In view of this fact, and the increasing amalgamation of the Washington and Baltimore metropolitan areas, the Board has been inclined to certificate new long-haul service to Washington-Baltimore as a single hyphenated point. Under such a certification, the carrier is given the initial responsibility for selection of the airport or airports which it will utilize in serving the hyphenated point. Subject to possible disapproval by the Board under its airport regulation, the carrier may elect to serve through any or all of the airports in the WashingtonBaltimore area. An example of a situation in which a carrier has been authorized to serve Washington-Baltimore as a hyphenated point is that of Eastern's authorization to Bermuda recently granted in the Bermuda Service Investigation. Earlier examples are those of Pan American and TWA whose European routes specify WashingtonBaltimore as a single hyphenated point.

There are also before the Board several proceedings in which additional services are proposed to Washington-Baltimore as a single point, or in which the scope of the proceeding is such as to permit that result. These cases are listed in an appendix to my statement.

(The appendix follows:)

CAB PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH NEW OR IMPROVED SERVICES ARE PROPOSED
TO BALTIMORE AND WASHINGTON

1. East Coast Points-Europe Service Investigation.-Docket 19255. Service between Washington and Baltimore as separate points, on the one hand, and points in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey, on the other. Awaiting prehearing conference.

2. Twin Cities-Milwaukee Long-Haul Investigation.-Docket 19097. Service between Minneapolis/St. Paul-Milwaukee and Washington/Baltimore, as a hyphenated point. Board has imposed pre-trial restrictions requiring that any new authority to serve Washington/Baltimore be limited to an airport other than National. Briefs to Examiner filed on March 10, 1969.

3. Northeast Corridor VTOL Investigation.-Docket 19078. Service with VTOL or V-STOL or STOL equipment, between any two of the following areas (except between Washington and Baltimore): Boston, Hartford, Providence, New York/ Newark, Philadelphia/Wilmington/Trenton, Washington, and Baltimore. Service may not be authorized at existing airports used by fixed-wing carriers. Hearing scheduled for June 17, 1969.

4. Domestic Coterminal Points-Europe All-Cargo Service Investigation.— Docket 18531. Amendment of Seaboard's certificate (all-cargo) to include Washington and other cities as new domestic coterminal points. Seaboard has existing authority at Baltimore as a coterminal point. New Washington and Baltimore service which could be authorized includes all-cargo service between Washington and Seaboard's existing points in Europe, and all-cargo service between Washington and Baltimore on the one hand, and Seaboard's existing and new domestic coterminal points on the other (on transatlantic flights). Awaiting Board decision.

5. Salt Lake City Service Investigation.-Docket 19685. Service from Salt Lake City to the coterminal points New York and Washington/Baltimore, as a hyphenated point. Board has imposed pre-trial restriction requiring that any new authority to service Washington/Baltimore be limited to service at an airport other than National. Prehearing conference will be held on April 9, 1969.

6. Service to Omaha and Des Moines.-Docket 18401. Service between Omaha and Des Moines, on the one hand, and Washington/Baltimore, as a hyphenated point, on the other. Board has included as an issue whether award to serve Washington/Baltimore should include designation of specific airport or airports to be served. Awaiting Examiner's decision.

7. Additional Service to San Diego.-Docket 18104. Service between San Diego on the one hand, and Washington and Baltimore, as separate points, on the other. Hearing scheduled for March 18, 1969.

8. Additional Service to Columbia and Augusta.-Docket 19362. Service between Columbia and Augusta on the one hand, and Washington/Baltimore, as a hyphenated point, on the other. Board has included as an issue whether award to serve Washington/Baltimore should include designation of specific airport or airports to be served. Prehearing conference scheduled for March 14, 1969.

Mr. CROOKER. In certain circumstances, the Board has expressly prohibited the use of National to serve either Washington or the Washington-Baltimore area so as to avoid further congestion at that airport. Thus, in the U.S.-Caribbean-South America Route Investigation (E25174), the Board authorized new services between Washington and San Juan by Trans-Caribbean and restricted the service to Dulles. In the same proceeding, the Board amended the certificates of Eastern and Pan American so as to prohibit them from operating to San Juan through National. In certain cases where the Board has certificated competitive service to the overall area, it has required one carrier to serve Friendship and the other Dulles.

For example, in the Northeast-Bahamas Service Case (E-26347), Pan American was authorized to provide service between the Bahamas and Washington through Dulles, and Eastern was authorized to provide Bahamas-Washington/Baltimore service through Friendship. Also, in the domestic phase of the Transpacific Route Investigation (Docket 16242), the Board authorized Hawaii service by Northwest from Washington through Dulles Airport, and by United from Washington-Baltimore through Friendship Airport. This had the advantage of insuring that the entire area would receive convenient service. The Board also has taken cognizance of Baltimore's complaints that airlines certificated to serve it were not rendering adequate service. After a lengthy proceeding under the "adequacy of service" provisions of the act (Washington-Baltimore Adequacy of Service Investigation, 30 C.A.B. 1215 (1960), affirmed National Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 300 F. 2d 711), the Board directed the airlines to provide new services. However, the resulting service pattern still left Baltimore unsatisfied. A conference was held between the Board's Office of Community and Congressional Relations, the carriers, and representatives of the city of Baltimore. The result was that plans were reached by the air carriers which were satisfactory to Baltimore and the Office of Community and Congressional Relations, and the city withdrew its complaint.

The Board believes that the selection of airports ordinarily should be left to the air carriers, and that the Board should specify airports in certificates only in instances where that action is necessary to deal with congestion or some other specific problem. The Board has never utilized its power to designate airports merely as a means of favoring one airport or location over another, or for the purpose of building up one region to the detriment of another.

Insofar as improved service to a given area is concerned, the Board believes that the best hope of providing for such service to points like Baltimore and Washington is to grant new authorizations for direct routes to additional points. Thus, the Board has a number of proceedings pending in which new or improved services are proposed from points in Europe, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, Omaha and Des Moines, San Diego and Columbia and Augusta to Baltimore and Washington as separate or hyphenated points. In certain of these proceedings, there

are proposed restrictions which will prohibit the use of Washington National. As I have previously indicated, these proceedings are listed in an appendix to my statement.

In deciding these cases, the Board cannot consider only the desire of the community for additional service. Rather, it must consider a number of criteria showing whether service is warranted. One of the most important of these is the need of the city for such service in light of the other services already available to it. Another is the cost that would result to the carrier in providing such service that is, whether the service would be self-sustaining or would have to be supported by Federal subsidy or other operations of the carrier. A third factor would be to what extent an award to one carrier would have an adverse competitive effect on other carriers by diverting traffic from them. In short, the Board is required to take into consideration in arriving at its decision all factors bearing upon the issue of public convenience and necessity. In doing so, it must follow the process of weighing and balancing numerous and sometimes conflicting considerations.

In addition to the new proceedings I mentioned, the Board has also instituted the Washington-Baltimore Airport Investigation (Docket 18712). The aim of that investigation is to determine what steps should be taken to improve the utilization of Washington National, Dulles, and Friendship Airports in order to improve air service to the Washington-Baltimore area, to relieve congestion, and otherwise to serve the public interest. The Board stated in its investigation order that the investigation would be focused on the issue of whether the certificates of any or all of the carriers serving Washington should be amended so that particular services might be removed from Washington National and be provided either through Dulles or Friendship instead. The Board added that neither of these airports could be considered as well situated as National to serve the entire Washington area. It also pointed out that the proceeding might result in improved services for residents of the Baltimore area since flights might be removed to Friendship Airport as well as to Dulles.

Although prehearing conferences have been held by the examiner in the investigation, no hearings have been held. This has been due in large part to requests by the Department of Transportation that no further procedural steps be taken until after it had an opportunity to file certain material and crystallize its position. Its most recent request was made on December 3, 1968, when it finalized special air traffic rules for five high-density airports, including Washington National. The Department felt that these results, which are scheduled to become effective on June 1, 1969, might resolve the congestion problem at Washington National.

The Board is hopeful that, as a result of all the steps I have discussed, it can continue to make a substantial contribution to relieving the congestion problem and to the improvement of service in the Washington-Baltimore area.

I understand that your committee is concerned with the access problem from city centers to airports. Since most passengers travel to airports by surface 'means, other agencies will be primarily concerned with this problem. However, the Board is inviting large metropolitan communities, appearing as intervenors in formal airline route cases,

to furnish the Board with information concerning steps being taken to solve intracity transportation problems. Specific information will be requested as to what steps have been taken, and what steps are planned, in regard to facilitating the handling of air passengers between the airport and city center. The Board will take this information into account in determining whether new air service to particular points is needed.

In addition, the Board has authorized new helicopter service which can improve access to the metropolitan airports. On November 18, 1968, the Board ruled in the Washington/Baltimore Helicopter Service Investigation (docket 17665) that a temporary certificate should be granted to Washington Airways, Inc., authorizing it to transport persons, property, and mail, on a subsidy ineligible basis, between the terminal Dulles, the intermediate points Washington National, downtown Washington, Friendship, and the terminal point downtown Baltimore. At the same time, the Board also issued a temporary exemption to Washington Airways authorizing it to provide service between any points within the metropolitan areas of Washington and Baltimore, on the one hand, and each of the three airports serving the Washington-Baltimore area, on the other hand. The Board noted in its decision that the existence of such a service could influence fixedwing carriers to shift existing schedules now provided at National to the less crowded outlying airports. When service is inaugurated, the Board believes that access to the airports and the downtown centers will be materially improved.

In the long run, services to these airports will be responsive to the passenger and freight traffic needs of the cities. In this connection, certain Baltimore parties have filed a complaint with the Board alleging that the transatlantic air cargo rate structure, as established by IÄTÄ agreement, discriminates against Baltimore-Washington and prefers New York-Boston. The Board views this matter with great concern. As you may know, the Board's jurisdiction over rates in foreign air transportation is limited, and the carriers establish their foreign rates by IATA agreements, which are reviewed by the Board under section 412 of the act. However, section 404 (b) of the act does forbid carriers from charging rates which cause any unjust discrimination or any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. The Board, therefore, issued an order on March 13, 1969, instituting an investigation of North Atlantic air cargo rates of IATA carriers between European points and east coast gateways, including Baltimore and Washington.

In conclusion, the Board has taken and expects to continue to take all necessary steps to aid the growth of metropolitan airports like Dulles and Friendship, to relieve congestion at National, and to insure that the National Capital region all receive the adequate and efficient air service to which it is entitled.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Crooker, on the proceedings which are now pending, I think the last one you mentioned was the domestic phase of the transpacific route investigation. Does that relate to the additional price per pound for transatlantic shipments sent out to airports other than major airports such as New York's Kennedy International? Mr. CROOKER. I alluded to an order entered last week which involved differences in charges in freight rates between Baltimore and Wash

ington on the one hand, and New York and Boston on the other where, across the Atlantic, the mileage difference may be 5 percent between either Washington and Baltimore and New York and the charges were 14 or 15 percent different in many, many cases.

The so-called Domestic Co-terminal Points Europe All Cargo Services Case is a proceeding that involves a proposed amendment of Seaboard's all-cargo certificate to include Washington and some other cities as new domestic coterminal points. The two matters are not the same, but both are pending before the Board.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Crooker, there are many elements or parts of the Government which are involved in making up our national and regional policy-the FAA, CAB, Department of Transportation, industry, the airlines, and city governments.

Given the independence of these various groups, how do you achieve a rational, coordinated regional air policy?

Mr. CROOKER. Mr. Chairman, at the time of the enactment of the original legislation in 1938, the CAB and the FAA functions were together in one body. We support the concept that these two functions be separated as they have been for many years now. The FAA essentially has the responsibility for safety and other operations and ours is an economic function. Of course, in this immediate area, the FAA is also the landlord at two of the airports but that is a situation that relates only to this immediate area.

We do not apprehend that, with the close contact we maintain_with FAA, there is no lost motion of significance in our work and the FAA's work in trying to pull in the same direction in formulating long-range government policy for promotion of air transportation. The Department of Transportation is slightly less than 2 years old, but it probably has the manpower and the appropriations and the general facilities and, at the Cabinet level, the muscle to give the leadership to long-range planning in the field of overall transportation in the limited area in which our Board operates. As a quasi-judicial body performing economic functions, we have tried to do certain things to further the concept of total transportation. I have mentioned two items.

First, we have encouraged all cities in pending matters to acquaint the Board with their plans for how they handle the passenger and his baggage at the airport and between the airport and the city center.

Last fall, we sent to the Secretary of Transportation an open invitation to make a position statement in any matter pending before us, particularly where environmental factors exist, i.e., air pollution, noise congestion. We instructed the Chief Hearing Examiner, some 5 or 6 months ago, that if the Department of Transportation sought to intervene or present a position statement that he had delegated authority to approve that request, but he did not have delegated authority to deny the request. He should come to the Board if he felt the Department's request should be denied.

We meet at least once a month with the National Transportation Safety Board people and FAA and, at less regular intervals, with the Department of Transportation. So, merely by way of correlation, we are trying to work with the other groups in trying to achieve some overall balanced transportation solutions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Spong.