Viewing page 404 of 507
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
HELICOPTER AIR SERVICE PROGRAM 395 The position taken in recent years by the Congress in regard to subsidies for air transportation in general and for the helicopter carriers in particular undoubtedly was a factor accounting for the posture of the San Francisco and Oakland Helicopter Airlines proceeding. For, although the Civil Aeronautics Board has found repeatedly that the operations of the helicopter carriers are required in the public interest, the Board has not been free in recent years to provide the subsidy support which present certificated carriers have needed to provide the required service. This dilemma has been recognized by the Hearing Examiner in the current Chicago Helicopter Airways certificate renewal proceeding. "Thus, if CHA's authority is renewed the Board will have to provide subsidy to cover this carrier's break-even need up to July 1, 1965. Although the Board has the authority to and has exercised its judgment as to the amount of subsidy which is warranted by the development benefits which might be obtained by such payments, the Congress by imposing a limitation on funds appropriated for scheduled helicopter services has, in effect, also made a determination as to what is required in the public interest.²¹ While the Board has not interpreted the limitation in the appropriations as an amendment of the substantive powers granted by section 406 of the Act, it stated the Congressional determination was clearly relevant to the determination of the scope of the experiment the Board should underwrite, particularly in view of the Board's finding that the 'need' of the helicopter operators stems not from presently recognizable service requirements but from the cost of the development benefits to be derived in the future. The evidence indicates, CHA's future experience could be of considerable value to further development of the helicopter and if the past development contributions by CHA are considered as support for its present application for renewal of its authority, CHA is in a stronger position. ²¹Order E-18417, adopted June 7, 1962 - Chicago Helicopter Airways, Inc., Mail Rates, Dockets 11707 and 13204."¹ It is not the purpose of this study of duplicate the voluminous work performed by carriers and CAB staff in these individual route and rate proceedings although exhibits, briefs and Board decisions in these proceedings have been reviewed and analyzed during the course of its performance. It is clear in every case that, after long and intensive hearings, the Board has found helicopter service to be required by the public convenience and necessity and that the individual carriers are fit, willing and able to provide the service under the conditions imposed by the Federal Aviation Act. Our conclusions in this study are consistent with the findings of the Board in this respect. Factors Accounting for Subsidy Need The primary purpose of this section of the study is to define the future outlook for present operations of vertical-lift aircraft. As the matter of subsidy support is critical to the future of these operations at the present time, we will direct ourselves to determining why subsidy is required at the present time and what progress, if any, has been made toward the reduction of subsidy in the future. As the operations of each of the individual carriers have been scrutinized in detail in separate CAB proceedings, our approach will be to study the progress of the industry as a whole and the role which the carriers, as a group, occupy in the US air transportation system. It is recognized, of course, that the certificated industry has consisted, until very recently, of only three carriers and --- ¹Initial Decision of Leslie G. Donahue, Docket 14008 et al., page 37. III-4
