New Haven and the surrounding towns form the most dynamic and fastest growing region in the State. Our potential growth is unlimited. But, we must have more and better air service to meet the needs of our citizens and our industries. It is shocking and disgraceful that New Haven, the only city in southern Connecticut with trunkline service, should receive only one round-trip flight per day. As Congressman Giaimo has already described, we are presently fighting for a regional airport designation. We are serious about keeping and improving our scheduled air service so serious that we have not hesitated to carry the fight to the courts when necessary.

In recent years, New Haven's taxpayers and the Federal Government have invested several million dollars to improve and expand our airport facilities. We stand ready, as we always have, to pledge any additional funds that are necessary for the full and adequate development of Tweed-New Haven Airport.

My testimony, I believe, makes it clear that we cannot, under any circumstances, permit our air service or rather lack of air service-to continue in this appalling fashion. We stand ready to do our share and I urge this committee to give us their full support.

Hon. A. S. MIKE MONRONEY,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., July 7, 1965.

Chairman, Aviation Subcommittee, Senate Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: Pursuant to instructions by your staff, I hereby attach a statement in reference to the trunkline air service hearings. I trust this and attachment will be sufficient to be placed in the record. Thanking you in advance, I remain

Sincerely,

STANLEY L. GREIGG,
Member of Congress.

STATEMENT BY HON. STANLEY GREIGG

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and the other members of the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation for the opportunity to voice an opinion on the question of the adequacy of trunkline air service.

I represent a predominately agricultural area with one major city of 90,000 located 100 miles from any other city of comparable size. The area of potential users of reasonable air service in and out of Sioux City is very significant. More important, such air service is most necessary to insure our proper position in the Nation's economy.

The present service is to and from the East, or to and from the South. There is no conecting link to the West. The city of Sioux City has initiated a request with the CAB for such service. Two trunkline carriers have made separate additional requests for the western route.

Sioux City is a growing competitive city that has accomplished wonders in recent years, having literally moved a river over a mile, all within its prime manufacturing basin, at a cost of $23 million. The city constructed a $7.5 million sewage treatment plant. The Federal Government placed Sioux City at the hub of highway traffic with existing Interstate 29. The city has a large urban renewal project over 60 percent complete. Over the years, it has steadily lost rail traffic, both passenger and freight.

The city has no missile or airplane factories. It is not within the mainstream of large Federal defense expenditures. These factors are in control of the Federal Government. Air travel is also within this control. We in northwest Iowa compete with all these factors born of a large Federal budget only if we are given an opportunity for decent air service. We should not be doubly handicapped by negative discretionary decisions on modern travel which are unjust and stagnating to all our northwest Iowa people. We must receive consideration in this area which will allow us into the mainstream of competition for new vibrant industry. We must have better service by air. We must have a western air route to Denver, which will open the logical Pandora's box of all our pent-up potential.

I would like to insert into the record a recent letter I sent to Mr. Charles Murphy, Chairman of CAB concerning this very matter.

"Re Application of city of Sioux City, Iowa, for air route to Denver, Colo. "DEAR CHAIRMAN MURPHY: I wish to formally request early favorable consideration for a western air route to fulfill a pressing public need in this midwest community. I urge the Board to consider carefully the economic strain placed on this community by the absence of a direct air route to the West. "The Airport Board of Sioux City has been most active in this drive, and this fine group of men stands ready to fulfill any request for further specific information.

"As former mayor of Sioux City, I speak with authority on the spirit of progressive growth in this city. This spirit and promise cannot remain competitive with cities in less key geographic locations without at least an equal footing with regard to Federal control over the airlanes. We simply must receive consideration on this matter. Sioux City has as fine a functional airport as exists in the Midwest and can handle the largest of commercial airliners.

"At my request, the City Council of Sioux City filed a separate application together with a motion for expedited hearing. In their application, they left the decision of route and carrier to be made at the direction of the CAB. As elected officials, the council, in filing this application, fulfills the fervent wish of all 90,000 citizens of Sioux City, as well as of the thousands of people in the metropolitan area directly affected.

"Our airport is indeed second to none. Our available public facilities are second to none. Access to the city is by direct route on Interstate 29 to the heart of the city in 10 minutes.

"I feel the large city combination of emphasis on travel fails to take into consideration trunk carriers. It is simply an additional supply of users to further expand the major airlines. There is nothing bad about good service for anyone in the entire field of air travel."

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the Aviation Subcommittee for the courtesy of granting me this time.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNEST GRUENING ON TRUNKLINE AIR SERVICE TO ALASKAN COMMUNITIES

The unique qualities of Alaskan geography and economic development, as contrasted with our sister States, is nowhere more dramatically demonstrated than in the status of air transportation in Alaska.

To begin with, of course, our State is the largest in land area, covering 586,400 square miles-the size of Texas, California, and Montana put together; and has less population than any other.

Alaska is also the State where air transportation is more essential as a form of passenger, and to a large extent, freight transportation, than any other in the Nation. The people of no other State are more completely dependent on air carriers and airports for movement from one place to another than Alaskans. Alaska, while a territory, never shared in benefits of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, as did our older sister States, thus never developed highways linking our communities to each other. After more than 5 years of statehood we have less than 5,000 miles of highway, less than 2,000 of which is paved or blacktopped. Railroad transportation is limited to the Alaska Railroad, owned and operated by the Department of the Interior and extending only 470 miles from Seward at the southern terminal to Fairbanks in the heart of Alaska.

Having no surface transportation, as Alaska grew it leaped directly into the air age at a pace greater than that of any other State. The growth of air transportation facilities was hastened during World War II by military necessities for movement of supplies and personnel.

The current FAA national airport plan, listing airports essential to the national air-transport system, includes, for Alaska, for fiscal years 1963 through 1967, 266 airports and 98 seaplane bases for Alaska, providing a total of 364 landing facilities for a population of approximately 250,000. This means an approximate average of one facility for each 700 people. In addition to these airports recognized as required by the Federal Aviation Agency, about 700 additional "bush strips" providing necessary services for isolated communities are estimated to exist.

No other State is so liberally supplied with airport facilities. Texas, having the next largest per capita availability of airport facilities, is listed by the

51-614-65-24

FAA as requiring 198 airports, supporting a population of 9,600,000, averaging 1 facility for each 48,000 persons.

A recent report to the Bureau of Public Roads of the Department of Commerce, analyzing Alaska's transportation resources and requirements, comments that while "the flexibility and speed of air transport have given it an advantage over other modes in surmounting some of the State's inherent transportation difficulties that stem from geographic isolation, sparse and scattered population, climatic extremes, and rugged terrain *** it is evident that normal airport and air-service standards do not necessarily apply in Alaska."

Thus, in the State where air transportation is more essential and more necessary to the lives of its citizens than in any other State, the problems to be surmounted and measures required to maintain efficient air service must be defined in terms hardly applicable in any other State. The difference in degree between Alaska's needs and those of other States are of such magnitude as to the differences in kind as well as size.

Our needs and resources for meeting them are unique, but they are of critical importance to Alaska and a proper subject for study by this subcommittee.

For example, the very terms of this investigation are subject to special interpretation when dealing with Alaska's problems. This subcommittee has announced the subject of these hearings to be "the adequacy of trunkline service to medium-sized intermediate cities." In Alaska, intermediate airports include those serving communities hardly recognized as cities, let alone medium-sized cities, in other States. A recent announcement from Governor Egan of plans by the State to assume, from the Federal Government, responsibility for operation of 11 federally operated intermediate airports illustrates the character of the communities in Alaska where air transportation is vital to existence and must be adequately supported. They include:

Aniak, with a population of 308; Bettles, with a population of 77; Cordova, with a population of 1,128; Gustavus, with a population of 107; Iliamna, with a population of 47; McGrath, with a population of 241; Nome, a metropolis of 2,316 people; Talkeetna, with a population of 76; Tanana, with a population of 349; Unalakleet, with a population of 574; and Yakataga, a community of 48 people.

These communities are scattered from the far western shore of the United States, at Nome to Gustavus, at the edge of Glacier Bay National Monument in southeastern Alaska, a place sure to become well known as one of the greatest national preserves of natural beauty. These communities are small in population, but the people who live at them or near them are wholly dependent on airplanes to transport them from their isolated, remote places of residence to the outside world.

The enormous demands of Alaskans for air transportation and the dependence of the people on this form of travel cause a correspondingly enormous drain on the State and the communities served to construct and maintain airports required for adequate service. Indeed, one of the most difficult problems faced by the infant State has been that of summoning the financial resources required to assume responsibility for 17 intermediate airports which had been constructed and maintained by the Federal Government during territorial days. As noted in the list above of 11 airports to be transferred to the State, the communities served are small and, in general, without resources to operate an airport in the manner ordinarily accomplished by communities in other States.

Although assisted since enactment of the Alaska Omnibus bill in 1959 by transitional grants from the Federal Government to aid in airport maintenance, a continuing concern of the State and the Federal Aviation Agency has been the eventual necessity for full assumption of operational responsibilities by the State. Although reluctant to assume the financial burden of operation of the Federal airports the State of Alaska is, nevertheless, entirely aware of the need of its citizens for air transportation services. It has drawn up an ambitious plan that would call for construction or reconstruction of 36 intermediate airports as well as 57 secondary airports and 10 seaplane facilities in Alaska.

Efficient services of the needs of the State for airport maintenance and construction will be expensive and Alaska will continue to face a real fiscal problem to meet these, even with help provided by the Federal Aviation Agency under its grant-in-aid program.

Again, referring to the terms of reference of this series of hearings, the State Division of Aviation has pointed up the problem arising with lack of adequate airport facilities in connection with the use of outdated equipment. It is the observation of this agency that, while Alaskans might wish for more modern equipment on some flights, this is out of the question because of lack of airport facilities to accommodate modern jets.

Also, the matter of scheduling flights, while of importance, is a comparatively minor irritation as compared with the inability to fly at all to certain locations, and the uncertainty of landing or taking off in adverse weather at some communities due to lack of an adequate airport.

Thus, even if new equipment were always available and schedules were arranged with perfection, the State lacks sufficient airports of adequate quality to take advantage of these improvements.

In addition to financial problems arising from the necessity for maintenance of existing airports and construction of new airports by the State, another very serious fiscal problem attending the development of needed air transportation service in Alaska is that of subsidizing the nine intrastate carriers, each of which is dependent on subsidies and mail payments from the Federal Government to provide any service at all. In some cases Federal payments amount to more than commercial revenues to the carriers, and in all cases are substantial components of the carriers' revenues. This is noted in the context that the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Post Office Department maintain strong controls over routes and service provided. The difficulty is, of course, that the sparse population served, although dependent on air transportation for survival, cannot, now, generate commercial revenues required to support airline operations. With the growth of Alaska, it is our hope this will gradually change and the need for subsidies will diminish. At this time, however, we must continue to accept the need for this form of help.

In summary, Alaska's problems are very difficult, although not altogether in the same terms as transportation problems in other parts of the country are difficult. Our problem is, basically, one of financing airports and air carriers needed to provide essential services.

We look forward to the day when our most serious problems will revolve around scheduling and type and degree of comfort of equipment provided. For the time being, it is our purpose to acquaint this subcommittee with the specialized needs of Alaska and ask your support for those measures of assistance that can be provided by the Federal Government.

Failure of the Federal Government to provide adequately for construction of surface transportation facilities by failure to include Alaska among recipients of Federal aid highway appropriations is a major cause of the growth of dependence on air transportation. While development of surface transportation is still very important to development of the State, we must have sympathetic understanding of its need for continuing specialized assistance from the Federal Government for air transportation as the need for this appears.

I appreciate this opportunity to submit these views to this distingushed committee.

STATEMENT of Senator VANCE HARTKE ON ADEQUACY OF TRUNKLINE AIR SERVICE TO MEDIUM AND INTERMEDIATE CITIES

Civil aviation in America is today experiencing a critical period of transition. The reequipment of the greater part of the U.S. air fleet with jet aircraft is both the most obvious characteristic and a primary cause of our current problems. Of equal significance, however, is the impact which the current upheaval in air transportation is having upon the cities and citizens of this country.

The great trunk airlines are now, without exception, moving toward all jet and prop-jet fleets. The greater part of this new equipment-larger, faster, and far more expensive than the equipment replaced-operates economically only over long-haul high-density routes. But the current structure of routes

was formalized back in 1938, a a time when all American air carriers flew DC-3's and were, in effect, local service carriers. Thus, there has developed a conflict between the type of service which our trunk airlines are best equipped to provide and the type of service for which the historic pattern of air routes provided.

The result of the clash between past traffic patterns and modern carrier capability has been the near-universal effort of the trunk airlines to get out of many of the smaller intermediate cities which they have historically served. From the point of view of the carriers concerned, the logic is inescapable. It is indeed wasteful to operate aircraft, whose most economic utilization is at stage lengths of greater than 500 miles and passenger loads of up to 130, on 100-mile stages with less than 50 passengers. Even if a specific service to medium-sized cities is not operated at a loss, the cost remains high when the same equipment could be used on long-range high-density runs where the profit potential is much greater.

But in an area affecting the public convenience and necessity, the needs of the air transport industry are not the only ones that count. While efficient and com. prehensive air service requires a financially sound industry, a certificate of public convenience and necessity has never been merely a license to make money. As every such certificate states, the authority to provide air service is a privilege— one that is subject to "such *** reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations required by the public interest **** It would be a perversion of the whole intent of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 to interpret it in such a way that the only interest served is the financial interest of the carriers.

The trunk airlines of America, certified as they are by the American Government, have a responsibility to the American public as well as to their stockholders. That responsibility involves the provision of service in less profitable and even unprofitable markets, as well as in the most profitable ones.

That responsibility, too, involves the provision of convenient and adequate scheduling to the greatest possible extent. And here it should be noted. almost every time a trunk airline does not fulfill its responsibility and is replaced by a local carrier, there is an added subsidy cost to the American taxpayer.

The Civil Aeronautics Board, as an instrument of American Government, also has a responsibility to the American public. In this regard, several recent decisions by the Board have raised serious questions concerning the Board's policies in cases affecting the adequacy of service to intermediate cities. In a number of cases, trunkline service has been replaced by what on its face appears to be markedly inferior local service. In one celebrated case, the Terre Haute trunkline service was deleted between Terre Haute and St. Louis--and no replacement service whatsoever was approved. Trunkline air service has been reduced or authorization for it has been rescinded at city after city--including such economic centers as Fort Wayne, South Bend, Anderson, and Muncie, all in Indiana.

To the extent that the airlines and CAB do not fulfill their responsibility to the American public, residents of our medium-sized cities, such as Terre Haute, are the losers.

Even when trunk airlines are replaced by local service carriers, those residents must pay an additional price, as taxpayers, beyond the cost of their plane tickets. It is clearly in the interest of the American public that the financially sound trunk airlines continue to provide adequate air service to those marginal cities which only can be serviced by subsidized local carriers at prohibitive costs to the taxpayer. And it is clearly in the public interest that CAB oversee with care the service which the trunk airlines are providing.

I have said that the difficulties we are experiencing in domestic aviation are those associated with a transitional stage in this great industry's development. For, as technological advance is largely responsible for our current problems so further technological advance is providing the answer to those problems. It was the introduction of the long-range high-density jets which provided much of the motivation for recent curtailments of short-range low-density service by the trunk airlines. The forthcoming introduction of efficient short-range jets is certain to go far toward such service profitable. But unsubsidized, profitable. and adequate air service will only be provided to our medium-sized cities in the future if the trunk airlines and the Civil Aeronautics Board fulfill their responsibilities to the American public today. If trunk airlines in 1965 cease to serve our Terre Hautes, our Fort Waynes, our South Bends, our Andersons, and our Muncies, it will be too late in 1970 for them to do so profitably.