Page images
PDF
EPUB

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO OPERATING AGREEMENT

THIS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, entered into this 1st day of September, 1953, by and between the Airport Director, Washington National Airport, acting on behalf of the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics, and the District Engineer, Washington District, Corps of Engineers, acting on behalf of the Department of the Air Force.

WITNESSETH: That, whereas the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics and the Department of the Air Force entered into an Operating Agreement, dated June 20, 1951, relating to the use of certain facilities and the conduct of certain military operations on the Washington National Airport by the said Department of the Air Force; and

Whereas by unnumbered Supplemental Agreement, or Amendment, dated February 8, 1952, the last paragraph of Article I of the aforesaid Operating Agreement pertaining to Building (T-1570) was deleted and a new paragraph was substituted, in lieu thereof; and

Whereas effective March 1, 1952, the use and occupancy of the Link Trainer Room located in the northern half of the Air Freight Terminal Building (T1570) are no longer required by the Department of the Air Force; and

Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived hereunder, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:

1. That the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics will, as of March 1, 1952, accept surrender of the aforesaid Link Trainer Room located in the northern half of the Air Freight Terminal Building (T-1570) situated at the Washington National Airport, in its present condition, and will assume the custody, sale and control thereof, the Department of the Air Force thereafter being relieved of any and all responsibility therefor.

2. That the terms and provisions of the Operating Agreement dated June 20, 1951, as amended, shall, except as hereinabove amended, remain in full force and effect.

B. H. GRIFFIN,

Airport Director, Washington National Airport.
RAY ADAMS, Colonel, Corps of Engineers,
District Engineer, Washington Dist.,
Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army,
Acting for the Department of the Air Force.

Mr. CECONI. Section 16 of the bill provides in part that the— Corporation shall assume the performance on behalf of the United States of all existing contracts heretofore executed on behalf of the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics in connection with the care, operation, maintenance, and protection of the Washington National Airport.

The Department of Defense understands that the Airport Corporation, under the Secretary of Commerce, will also exepect to carry out the foregoing operating agreement between the Administrator and the Air Force.

The Department of Defense concurs generally with the enactment of this legislation.

This concludes my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ceconi. Colonel, have you anything in addition to offer?

Colonel COUCH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any questions, Senator Schoeppel?
Senator SCHOEPPEL. No, sir. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. At this point in the record we will include two letters from the Civil Aeronautics Board, as well as letters from the Department of Labor, the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and the United States Civil Service Commission, commenting on the bill.

(The letters are as follows:)

Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER,

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD,
Washington, Mau 20. 1954.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commero?,

United States Senate, Washington. D. C.

DEAR SENATOR BRICKER: This is in reply to your letter of May 12, 1954, asking the Board for a report on S. 3435, a bill to amend the act re ating to the administration of the Washington National Airport, to incorpor te the Washington National Airport Corporation, and for other purposes.

While the Board has a general interest in the adequacy and safety of airports and airport facilities used by common carriers by air, the administration of the Washington National Airport is a matter exclusively within the purview of the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics. The Board. accordingly, has no comment to offer on S. 3435.

Sincerely yours,

CHAN GURNEY, Chairman.

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD,
Washington, May 25, 1954.

Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR BRICKER: In accordance with the request contained in your letter of May 19, 1954, relating to S. 3435, a bill to incorporate the Washington National Airport, the Board is submitting this further statement of its views relative to this problem.

As we indicated in our report to you dated May 20, 1954, the matter of the administration of the Washington National Airport is one which is exclusively within the purview of the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics. So far as the Board is aware the administration of this airport has been highly successful; charges made to air carriers have been reasonable; and we understand that the airport has more than met its current operating expenses. These results have been achieved with the management of the airport directly under the Civil Aeronautics Administration. However, if in the opinion of those responsible for the administration of the airport it is desirable to transfer it to a Government corporation, the Board would rely upon the opinion of those expert in the field and would have no objection.

The bill does contain one provision, however, with which we would have some concern if the principle were extended beyond the borders of this particular bill and made generally applicable to Government furnished aviation services. This provision is contained in section 7 of the bill and in essence provides that the Secretary shall make an evaluation of the airport properties, and make a pro forma determination of the amount thereof which would have been supplied by a local project sponsor had the airport been built and developed under the terms of the Federal Airport Act. Thereafter the corporation is required to pay into the fund established by section 7 interest on the pro forma amount at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, fixed in accordance with standards set out in the bill.

The Board has no objection to this provision as it applies to the Washington National Airport, since its effect, as we understand it, is to place that airport on a parity with airports which have been developed under the Federal Airport Act. The situation covered by the bill is not duplicated in any other area of Federal investment in aviation facilities or enterprises with the exception of the few other civil airports owned and operated by the Government. Consequently, we do not see how this principle could properly be extended to other areas. If, however, a similar philosophy were conceived to be applied to user charges for airway aids, past Federal grants in aid to non-Federal airports, or any other matters in which Federal funds have been expended, it would raise problems which the Board has not fully considered and with which at this point it is not prepared to deal. Most thorough consideration would have to be given to any such proposal.

Because of the urgent nature of your request, the Board has not had sufficient time to obtain the advice of the Bureau of the Budget as to the relation of these comments to the program of the President.

Sincerely yours,

CHAN GURNEY, Chairman.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, May 26, 1954.

Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR BRICKER: Reference is made to your recent request for my comments regarding S. 3435, a bill to amend the act relating to the administration of the Washington National Airport, to incorporate the Washington National Airport Corporation, and for other purposes.

I have under study a proposal for a uniform method of charging costs of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to various departments and agencies of the Government. If that proposal is adopted, it will eliminate the need for section 9 (a) of this bill. For the present, however, I make no recommendations

regarding section 9 (a).

I have no other comments, and I do not have any objections to the enactment of S. 3435.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the submission of this report.

Yours very truly,

ARTHUR LARSON, Acting Secretary of Labor.

JUNE 1, 1954.

Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR Senator Bricker: The Commissioners have for report S. 3435, 83d Congress, a bill to amend the act relating to the administration of the Washington National Airport, to incorporate the Washington National Airport Corporation, and for other purposes, upon which you have asked the Commissioners for comment as soon as possible.

The purpose of the bill is to establish a Government corporation to be known as the Washington National Airport Corporation, to be under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce. The Corporation would operate the Washington National Airport.

The Commissioners have no objection to the enactment of the bill.

Time has not permitted the ascertainment of advice from the Bureau of the Budget as to the relationship of this report to the program of the President. Yours very sincerely,

SAMUEL SPENCER, President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia.

Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER,

UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

June 9, 1954.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR BRICKER: This is in further reply to your letter of May 12, 1954, requesting the Civil Service Commission's comments on S. 3435, a bill to amend the act relating to the administration of the Washington National Airport, to incorporate the Washington National Airport Corporation, and for other purposes.

The Commission will limit its comments to those provisions of the bill affecting employment and compensation of personnel.

Section 4 (f) provides for the appointment of officers, attorneys, agents, and employees in accordance with the civil-service laws and for their compensation as may be provided by law. In effect, this would require such compensation to be made under the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. This section also authorizes the employment of experts and consultants in accordance with Public Law 600, the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946.

Section 6 (b) provides for the establishment of an Advisory Board to be composed of seven members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce without regard to the civil-service laws. The members of the Board who are in the executive branch of the Government shall receive no additional compensation for their services on the Board, and the members from private life shall each receive $50 per diem when engaged in the performance of their duties as Board members. The Commission has no objection to these provisions of S. 3435.

We are advised that the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report.

By direction of the Commission:
Sincerely yours,

PHILIP YOUNG, Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. That concludes the hearing.
(Whereupon, at 12: 20 p. m., the hearing was concluded.)

Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER,

United States Senate,

WASHINGTON, D. C., May 27, 1954.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR BRICKER: You no doubt have noted the story on page 13 of the May 27 Washington Post and Times-Herald denying a charge by yourself and your colleague, Senator Schoeppel, that the monopoly taxi service at the airport refuses to let certain taxis carry away passengers from the terminal.

Mr. Jennings Roberts, who is quoted as denying the charge, does not speak the truth. In case after case I have waited and been insulted by the starter and the Airport Transport Co. about getting a cab to take me home. Mr. Roberts is technically correct in that the starter and the terminal police do permit cabs painted yellow to haul passengers away. However, I would be willing to bet that these cabs are probably owned and operated by the firm which has the limousine service.

Just the other night, upon returning from Chicago, I watched the two terminal police chase District cabs who had discharged customers at the far end of the terminal. I objected strongly because there were thirty-some-odd people waiting for the limousines which at that moment were nonexistent except for the three that were loading for downtown hotel passengers only. Finally, I walked to the discharge platform and waited for a cab to let out his fares and then I hired the taxi. This was after some 20 to 25 minutes waiting for service by the monopoly limousine. The taxi driver who took me home told me that the Airport Transport monopoly refuses to let other cabs pick up fares, except when there are none of their own limousines available. He could not explain why, on this particular evening, when there were about 30 passengers waiting for limousine service, the police and starter refused to let regular taxis pick up fares.

I do not know how much the limousine service people legally or illegally pay for this monopoly service. Why not eliminate this monopoly with one company and let all cabs service the airport? Make those picking up fares from the airport pay a 25-cent toll per trip. The starter could collect it quite simply and I know we would get better service.

I feel very strongly about this matter and I am quite provoked at the constant inconvenience at the end of every airtrip into Washington of having to wait endlessly for a ride home. I have never had to wait at the Cleveland Municipal Airport or the Chicago International Airport, or at Willow Run in Detroit, which cities I visit occasionally.

How about you and Senator Schoeppel, as members of the Senate Commerce Committee, cracking down on this obnoxious situation. I hope you do and I look forward to improved taxi service in the future.

Sincerely,

Hon. Senator BRICKER,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

JUSTIN HINDERS.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 1, 1954.

DEAR SENATOR: In reference to the article which appeared in Thursday, May 27, 1954, issue of Washington Post and Times Herald, concerning cab service at the airport, the statement made by CAA attorney, Jennings Roberts, is not, according to my opinion, the true facts of the case, because I, as a taxicab driver.

saw time and time again, when there were no airport cabs or limousines and many prospective fares hailing me and other Washington cabs are not permitted by the NAP to stop and pick them up. On rare occasions when the NAP are not present or hiding in a corner and we do stop for fare they come up and lock you up for one thing or another. As in my case, on a Tuesday night, as of April 27, 1954, at approximately 11 p. m., I let two passengers out of my cab, and a sky cap, got in my cab and asked me to drive down and pick up a fare below where the airport cabs and limousines are supposed to be, but were not there at that time. As I started putting the lady's bags in my cab, they were so huge, that I put one in the trunk, and the other had to be put in the front seat. As I approached the front door of my cab, a little sailor, about 17 or 18 years old was standing there, and he asked me whether I could take him to the naval air station. After finding out that the lady was going to 2480 16th Street NW., I told said sailor, that I was very sorry, but I was headed in a different direction. The said sailor told me that he was waiting there for a very long time and he was late and had to get back to said base. I offered to drop him off downtown, without any charge whatsoever, so that he could catch a cab from there. By that time a NAP came over, and said that I was under arrest. When I asked him the reason he said that I was soliciting the sailor. When said sailor verified what I told the police about my conversation with him, the policeman scared him away by telling him he would have to spend all day in court tomorrow, so said sailor disappeared. Then the policeman ordered the lady from my cab telling her, that I was under arrest. When I asked her whether she thought that I did anything to be arrested for simply because I offered the sailor a free ride to town so he could get a cab from there and get back to his base, she agreed that I should not be arrested, but also stated that she did not care to get involved. Said officer grabbed my fare card and would not return it to me, until I posted $10 collateral. I have been hacking since 1929, and never had any such charge against me for the above mentioned.

When they locked me up downstairs and I protested to the sergeant, he in turn gave me a printed matter, that was not signed, but he claimed Congress gave the director of the airport that authority, and according to that printed matter a Washington cab is not supposed to take return jobs from the airport under no conditions. Therefore, I repeat that the attorney's statement is very much incorrect.

There are many, many other cab drivers who have been locked up for the same unjust reasons. I explained the above-mentioned case to our chief hack inspector, Lieutenant Dunn, and he was very much in sympathy with me and other cab drivers who have had the same fate over there. Yet he is powerless to do anything about it. As you well know, it is out of his jurisdiction.

I will gladly cooperate with you, if I can do anything to remedy this sad situation over there.

Respectively yours,

JACK SHESKIN.

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
Washington, D. C., June 23, 1954.

Re S. 3435-A bill to incorporate the Washington National Airport.
Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER,

Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to a letter dated June 15, 1954, to you from the Director of the Bureau of the Budget regarding the above bill. You will recall that you requested that a communication be sent to you by the executive agencies concerned, answering the questions about S. 3435 which I raised in my testimony on May 25, 1954, and that the Bureau of the Budget undertook to prepare the letter. The letter of June 15, 1954, is their response.

The Bureau of the Budget has very kindly furnished us with a copy of that letter and we have also had the opportunity to discuss the bill on several occasions with representatives of that Bureau and the Department of Commerce. We deeply appreciate the cooperation we have had from these agencies.

Our examination of the letter of June 15, 1954, indicates that the Bureau of the Budget did not supply one important item of information, the need for which I have stressed in my testimony. You will recall that I stated that the airlines would like to know "what they are getting in for" if the airport is in

« PreviousContinue »