Viewing page 323 of 507

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

314        HELICOPTER AIR SERVICE PROGRAM

But for 2 days now I have listened to testimony which comes in all sizes and shapes, and I want to say that my judgement now is clearly a very tentative one.
I don't suggest that you, sir, would have reached this conclusion if you had been exposed to all this testimony, but I am more inclined to feel that, having looked at the operating figures of these companies that are now in the service, and subsidized, there is very serious question in my own mind if an overnight termination would not put them on the shelf, ground them, kill them.
The Civil Aeronautics Board has suggested that the termination be in a phased-out 5-year period. It seems that we are at a point of a major breakthrough in the use of these machines, and indeed there is some suggestion in the testimony that we should come to regard them as, at least in some of these areas, as a local service carrier. The point is made that if the Los Angeles service was eliminated, as they insist it would have to be, if the subsidy were terminated overnight, that thought would have to be given for local services because some of their runs are now 60 to 70 miles. 

I indicate these thoughts in rather loose figures to indicate that in my own point of view there is much to be said for the phase-out termination of the subsidy. Perhaps I should say much more than I was conscious of before I got into the position of listening to this testimony. 
Senator PROXMIRE. May I say in reply, Mr. Chairman, that I do think that there is always an argument for phasing out subsidies, and it is very hard and difficult to get out of them. It does cause hardship, pain, and loss. In some cases maybe even personal disaster - financial disaster to some people. I think that there are several alternatives. One is if a community really feels strongly that they should have the service, as New York seems to feel, for instance, there is a rich city. The commercial airlines coming in there are making money, as the chairman of this committee, Mr. Monroney, has indicated. Maybe the airlines can contribute to it. 
They say it is not very much money they are asking. The community can reach down and come up with the money. It is perfect possible that they could charge more. Maybe they know somehow that if they charge more they wouldn't be able to operate. But I submit that you usually can't tell unless you really try it. 
At any rate, whenever we do end this program, it is going to be difficult. I do think that we have been trying to phase this thing out almost since the beginning.
As I said, it started in the last 3 or 4 years, now they want to phase it out over 5 years. I think the best way to phase it out would be to end it, painful as it may be. 
Senator HART. I don't have the figures, but we might discover that the cost that FAA would have to absorb, or underwrite, to provide facilities for the fixed-wing service that inevitably would be demanded if the helicopters are abandoned, could exceed the sum saved in the phased-out subsidy.
That is just another point of - not difference - a point that bears on the judgement that the committee will have to make with respect to the phasing out.
Senator PROXMIRE. This is only with respect to Los Angeles, isn't it?