FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1964
1964 - 1278.PDF
FLIGHT International, 30 April 1964 AIR COMMERCE (cont from page 702) The Ferrymen Appeal LAST November the ATLB heard BUAF play the unaccus-tomed role of monopolist. The sort of things that BritishUnited had previously said about BEA's monopoly of scheduled services were now being said by Autair and Air Ferry about BUAF's monopoly of vehicle-ferry services. Air Ferry was after some of the short-haul cross-Channel business which, with BUAF switching emphasis towards long-haul Carvair services, has not been growing in recent years. Air Ferry wanted to carry vehicles from Manston to Le Touquet, Calais and Ostend. For good measure they sought deeper-penetration vehicle- ferry services to Dijon and Toulouse as well. But BUAF were being positive, too: they were also applying for a completely new network of long-haul vehicle ferry services from the Midlands—the airport of their choice being Coventry. No doubt the Board would have granted these applications without demur, but there was a complication: Autair were making a simultaneous bid for services from Luton. The Board had two difficult questions before it, one more difficult than the other. The least difficult was: "Should we allow a second operator, i.e. Air Ferry on to the declining short-haul car ferries ?" The more difficult question was: "Should we allow BUAF to extend its long-haul car services from Coventry or should we let Autair have a go from Luton?" It was either/or; it could not be both. The Board took more than two months to come to its decisions. These were that Air Ferry were licensed to carry cars on their short- haul services from Manston to Ostend and Le Touquet, though they were not given Manston - Calais or the longer-haul routes to Dijon and Toulouse. As for Coventry versus Luton, BUAF were awarded their services from Coventry, and all Autair's applications were refused. The screed of reasons published by the Board was the most detailed since the UK fares case over a year before. It was pretty well inevitable that these reasons would be challenged with appeals—as they were last week before Ministry of Aviation commissioner Sir Ralph Hone at Caxton Hall, Westminster. BUAF's Reasoned Case It is not easy for BUAF, apostles of competition, to have to defend the principle of monopoly, particularly when those they oppose are—as they themselves once were—little men. But BUAF's was a well reasoned and cogently argued case, their two main contentions being that Coventry and not Luton is geograp- hically the Midlands airport to serve motorists in the Midlands and the North; and that short-haul services remain a major part of BUAF's business, boat competition being too intense for their efforts to be undermined by Air Ferry. The most important part of this appeal was Autair's case against the Board's decision to favour BUAF and Coventry. Unlike so many appeals, which so often are merely a warmed-over version of the case that was given (or that should have been given) to the ATLB, this took the Board's decisions one by one and set out to demonstrate to the commissioner that "not even one was valid"; though Autair did present one piece of evidence which ought to nave been before the Board. This was a remarkable market survey, wne for Autair by Hotelplan Ltd, which showed that 94 per cent of motorists in the Midlands and the North would prefer, "absolutely irrefutably" as Autair put it, to drive an additional hour or so to Luton along the Ml in order to save £15-20 on the air fare. This Was the order of saving which Autair's Luton services would offerW 5r .BUAF's Coventry services, and the crux of their case. __This was new evidence of a mildly sensational nature. When Mr elfall °f Autair said that he expected the commissioner might be wondering why it had not been prepared for the ATLB, and the commissioner nodded, he submitted that Autair had thought it was obvious" that Luton was preferable to Coventry: the AA, RAC, Utopian and Autocar had said it was obvious, and "it was only nen we found that the Board did not understand this that we 713 1 S found it necessary to do a survey." Ul the evidence that had been put before the Board by BUAF to "Needle-sharp questions" from Sir Ralph Hone, the independent commiS' sioner appointed by the Minister of Aviation show that Coventry was preferable to Luton, Mr Threlfall said that Autair could find none; BUAF's case, he said, had been based on a survey that never even included Coventry. There was no evidence, as the Board had suggested, of a public need for BUAF's services to start from Coventry in 1964 as against Autair's date of 1965 from Luton; in fact, said Autair, of the Coventry licences granted to BUAF—from Coventry to Calais, Le Touquet, Cherbourg, Liege and Geneva—only a "token" service to Calais was being advertised but not yet operated. As for the Board's sug- gestion that Autair's Luton services would cause "substantial" diversion from BUAF, it was probably the first time in licensing history that a maximum diversion of 2 to 3 per cent had been termed substantial. As for the Board's view that BUAF was "reasonably entitled to protection" because of its "very substantial" investment in new equipment, this had not been part of BUAF's case; and in any event the £4£m to which BUAF had referred was hypothetical future investment, and the Board was not empowered to take future expenditure into account—"we might just as well have said that we were going to spend £2m on Argosies." The Board had "completely misunderstood" this question of capital expenditure, and even if there was valid evidence of it, there was no sign that it was threatened by Autair's proposed maximum 3 per cent diversion. Autair argued that there was no reason why BUAF should not operate from other points in Northern England and Scotland such as Manchester, Newcastle or Glasgow—which were the points covered in their passenger survey, and which would be services to which Autair would not object. Mr Threlfall strongly challenged the Board's statement that there was evidence of plans for new roads to Southend, shifting the time/cost factor in favour of that airport; what BUAF had said here was "completely untrue," as the Board would have found had it checked with the Ministry of Transport. Finally, Autair's advocate claimed that BUAF had been "exploiting their monopoly," having held back capacity and more than doubled some fares since the Silver City-CAB merger in 1962. Autair believed that "the modest degree of competition" they were proposing was justified. Mr A. M. Blakemore and Mr A. T. Pugh of BUAF replied to Autair's case and at the same time reaffirmed the Tightness of the ATLB's decision to grant their Coventry applications. The Autair survey merely proved that people who go for the cheaper fare would be equally as likely to go from Southend or Lydd. BUAF had indeed already made a substantial investment in a new Carvair fleet as well as in new runways and airport equipment. As for holding back capacity, on only one day throughout June, July and August was there no available space on the Swiss routes, and evidence was produced to refute this allegation in respect of other car services. On the question of BUAF's survey, this was of course based on traffic areas, and it had incidentally been openly published some months before the ATLB case. Traffic rights negotiations only had held up the Calais service, which was due to begin in May. The essence of BUAF's appeal against Air Ferry's licences to serve Le Touquet and Ostend from Manston was that their own services, as supported by evidence, were adequate; and that the regulatory system would break down if other operators were allowed to regard a licence for passenger/cargo services as a licence to carry vehicles. Air Ferry's advocate described the BUAF appeal as coming from a company "which has lost faith in its ability to increase traffic,
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
