Viewing page 397 of 507

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

388 HELICOPTER AIR SERVICE PROGRAM

Additional evidence of faith in the future of vertical aircraft was expressed only recently by members of the Senate who were resisting efforts to cut back the subsidy for helicopter service:

Mr. Magnuson. . . . "The helicopter companies render service that is absolutely necessary." 

Mr. Monroney. . . . 
"Our main interest is to try to create a new phase of aviation, a phase in which, when there are adequate machines to take care of the traffic, masses of traffic will be carried above the crowded, congested areas. In some of these areas the Federal Government must pay up to $ 50 million a mile to get across the sprawling cities to suburbs, and to various parts of the cities. .... We are considering a growing industry; and if that industry can give us the machines, we shall be able to solve the problem, which is difficult. We shall be able to save much more money than we are now paying to construct throughways, to aid transportation to the suburbs.... Vertical takeoff and landing service will be a great part of aviation.... The biggest thing ahead of us in aviation is not supersonic transportation. The big advance of the future will be in traveling short distances in vertical landing-and-takeoff aircraft." 

Mr. Kuchel...."...we are dealing here with the wave of the future in transportation."


Evidence of the fact that other members of the Congress do not share this vision of the future can be found in the fact that in recent years payments for subsidy payments have been limited to a point far below carrier needs. What are the reasons? Why has there been such strong opposition to the promotion of an aviation development which would appear to hold so much promise of benefit for the future? If the pages of the Congressional Record are any indication, the reasons for opposition are based primarily upon beliefs:[[^1]]

1. that helicopter subsidies were originally provided for the purpose of conducting an experimental service and that, after ten years of subsidy support, it is time that the experiment be ended;

2. that the service is uneconomical and there is no indication of when it will become economically self-sufficient; 

3. that the benefits of helicopter service are limited to only three cities - New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

These beliefs will be examined in Chapter III of this report in which the operations of the present helicopter carriers are reviewed. Essentially, they are the same reasons which have been given for opposing subsidy support of earlier forms of transportation. And, as in the case of other forms of government support, there is reason to oppose subsidy if the public interest objective cannot the clearly defined and if the public benefit is not commensurate with the cost of public support.

One of the purposes of this study is to identify some of the public interest objectives involved in a vertical-lift aircraft program and to measure the public benefits which have accrued as a result of the payment of subsidy support to the present helicopter carriers. Considering the aircraft that are now available to the present carriers, we believe that it is important to view their present operations, not as an experimental stage, but as a developmental stage which can constitute a bridge to a program of expanded air transportation benefits in the future. 

[footnote]1[/footnote] Senate consideration of Independent Offices Appropriations bill (H.r. 8747) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964. Congressional Record-Senate, November 20, 1963.

II-6