The following is quoted from a letter that I recently received from the mayor of Baltimore which outlines clearly the problem with which we are confronted: "As you are well aware, Baltimore is now completing its new International Friendship Airport at a cost of many millions of dollars to the taxpayers of Baltimore. If this bill is passed it will seriously affect revenues which the city of Baltimore, in the planning of its new airport, has anticipated receiving. The cost of operating airports, especially municipally owned airports, should be met by such income." I sincerely believe that if this bill is passed, it will seriously affect the financing and operation of not only the Baltimore Airport, but other municipally owned airports throughout the country. I therefore urge the committee to report this bill unfavorably. DAYTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: This is to express our total opposition to the passage of H. R. 6180, which I believe is now before your committee for hearings. The purpose of this bill is to amend section 11, of the Federal Airport Act (U. S. C., title 49, sec. 1110) to an extent that would be highly discriminatory against all airports which have received Federal aid, by reason of the scheduled air lines being enabled to receive personal property of all kinds without the payment of any rentals, fees, taxes, or other charges, which are so vitally important to the airports of the United States. We feel strongly that the great majority of existing contracts between the municipal airports and the scheduled air lines are already vicious and unfair to such airport operators. We again request that your committee exert every effort to prevent this proposed legislation from even reaching the floor of the House. Very truly yours, HAMILTON WEBSTER, Airport Manager. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Denver, Colo., April 30, 1948. Hon. CHARLES WOLVERTON, Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Committee, DEAR SIR: A bill entitled H. R. 6180, introduced by Leonard W. Hall, has been brought to my attention and I wish at this time to comment on the undesirable factors involved. This bill in effect would take away many rights of airports that are now used to defray costs of operation. It is essential to good airport management that we be allowed not only to manage our own affairs, but run or handle allied businesses that are used in conjunction with airports. The gasoline clause in this bill is particularly dangerous and one that would do untold harm to our operation. It is only right that people who use the airport facilities pay a justifiable charge, and to eliminate this would be to continue to subsidize the air carriers even more. I also believe that there is some question as to the constitutionality of the type of legislation that would exempt the carriers from payment of any tax levied by state and local taxing organizations. I am sure that every major airport operator and city administration would agree with me in this respect. Yours very truly, C. J. LOWEN, Director of Aviation. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, BOARD OF AVIATION COMMISSIONERS, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. (Re H. R. 6180.) FORT WAYNE, IND., DEAR SIR: It has just come to my attention that a hearing on captioned bill is to be held before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on May 17, 1948. It My belief is that the content of the proposed act is highly objectionable to the operators of public airports generally. It would operate to deprive many air carrier airports of important operating revenue now derived from items of a concessionaire nature. This is very serious in the face of the almost universal pressure on airport managements to make their operations self-sustaining. should also be noted that a high percentage of air carrier leases or contracts now in existence are considered by many well-qualified observers to be unduly favorable to the air lines. The proposed legislation would make the situation worse. I hope that you will see your way clear to exert your influence against this bill. Respectfully, ARTHUR H. WEDGE, Airport Manager. AERONAUTICS COMMISSION OF INDIANA, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Room 1334, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: This letter is written to state briefly that I am opposed to the bill, H. R. 6180, now pending consideration before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives. H. R. 6180, if enacted into law, will present a legal barrier so static in application for practicable, efficient, and acceptable business practices as may well mean the death of the much needed Federal-aid airport program. That "the airport to which the project relates will be available for public use on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination" is assured by section 11 of the act. Part III, paragraph 550.9 (sponsor's assurance agreement) of the rules and regulations of the Federal Airport Act was adopted after months of joint deliberation and study by the CAA, the various State aeronautical agencies and representatives of the sponsors involved, who are in reality those people directly responsible for the success of the airport program. The covenants of the sponsor's assurance agreement are, in the main, considered a fair interpretation of section 11 (1) by a majority of the agencies concerned with the application of the act. They do not now so burden the municipalities in the maintenance and operation of their airports as to be confiscatory. If the above-noted rules prove improacticable in actual test, then they may be appropriately revised. But if the proposed amendment becomes law, then the administrative pattern for the management of municipal airports established with some Federal assistance will be fixed, with virtually no control over much of the financial issues at the airport by the sponsor whose responsibility it is to support the complete installation. No readily available and flexible remedy by the Federal agency to meet changing conditions will exist. The proposed amendment clearly transgresses the scope and intent of the act. Years of airport experience have indicated that airports can be self-supporting through wise and well-established business practices. Airports in this respect are no different than any other business utility. The underlying concept of this sphere of the American system, is that those who use and are benefited should pay their share of the bill. H. R. 6180 could, by its admitted attempt to protect a class, unfairly shift the burden. Further, the present rules and regulations of the act provide that the sponsor may require that aviation gasoline and oil be stored in specific places and under certain conditions prescribed by the sponsor. This provision was adopted in the interest of safety and efficient airport operating practices. There can be no compromise with such a provision designed in the interest of the public safety. H. R. 6180 would completely nullify this requirement and permit receipt and storage of fuels by each air carrier as would appear most expedient to the carrier. In an installation where both ground and aerial activity is so focused to a given point and the activity lines of operation are by necessity so compact, the merit of management control of distribution of vital materials and supplies is obvious. The assistance rendered through the Federal Airport Act is merely some incentive to municipalities to develop a public irport in keeping with a national pattern. Most of the larger metropolitan areas, long before the Federal Airport Act, moved to provide airport facilities for their community. The burden of developing these installations was supported by the tax-paying citizenry. The great responsibility of maintaining the public airport will still be theirs regardless of whether or not Federal assistance has been made available. Because of the tremendous cost involved, airport officials have been compelled to show their people the possibilitiy of a fair return on the investment made. As mentioned before, progress in this endeavor has been made. Many municipalities in an effort to raise funds for airport development will be compelled to issue general-purpose bonds. Such bonds must be legally approved before issuance. A test of any such bond and the rate thereon is the possibility of eventual retirement. If H. R. 6180 becomes law, airport bonds may well be placed in the same class as public swimming pools and golf courses. The necessity of the National Airport program cannot afford the possibility of such a classification. The terms of such a bill would unduly prevent our airport officials from using proper independent business judgment in the administration of airport financial matters by the acceptance of Federal airport assistance. There is already opposition from many municipalities because of the belief that the assurances they are compelled to make as sponsors are too great an obligation. The principle exploited by H. R. 6180 has long since been proven untenable through experience in airport management and as disclosed by long deliberation and much consideration by a majority of the agencies responsible for the program. I sincerely hope that your committee will find bill H. R. 6180 unfavorable in the interest of the National Airport program and the American system. Sincerely yours, C. F. CORNISH, Director. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN WOLVERTON: The Civil Aeronautics Board has been requested to submit any comments it may desire to make on H. R. 6180, a bill to amend the Federal Airport Act. The matters dealt with by the bill involve problems of airport management, maintenance, and control which primarily concern the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics. While we would not want to see any undue burden placed on air transportation by the imposition of local charges or assessments made possible by and used to implement an exclusive franchise privilege, we feel that the Administrator will be in the best position to see to it that such abuses do not occur. Since we believe that under existing law the Administrator has the duty and responsibility, in administering the Federal Airport Act, to prevent the imposition of onerous requirements and burdensome local charges on all classes of airport users, we do not think that further legislation is necessary or desirable. Due to the time element involved this report has not been submitted to the Bureau of the Budget for advice as to its relation to the program of the President. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH J. O'CONNELL, Jr., Chairman. Telegrams were received from the following in opposition to H. R. 6180: Charles R. K. Johnston, manager, Capital Airport, Springfield, Ill. C. B. Green, manager, Draughon Miller Airport, Temple, Tex. Robert T. St. John, manager, Tri-City Airport, Kingsport 22, Tenn. Charles S. Whitney, consulting engineer, Milwaukee, Wis. Vernon L. Tyler, airport manager, Santa Monica, Municipal Airport, Santa Harry McKay, manager, Kokomo Municipal Airport, Kokomo, Ind. C. L. Piper, Toledo, Ohio C. P. Oleson, manager, Dubuque Municipal Airport, Dubuque, Iowa Victor A. Modeer, president, St. Joseph Aviation Board, St. Joseph, Mo. F. A. Volk, owner and operator, Clearview Airport, Dallas. 20, Tex. George M. Dwight, Jr., airport manager, Burlington, Iowa Fred C. Alley, manager, Kanawha Airport, Charleston 20, W. Va. T. B. Herndon, chief, aeronautics division, Department of public works, Baton Rouge, La. Dewey Dovel, manager, Gregg County Airport, Longview 20, Tex. Francis T. Fox, airport manager, Worcester Municipal Airport, Worcester 20, Harold E. Horner, Foth Porath & Horner, Inc., Green Bay 20, Wis. C. A. Harrell, city manager, Norfolk, Va. Don E. Self, airport manager, El Paso, Tex. Frank Hidinger, manager, Cedar Rapids Municipal Airport, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Frank C. Bishop, superintendent of airports, county of Napa, Napa, Calif. W. W. Pat, Kent County judge, Beaumont, Tex. Don Lathrop, American Association of Airport Executives, Evanston, Ill. Fred J. Kane, Monterey, Calif. D. O. Langstaff, president, American Association of Airport Executives, New Orleans, La. Twin Cities Airport, Byron Cookson, manager, St. Joseph, Mich. Claude L. Hamel, manager, Shreveport Municipal Airport, Shreveport, La. D. C. Wolfe, Chicago-Hammond Airport, Lansing, Ill. W. A. Berlin, director, Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, Tampa, Fla. David E. Leigh, airport manager, Lambert St. Louis Municipal Airport, Lambert Field, St. Louis, Mo. Herbert N. Henckell, secretary and member of board, Alexander County Airport Authority, Cairo, Ill. Clyde E. Cole, airport manager, Flint, Mich. John Berry, commissioner of airports, city of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio. A. B. Phillips, commissioner, Tifton, Ga. Glenn L. Arbogast, director of aeronautics, Long Beach, Calif. C. J. Lowen, director of aviation, Stapleton Airfield, Denver 14, Colo. Board of Aviation Commissioners of St. Joseph County, South Bend, Ind. H. A. Youts, manager, municipal airport, Shawnee, Okla. B E. Fulton airport manager, Akron, Ohio. Harry J. Buff, manager, Philip Billard Airport, Topeka, Kans. Don W. Martin, airport manager, Newcastle County Airport, Newcastle, Del. Lane Mitchell, commissioner of public works, Shreveport, La. Greenville Airport Commission, O. O. Andrews, manager, Greenville, S. C. B. M. Doolin, manager, San Francisco Airport, San Francisco, Calif. C. W. Short, Jr., manager, Tulsa Municipal Airport, Tulsa, Okla. R. P. Selfridge, airport manager, Columbia, Mo. Robert T. Schott, Aviation Maintenance and Operations Magazine, Cleveland, Ohio. Robert Aldrich, executive director, Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, St. Paul, Minn. C. V. Goodwin, president, Oakland, Calif. Boris Golenkow, Millville, N. J. Lehigh Airport Authority, Roy A. Lewis, chairman, Allentown, Pa. Tom Miller, mayor, Austin, Tex. Lacy Chandler, manager, Decatur Municipal Airport. George Sanford, airport manager, City of Ontario. (The following communication was received for the record:) AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Washington 6, D. C., June 9, 1948. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On May 17, 1948, I appeared before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House in support of H. R. 6180, a bill to amend the Federal Airport Act. As I understand the purpose of that bill, it is designed to guarantee that air carriers operating from airports on which Federal funds are expended under the Federal Airport Act, may obtain supplies, equipment, and materials from suppliers or vendors of their choice. Stated differently, the bill has as its purpose the prevention of exclusive concessions or monopolies for the sale or delivery, at Federal aid airports, of supplies, equipment, and materials needed by air carriers. In my statement in support of the bill I addressed myself principally to concessions at airports for the sale or dispensing of aviation fuel, because, from a dollar standpoint, it is the most important material supplied air carriers at airports. I stated that one of the most serious objections to the granting or exercise, by airport managements, of monopolies for the sale or dispensing of aviation gasoline is that, if the practice receives general acceptance, the air lines will completely lose control of one of the most important items of their operating costs. I stated that the price an air line would have to pay for gasoline at a particular airport would depend upon the price the concessionaire had to pay for the monopoly, or, if the monopoly were exercised by the airport management, upon the amount of revenue which the latter desired to raise from this source. Recently there have come to my attention H. R. 6747, introduced by Representative Heselton, of Massachusetts, and S. 2777, a companion bill, introduced by Senator Saltonstall, of Massachusetts. These bills are apparently designed to amend the Federal Airport Act for the purpose, among others, of expressly sanctioning monopolies, at Federal-aid airports, for the sale or delivery of aviation gasoline. In other words, the bills are intended to sanction the practices which H. R. 6180 seeks to forbid. I recently received a letter from one of our member air lines which furnishes specific proof of the soundness of the objection to airport gasoline monopolies, which I mentioned above. This air line advises that at one point on its system the airport management has granted a monopoly to sell aviation fuel on the airport, and that at another point the airport management itself is exercising such a monopoly. The result has been a tremendous increase, at those airports, in the cost of gasoline to the air line. At the first airport the increase amounts to 22 cents per gallon. At the second the increase amounts to approximately 182 cents per gallon. This air line also advises me that a 20-cents-per-gallon increase in its gasoline costs would increase its total fuel costs $12,000,000 per year. As you know, no air line could shoulder such a burden and remain in business. I am sure you and the members of your committee will wish to give this point serious thought in considering H. R. 6180 and H. R. 6747. Yours very truly, ROBERT RAMSPECK, X |