![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
HELICOPTER AIR SERVICE PROGRAM 287 there will be no helicopter subsidy money whatsoever. As stated in the most recent independent offices appropriation conference report: "The conferees have been wrestling many years with continuing subsidies for helicopter service for 3 cities while 39 other cities need it as badly as those that now have it. This is the last money to be recommended by the committee for these projects exclusively. The conferees respectfully request the CAB not to include 1 penny for these three lines in its budget next year." This means to me that the Congress would be receptive to expanding the helicopter carrier program. This suggestion for expansion of the helicopter program is not a new idea. In its report on the independent offices appropriation bill - 1963, printed August 27, 1962, the Senate Appropriations Committee stated as follows: "The objective of the committee is to allow for opportunities to certificate carriers in a limited number of other areas, which the committee believes may better demonstrate to the Civil Aeronautics Board the value of helicopter service beyond the three experiments now in operation." [Emphasis added.] On August 31, 1962, the independent offices appropriation bill and the committee report thereon were considered by the Senate. As a result of the ensuing debate on the measure, subsidy funds for helicopter carriers were substantially increased over the amount requested by the Civil Aeronautics Board. Such funds were to be used by the Board in certificating additional helicopter carriers. The following comments made during the course of the debate upon the bill are worthy of note: Senator KUCHEL. The purpose of this amendment is "*** also to provide the Civil Aeronautics Board with additional funds by means of which it might consider applications for an additional operation." [Emphasis added.] (Congressional Record, Aug. 21, p. 17252, col. 1.) Senator DIRKSEN. I see nothing wrong with impounding some of this money for helicopter airways which may come into being some time after the appropriation is made. (Congressional Record, Aug. 31, p. 17252, col. 1.) Senator MONRONEY. *** if additional services are provided, they should be most carefully selected at airports which can furnish the best opportunity for a large contribution to the cost from the traffic involved. (Congressional Record, Aug. 31, p.17254, col. 3) [Emphasis added.] Senator MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I think it should be brought out that instead of enlarging services such as those provided at Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago - which would take more subsidy and use up the money - an effort should be made perhaps to try some limited service in two or three other places. The way the program now operates, it has been so limited to the three cities that when any extra money is provided it is put in those places. I wish to say that the service is justifiable in the area of the Senator from California. But not much subsidy is needed in some places where, with a small helicopter, the operator could probably make the service work with the new equipment. This is what we are seeking to provide. (Congressional Record, p. 17254, Aug. 31, col. 3.) [Emphasis added.] Although the final bill reduced helicopter subsidy appropriations for fiscal 1963 and struck the proposed proviso which would have earmarked funds for new operations, the fact is that the Congress has not taken a position that there shall be no further helicopter subsidy, but rather that there shall be no more subsidy exclusively for the existing three subsidized operators. It is a matter of basic fairness that subsidy support for initial operations be made available to other areas of the country, including the San Francisco-Oakland bay area, or that no subsidy should be available to any helicopter carrier. The time has come when helicopter operators should be on a parity. LIMITED SUBSIDY PROPOSAL The value of helicopter service justifies public subsidy support for an initial period in order to get the company started. Taking my own company as an example, had there been available to us only $300,000 to $400,000 subsidy per year from the inception of our service, we would have operated in the black for the whole of our existence. Were such a subsidy eligibility afforded, say 10 cities in the country, an annual total subsidy bill of not in excess of $4 to $5 million would ensure, a small price to pay for the valuable service provided. But the advantages of certificating helicopter service to additional cities does not lie just in the area of service to passengers traveling to and from those cities. It has a major advantage in spreading the base of helicopter operations and getting.