Viewing page 403 of 507
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
394 HELICOPTER AIR SERVICE PROGRAM At a time when the trunk and international carriers were operating equipment with the capacity and economic characteristics to produce a self-sufficient operation at the rising levels of traffic, the helicopter carriers were operating equipment which were, economically speaking, still back in the 1920's era of aviation. The fleet of Bell-47's, S-51's and S-55's produced an average capacity per mile flown of only 3.0 seats in 1953; 4.1 in 1954; and 3.9 seats in 1955. This represents only 12 or 15 per cent of the seating capacity of helicopters which have only recently been put into operation by the carriers. CAB Review of Public Interest Aspects Since the inauguration of service, the operations of the industrial helicopter carriers have periodically been the subject of lengthy and intensive hearings before the Civil Aeronautics Board as their certifications have been temporary in nature. On each occasion when the certificates required renewal, such action has been forthcoming from the CAB. The findings in each case have been very much the same and have not varied from the original reasons for certification, i.e. that the ultimate objective of expedited air transportation in congested areas warranted the continued certification of the helicopter carriers and that such operations were considered to be in the public interest. As in the case of the local service carriers at present and the trunk and international carriers in the past, it was found that subsidy assistance was required if the service was to be provided. The present stage of development of helicopter service and the lack of economical aircraft were cited as reasons for carrier need. The most recent action in this regard has been the issuance on October 2, 1963 of the Initial Decision of the Hearing Examiner "that the public convenience and necessity requires the renewal of Chicago Helicopter Airways temporary certificate"¹ and the adoption by the Board of the Initial Decision of the Hearing Examiner "that the public Convenience and necessity requires air transportation by rotary-wing aircraft without subsidy eligibility in the San Francisco Bay area."² The question of subsidy was not in issue in the San Francisco and Oakland Helicopter Airlines Case. In making his decision the Hearing Examiner found that: "While it has been concluded that a demand exists for service similar to that provided by SFO, it remains to be determined whether the service can be operated profitably. It is pointed out by those opposing certification that no other helicopter airline has been able to operate without subsidy and that helicopter operations in the Bay area would not be different. However, it must be recognized that because of the natural barriers separating the points to be served and the cost and time required for public surface transportation, a helicopter operator in the Bay area enjoys an advantage which helicopter carriers in other cities do not have. As a result, SFO has been able to charge premium fares yielding greater return than has been possible for other helicopter carriers. For example, Chicago Helicopter has an average yield per revenue passenger-mile of 29.6 cents, Los Angeles Airways has a yield of 16.8 cents, New York Airways' yield amounts to 40.6 cents, while SFO's yield is 49.8 cents."³ --- ¹Chicago Helicopter Airways, Inc., Docket 14008 et al. ²San Francisco and Oakland Helicopter Airlines, Docket 14029 et al. ³Initial Decision of Herbert K. Bryan, Hearing Examiner, Docket 12029 et al., page 12. III-3
