corpor- ations and the Ministry should jointly tackle the Italian Government. Mr Collingwood. for BEAs objection, said that BOAC were alreadysubject to a degree of restriction by the Italians and were operating some of their services through Rome without traffic rights. Trafficrights granted to any other British operator would certainly mean a cut in BEA's capacity. BEA load factors in recent years had neverexceeded 80 per cent and the majority had been under 70 per cent; an adequate capacity was therefore already being offered. Mr McDonnellcross-examined and asked whether there was any change in BEA's arguments on the bilateral agree-nent in this case; there was not. The next application. A. 1025, by BUA, brought a change of country,though little change in the basic arguments. The route was from Gatwick to Athens, with a technical stop at Rome, the frequency weekly, fromMarch to October. Mr Whybrow. confirming the contents of BUA's supporting docu-ment, added the opinion that tourism to Greece was likely to increase considerably; many approaches had been made by agents who wantedspecial IT flights to Greece, but BUA thought that the agents would prefer to be able to book on scheduled flights at ITX fares. Mr Markingasked what Mr Whybrow knew about the Greek bilateral agreement and witness said that he understood it to be very restrictive. He suggestedno particular reasons why BUA should be approved for this route. The Anglo-Greek Bilateral Mr Collingwqod said that the Anglo-Greek bilateral was one of onlythree which specifically predetermined capacity, load factors and division of traffic. Paragraph 5 of the annexe to the agreement provided forequal capacity, agreed capacity, the discussion of capacity to be offered and the regulation of load factors. It was not, however, a case of 50-50and no argument; in fact BEA were carrying 61 per cent of the traffic and the Greeks 39 per cent. The implications of the bilateral agreementhad been modified by private agreements, but the introduction of BUA would have the same unfortunate results as elsewhere. Mr Gardiner's cross-examination began with questions about BEA sfigures and forecasts for the route. He then turned to the question of the bilateral agreement and suggested that it contained the usualreference to "airline or airlines" and could, in any case, be modified or cancelled. Mr Collingwood referred to his earlier evidence on thesubject of this particular agreement; he did not think that better terms would be obtained by renegotiating it. In order to release the Tradair representative from further attendanceat the hearing, the Board then heard applications A.1272. 1275 and 1278, for services to Barcelona, Palma and Malaga; BEA had withdrawntheir objection to the Barcelona application, but maintained their objection in respect of the services to Palma and Malaga. Mr Porter confirmed that these applications were for the same classof service as the other applications from his company. He said that the liberal attitude of the Spanish Government to inclusive tour trafficwas well known. Mr Porter then made a very brief final speech for the Tradair applications. He submitted to the Board that the Tradairapplications were a creative idea and a logical attempt to set their inclusive tour operations on a firmer basis. British civil aviation wouldgain from the regularization of the inclusive tour traffic by its carriage on scheduled services rather than on chartered aircraft.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
