This matter was discussed at a special meeting Friday in Richmond, of the executive committee of the Virginia Travel Council. Since the major oil companies have now gone to a theme of conserving energy in their advertising, it was the feeling of the Virginia Travel Council that this provision of S. 2589 could safely be eliminated. I call this matter to your attention for your most serious consideration. Thank you for your attention to this matter. With best wishes, I remain, Sincerely, THOMAS H. GIBSON, President, Virginia Travel Council. NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION CONFERENCES, INC., Hon. MARK O. HATFIELD, Washington, D.C., November 13, 1973. DEAR SENATOR HATFIELD: An item in the November 13 issue of Aviation Daily included the following concerning the Senate Interior Committee's markup session on S. 2589: "Hatfield said he wants no cuts made in small community service on the excuse of a fuel shortage." Now that the nation is faced with a fuel crisis, the question is asked: "If a commuter airline can better serve a small/medium community than a local service carrier and can do so by burning less fuel, should not appropriate arrangements be made to achieve such a desirable objective?" In many cases the local service carriers have been unsuccessful in their attempts to enter into suspension/replacement agreements with the commuter airlines because of ALP's "scope clause" and the lack of community support. This raises the question: "How much longer can the nation permit such obstacles to stand in the path of more efficient and economical air service between short-haul low-density points?" Your reaction to this suggestion for improving scheduled air service to small communities with a resultant savings in precious fuel and a reduction in subsidy payments to local service carriers will be appreciated. Enclosed is a booklet about the commuter airline industry that should be of interest to you. Should you or members of your staff have any questions, please give me a call. Respectfully yours, Enclosure. T. S. MILES, President and Chief Executive Officer. AIRSTRAN NEWS Dear Reader: "Clearing the Air" replaces the October issue of AIR-TRAN News. And for good reason. It is newsworthy. It is an in-depth interview of Thomas S. Miles, Pres. & Chief Exec. Officer, National Air Transportation Conferences, wherein AIR-TRAN brings into proper perspective many of the issues facing commuter airlines. It talks about such things as: LIMITED CERTIFICATION and ROUTE PROTECTION-two burning and highly controversial issues of interest and concern to many. You'll learn where the commuters stand on such issues, and why The ingredients for decision-making on such issues are already here, or in the making. Which way will it go? Which way should it go? And what roles will be played by the public, states, communities, certificated air carriers, commuter airlines, Air Line Pilots Association, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Civil Aeronautics Board, Department of Transportation, Congress. Office of Management & Budget. National Association of State Aviation Officials, National League of Cities/Conference of Mayors, National Governors' Conference, National Association of Regulatory Commissioners, the Nixon Administration? They all have something at stake in such issues. And they will be heard from. COMMUTER AIR CARRIER ACT OF 1973-legislation developed by commuter airlines for achieving limited certification and route protection. You'll get the reasons why the commuter airlines are accused of being fragmented on such legislation. Who is right? Who is wrong? Or should adoption of a firm position on the issues be deferred until the CAB determines what additional regulations, if any, would be imposed on commuter airlines electing to operate under "limited certification"? COMPETITIVE BID PROPOSAL-a proposal for the CAB to test a new concept for providing scheduled air service to small isolated communities with the potential of boarding 5 to 25 passengers per day at far less cost than the CAB's current subsidy program for local service carriers. You'll get the reasons why there is no movement to obtain Congressional approval for the testing program. Should such a concept be tested? AIR-TRAN says "YES", Where do you stand? FLOW-THROUGH SUBSIDY-a new and exciting concept for improving scheduled air service in low-density city-pair markets at greatly reduced cost to the federal treasury. In principle: (1) the certificated carrier suspends service but retains the certificate and its inherent service obligations; (2) a commuter airline serves the market in place of the certificated carrier; (3) the certificated carrier continues to receive subsidy for the market involved, but in an amount far less than if it were serving the market on its own, and passes such subsidy on to the commuter airline serving the market; (4) the certificated carrier agrees to re-enter the market in the event commuter airline service is suspended or terminated. AIRTRAN favors testing the concept. How about you? "Clearing the Air" also covers such timely subjects as: • DE-CERTIFICATION OF MARGINAL POINTS • STATE REGULATIONS VS. FEDERAL REGULATIONS • DISPERSING INDUSTRY AND POPULATION TO RURAL AMERICA •SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE AS A "MATTER OF RIGHT" • STOLTYPE RUNWAYS AND SEPARATE APPROACHES • TOWERS AND MICROWAVE LANDING SYSTEMS • AIRPORT RAMP AND TERMINAL FACILITIES • NEXT GENERATION AIRCRAFT • GOVERNMENT GUARANTY OF EQUIPMENT LOANS • COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO COMMUTER AIRLINES BY CERTIFICATED AIRLINES • OFFICIAL AIRLINE GUIDE POLICIES • STABILIZATION OF COMMUTER AIRLINE INDUSTRY Those are just some of the issues covered by the interview No matter who you are, or where you are, "Clearing the Air" has something for you. So read it all to determine what you can do to help improve and expand scheduled air service between more points in the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories and possessions of the United States, and the Caribbean. American citizens everywhere are waiting. Count on it. What is done for them, and how soon it is done, may be up to you So don't disappoint them. Or yourself. The Editor INTERVIEW with Thomas S. Miles In 1971 NATC's Commuter Air Carrier Conference developed proposed legislation known as the "Commuter Air Carrier Act" which provides for both limited certification and route protection for commuter airlines. What is the status of that legislation? Having formal support from fourteen Congressmen representing eleven states, it is now before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives in the form of H.R. 7117 (introduced by Bob Wilson, R-Calif. and co-sponsored by eleven of his colleagues); H.R. 7659 (introduced by Howard Robison, R-N.Y.); and H.R. 7790 (introduced by Silvio O. Conte, R-Mass.). Hearings have yet to be scheduled. In discussing the Commuter Air Carrier Act with various commuter airlines throughout the nation, we have found a wide range of views concerning its need and/or desirability. Can you explain this situation? There are any number of reasons why the commuters have adopted a variety of positions on the issue. It all depends on who they are, where they operate, under what conditions, and what their prospects or aspirations may be for growth as independent local airlines. Perhaps as we talk you will be prompted to ask questions that will explain the situation to the advantage of so many. But first, let's set the stage. The Act provides for both limited certification and route protection. One form of route protection would be granted by the CAB to those commuter airlines agreeing to meet the conditions governing the issuance of a Commuter Certificate. Another form of route protection would be granted by the CAB to those companies operating as commuter airlines for six months prior to the date of enactment of the Act but who, for one reason or another, elected not to operate under a Commuter Certificate. The protection afforded the latter group would not protect their routes from commuter airline competition, but would preclude them from being ousted by non-grandfathers who may ultimately obtain Commuter Certificates over their routes. Many support the Act as written. It gives them what they want. Or it gives others what they want without hurting them. Others openly oppose it. Some want limited certification. And they want it with or without route protection. In other words, route protection is not that important to them. Others feel strongly on the need for route protection. Still others want to maintain the status quo. And there is an untold number who have not as yet expressed their views one way or another. That is why it is so essential for appropriate committees of the Senate and the House to hold public hearings on the Act so that the views of all can be reviewed, analyzed and evaluated before the Congress decides PRO or CON on this issue of such vital importance to the commuter airlines and the communities they serve. Why would some commuter airlines be opposed to route protection? Some feel they don't need it. In many cases, such carriers are participants in suspension/replacement agreements with the certificated carriers, either as indepen |