FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 2192.PDF
FLIGHT International, 27 September 1962 515 AIR CO E R C E Endorsement of the Board By the Air Transport Editor OF the 22 decisions made by the Air Transport Licensing Board in the big European routes case heard in the summer of 1961, and against which appeals were made to the Minister of Aviation, all but two have been upheld by the Minister. This is the most important outcome of the long appeal process, which has been in train since the Board gave its decisions last November. When Sir Arthur Hutchinson was appointed by the Minister as the independent commissioner to hear the appeals (the most important ones of which came from BEA) many doubts were cast on a licensing system which called upon one man. who was not an expert, to judge the decisions of an expert board. Sir Arthur Hutchinson emerges as the superman, who nobody thought existed, who has admirably performed this immensely difficult task. He heard the appeals last April and May in the course of marathon hearings—amounting almost to a re-hearing of the ATLB case—lasting 12 days and comprising more than half a million words of evidence. His report, in the form of recom mendations, was presented to the Minister on July 10 and was published last week together with the decisions of the Minister. The following table attempts to present Sir Arthur's recom mendations, and the Minister's decisions, in as compact a way as possible: — Operator tish United ", ". "» t. «• t> i. rard Eagle " » 1I " ,, ATLB Licence London - Paris ,, - Genoa ,, -Amsterdam „ - Milan - Zurich ,, - Lisbon • Madeira - Athens ., - Basle ,, - Barcelona „ - Palma J ,, - Edinburgh 1 „ - Glasgow ,, - Manchester M'chester/Liverpool Dublin London - Belfast -Dublin ,. - Venice ,, - Geneva ,, - Cop. or Stock. M'chester/Birm - Nice London - Gue/Jersey Appeal BEA BEA(I) BEA BEA BEA BEA(I) BEA BEA BEA BEA BEA -. C Eagle(5) 'v B' Railways C Eagle / BEA(6) \C Eagle(7) BEA BEA : C Eagle(5) B' Railways BEA C Eagle(5) BEA C Eagle(5) BEA BEA C Eagle(5) C Eagle(5) Commissioner s Recommendation Confirm ATLB ., * " * Reverse ATLBO) Confirm ATLB * ,. 1 I * ATLB to Rehear Confirm ATLB ATLB to Rehear Reverse ATLB(9) Modify ATLB(II) Confirm ATLB Reverse ATLB( 12) Confirm ATLB Minister's Decision Confirm ATLB .. Reverse ATLB! 21 Confirm ATLB(4) ,, .. " it »• „ (8) Reverse ATLB(IO) Confirm ATLB Confirm ATLB Modify ATLB(I3) Confirm ATLB II) Also against refusal of BEA application. (2) Two British operators, BOAC and BEA, teady. (3) Give the licence to BEA. because of BEA's operational advantages in having a idon - Lisbon service. (4) Because mainly tourist traffic, and BUA's shipping and Canary I. wrests. (5) Against ATLB frequency limitations. (6) Against Liverpool - Dublin only . "Against refusal of Manchester. (8)With frequency restriction on aircraft bigger than scount. (9) Diversion of BEA traffic beyond ATLB-defined limit if Britannias used. (10) No "ion given. (II) Insufficient traffic density on Stockholm sector. (12) Because ATLB gave • reasons for frequency restriction. (13) Frequency restriction ordered. Note: Cunard Eagle's appeal against ATLB refusal of London - Liverpool was dismissed, •I the ATLB's decision confirmed by commissioner and Minister, ' Borderline cases (see text). It will be seen that the appeal commissioner recommends the reversal of only two major ATLB decisions (bold type, fourth col). His recommendations in fact represent a substantial con firmation of the Boards' decisions; and the Minister's decisions on these recommendations further confirm the decisions of the Board. Of the commissioner's two major "reverse ATLB" recom mendations, only one (Cunard Eagle's London - Geneva licence) has been accepted by the Minister. Surprisingly, the Minister could have ordered a frequency or capacity restriction, as he in fact has done in the case of Cunard Eagle's Manchester Birmingham - Nice licence. The other major "reverse ATLB" decision of the commissioner (British TJnited's London - Lisbon - Madeira licence) was not ac cepted by the Minister. In one case, however, the Minister has decided to reverse a Board decision which the commissioner re commended him to confirm. This is British United's London - Zurich licence, which the Minister feels might cause traffic rights difficulties with the Swiss, who already accommodate two British operators, BOAC and BEA. It might well be asked why the Minister did not recognize this situation when the applica tion was made two years ago, and order the Board to reject it, as he had the power to do: this would certainly have saved everyone much time and trouble. The key paragraphs in the commissioner's report, which is an excellently constructed and well written document, running to 24 pages plus an appendix, are 35 and 36. These concern the Board's scheme, repeatedly referred to in the commissioner's report, setting out principles whereby independents are licensed for a BEA route without materially harming BEA. These principles were set out in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the appendix to the Board's report, and were reviewed in Flight for Decem ber 7, 1961. page 887, "A Code for Competition." The commissioner finds (paragraph 29) that the Board's prin ciples are "well conceived." Dealing with BEA's and Cunard Eagle's criticisms of them he says, in the case of Cunard Eagle (who appealed against the restriction of frequencies), "the grant of unrestricted frequency would be quite inconsistent with 'regulated' competition and would enable an operator to drive a coach and horses through the Board's carefully balanced scheme.'' And in the case of BEA's criticism, which was basically that the conclusions were affected by BEA's re vised estimates of traffic based on actual carryings subsequent to the hearing, the commissioner finds that BEA's revised estimates "are not a sufficient ground for disturbing the Board's decisions." Saying he is "disposed to think that the balance of argument is against any attempt further to mitigate the effects of the Board's decisions." Sir Arthur lists four borderline licences (marked * in the table) which the Minister could revoke if he wished to mitigate the overall effect on BEA. Particularly en couraging for the Board, and for all those who wish to see its authority strengthened, is the fact that the Minister does not take up the commissioner's suggestion. Sir Arthur says that the "fiercest controversy" arose from the passage in the Board's report which said that "carefully regulated competition must sooner or later become a feature of the routes over which British aviation operates." Sir Arthur, reviewing this controversy, says: "It seems to me to be abundantly clear that the Act contemplates the licensing of two or more British operators in parallel on the same route provided that regard is had (in particular) to the several factors enumerated in sub section (2) of Section 2." That passage is likely to be quoted in many a forthcoming case. Sir Arthur's report still leaves open two important questions, both of which, for want of an answer, have taken up hours and hours of time: (1) Are surface operators, and the railways in particular, wasting everyone's time appealing against ATLB decisions? (2) Are the corporations wasting everyone's time by objecting that independent licences would disturb the balance of their foreign traffic rights? On the first point Sir Arthur thinks that the Board may have
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
