Viewing page 325 of 507

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

There are several prime reasons why this thing should not be arbitrarily phased out. Frankly I don't go for subsidies any more than anybody else. But I think in terms of convenience and of money values that this is a fully justified operation. For that reason I hope that the committee will give very sympathetic attention to a continuation of these helicopter operations for a 5-year period, and then let it drop of its own weight.

For if they can't justify it by that time, I am reasonably certain they will not be back here on the basis of this presentation and try to resell the committee to continue it for a longer period of time. That is the whole story in a nutshell.

Senator MONRONEY. Thank you very much, Senator Dirksen. I quite agree with you that it will be pennywise and pound foolish to discontinue the helicopter scheduled operations just when we have in sight the type of aircraft that can operate economically with large enough loads.

To discontinue them at a time when the air traffic is exploding, you might say—I hate to use that word in connection with air traffic, but it is one which is increasing at a fabulous percentage of increase—for the want of a  few dollars in subsidy to keep it going for an adequate time until it can carry its own weight, is poor judgment.

I think of the vast amount of income taxes that were providing subsidy payments to the scheduled trunklines of today. They were once the recipients of subsidy exceeding many, many times that which we are paying the helicopter carriers today. As a matter of fact, the total subsidy bill per year is now about $4 million for the helicopter carriers.

We have one operating without subsidy. I think if we persuade the House, which has been rather adamant on this, to accept this 5-year phaseout, plus a sharing of some of the subsidy costs by the trunklines, who once enjoyed subsidy themselves, and who enjoy and profit from the helicopters concentrating their loads at certain major airports, rather than having to make two or three landings within an area, that we could persuade those who objected to it in the House, and even in the Senate, to acquiesce in carrying out this 5-year program with the help that I mentioned, the added help from the trunklines.

Senator DIRKSEN. I have one other thing, Mr. Chairman. At huge expense they have built these expressways from the southern part of the city up, and then out to O'Hare. But notwithstanding those expressways, you are getting such peak traffic loads with automobiles now, I have gotten stuck I know so many, many times when one moves at a snail's pace, and you miss your plane. Of course, it is a frightful inconvenience, and especially to the traveling business public.

So when you stop to consider the amount of money that is involved here, against the estimated 20 million passengers by air in 1965 and 30 million in 1970, of which an estimated 50 percent are connecting passengers, this is a very modest amount indeed.

Senator MONRONEY. Indeed it is. If we could enlist your help, I an [[am]] sure I heard you mention on the floor that we should ask for helicopter service to Dulles and Friendship Airports. It is needed so badly by the traffic passengers who use these airports—I think it is the fourth largest volume in air traffic in the world—yet we have in- [[word incomplete; moves to next page]]