Viewing page 52 of 82

- 40 -

(1) C&P asserted that it would provide lower cost service. (CPA-T-2), p.10) The lack of reality of the computations supporting this assertion shown by one fact: it estimated a breakeven load factor of 43% (Tr. 778) The invalidity of this computation is demonstrated by all air transportation history. [[footnote 79]]

C&P's low cost estimate is a result of inadequate staffing. Its proposal to operate with a small staff is not a product of greater efficiency, but of lack of knowledge of the personnel required for certificated service. Generally, C&P provided one and two-man shifts at Baltimore and downtown Washington, and two and three-man shifts at the three airports. (CPA 317) However, even at the airports, only a two-man shift is provided for after 5:15 P.M. Cross-examination of Mr. Weadock demonstrated that these skimpy station staffs are not adequate to service departing and arriving passengers, to pick up and deliver mail at the postal facility, to make ramp transfer of mail, to pick up and deliver baggage on interline flights, to handle freight and express shipments, and maintain an adequate fire watch. [[footnote 80]] (Tr. 966-976)

(2) C&P proposed a carryon baggage system. (CPA-T-2, p. 10) The alleged cost savings from this procedure vanished in a puff of smoke when Mr. Weadock testified that he intended to provide sufficient staff to cover baggage handling for all passengers. (Tr. 902) Carryon baggage procedures are particularly difficult in helicopter operations because virtually all passengers are interline passengers. For this reason, although the V-44 has 

[[footnote 79]] For the year ended June 30,1961, the presently certificated helicopter operators had an average passenger load factor of 49.8%. Yet, their commercial revenue would need to be more than doubled in order to break even without subsidy. Local service carriers, with an average passenger load factor of 42%, would have had to increase their non-commercial revenues by 50% in order to break even without subsidy. In 1961, the domestic trunkline history had a load factor of 56% and lost money. [[/footnote 79]]

[[footnote 80]] Mr. Weadock testified that the stewardess was going to be aboard the aircraft cleaning up. (Tr. 970) He also testified that there was an FAA regulation requiring someone to hold the fire extinguisher. (Tr. 970) Later, Mr. Leonard testified that there was no such requirement in Part 46 of the FAA's regulations. (Tr. 1059) Mr. Gallagher testified that under NYA's FAA-approved Operations and Maintenance Manual, a qualified male employee is stationed at the entrance of the passenger cabin adjacent to adequate fire extinguisher equipment. (Tr. 2160) An employee is not required to hold the extinguisher, but he must be near it. In addition, another man must be available to drive the fueling truck away in the event of emergency, though this function could be performed by an employee of a gasoline contract supplier. (Tr. 2154-2160) [[/footnote 80]]

Transcription Notes:
removed formatting notations per general instructions

Please note that the language and terminology used in this collection reflects the context and culture of the time of its creation, and may include culturally sensitive information. As an historical document, its contents may be at odds with contemporary views and terminology. The information within this collection does not reflect the views of the Smithsonian Institution, but is available in its original form to facilitate research. For questions or comments regarding sensitive content, access, and use related to this collection, please contact