Viewing page 55 of 507

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

47    HELICOPTER AIR SERVICE PROGRAM 

facility to carry whatever deficit he may encounter in his helicopter operation.

In other words, he is on a self-help basis.

Senator LAUSCHE. Is that San Francisco?

Mr. HALABY. That is the San Francisco-Oakland helicopter service. On the other hand, we have to realize that he has a particularly favorable situation and background from which to operate.

It seems to me that the management of each of these carriers has, as Mr. Boyd has been insisting, to make even more determined efforts to keep costs at the lowest possible level consistent with the requirements of safety. There is a variation among these four companies as to their overhead costs.

I think that we have an obligation in the FAA to insure that the safety rules and regulations impose no unnecessarily burdensome requirements on these carriers which would increase their costs. We have, I think it is candid to say, had a number of discussions with the operators as to whether or not some of our requirements such as ability to hover on a hot day with single-engine conditions are too onerous. Our feeling is that we want first and foremost for their safety record to be satisfactory.

Heliport projects may be eligible for grants under the Federal-aid-to-airport program. Several of these carriers carry as part of their costs the ownership and maintenance and operation of heliports or helipads.

To give you an idea of our thinking, we believe the United States ought to have in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Chicago, areas, a total of 109 helipads.

On the other hand, during the last 8 years, there has been only one application for Federal assistance in the construction of a heliport.

At least in the case of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and some of the New York and Chicago stations, the carriers are carrying costs that could have been attributable in part, 50 percent, to Federal aid.

There is only one federally assisted heliport in the United States that I know of, and that is Paterson, N.J. It is being used as a parking lot.

The costs represent only one side of the problem. The other side is fares. There is—as Senator Lausche was pointing out—quite a variation in the fares. For example, in Los Angeles, the average costs are around 21 cents a mile. The average fare is about 17 or 18 cents a mile. But in San Francisco, the average costs are 18 to 21 cents a mile, but the fares average 60 to 70 cents a mile, and the people are paying it.

I believe that the carriers and CAB should encourage experimentation with their fare policy. I think there is a limit to what will be paid. In some areas, it seems to me, fares could be experimentally lower, and in others, substantially higher.

One of the great values of the helicopter is the possibility of a flexible route structure. It is not like a railroad, not like a highway It doesn't have the rigidity of the airplane or bus. I think there should be greater experimentation with the route structure. This is not easy, because political and other pressures are brought to bear on the carriers to get or keep certain routes. But it may be that higher fares and somewhat more limited route structures would result in a more favorable financial picture.