Viewing page 83 of 507
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
HELICOPTER AIR SERVICE PROGRAM 75 Our only point, and the only point that we will be making before the CAB bearing examiner, is not whether bad decisions were made in past. We will not argue that at all, and don't suggest it, but whether the subsidy should be continued beyond December 31, 1965. Senator LAUSCHE. Senator Hart? Senator HART. Before I left, I wondered if the repetition on page 2 of your comment that you assume the Board will schedule hearings, and we assume the Board will schedule hearings, is there some question in your minds as to whether under existing law you would have to argue——— Mr. GILES. Technically, Senator Hart, we have filed petition to intervene, and the Board has not ruled formally on that petition. So as of right this minute we are not, strictly speaking, in court before the Board. We do assume the Board will set it down for hearing and certainly the Chairman's statement this morning indicated that would be done. I am not questioning that it will not be done. I think it would be clear legal error if it were not done. Senator HART. That is what I am getting at. We want to be helpful to get you in, if it is possible. Mr. GILES. From the Chairman's statement this morning that this was a matter requiring a hearing, and I certainly accept that, I have no question about the fact that the Board will schedule this for a hearing. Senator HART. This last inquiry: Did I understand you to say that your presenation [[presentation]] will be to develop that as a fact these helicopter operations will continue notwithstanding the termination of the subsidy? Mr. GILES No, sir. Senator HART. Is that your case? Mr. GILES No, sir. Our case before the Board presently will be that in order for the Board under the statute to approve continuation of subsidy as requested, the Board must find that it is in the national interest on the basis of the need for the postal service, the national defense, and the commerce of the United States. So we would take each one of those factors and present our case to show the Board in our judgment that those factors are not met and therefore the Board should conclude, because they are not met in the record, that they should not grant the continuing subsidy as requested. Senator HART. Doesn't that necessarily involve establishing that absent the subsidy there will be helicopter operations of this character? Mr. GILES. Frankly, Senator, I would not argue that as a matter of law, because if you have reasonable argument, you take up the postal service, the need of the postal service, you present your case on that——— Senator HART. I am thinking about the third factor that you mentioned, general commerce. Mr. GILES. I certainly would recognize that that being the more general factor, would be one on which perhaps we would have a greater burden to make our case. Your question was, if we concluded, or if we assumed that termination of subsidy would cause the carriers to terminate their operations entirely, would we conclude as a matter of law that that, in and of
