Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/483/1284/155860/
Timestamp: 2020-01-24 06:15:20
Document Index: 13757780

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1301', '§ 1371', '§ 1301', '§ 1301', '§ 1301', '§ 1302', '§ 1301', '§ 1301', '§ 1371', '§ 1371', '§ 1301', '§ 1301', '§ 1371']

Saturn Airways, Inc., Petitioner, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent,dan-air Services, Ltd., et al., Intervenors. Lynn Michelletschirhart and Paul Jeffrey Tschirhart, Petitioners, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, Americans for Chartertravel et al., Intervenors.national Air Carrier Association, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, Dan-air Services, Ltd.,et al., Intervenors.transworld Airlines, Inc., Petitioner, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, Lynn M. Tschirhart Etal., Intervenors.pan American World Airways Inc., Petitioner, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, National Air Carrierassociation, Inc., et al., Intervenors.american Airlines, Inc., Petitioner, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, National Air Carrierassociation, Inc., et al., Intervenors.american Society of Travel Agents, Inc., Petitioner, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, National Air Carrierassociation, Inc. and Overseas National Airways,inc., Saturn Airways, Inc., et al., Intervenors.master Executive Council of the Air Line Pilots in Theemploy of United Air Lines, Inc., Petitioner, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, National Air Carrierassociation, Inc., et al., Intervenors, 483 F.2d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1973) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › D.C. Circuit › 1973 › Saturn Airways, Inc., Petitioner, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent,dan-air Services, Ltd., et...
Saturn Airways, Inc., Petitioner, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent,dan-air Services, Ltd., et al., Intervenors. Lynn Michelletschirhart and Paul Jeffrey Tschirhart, Petitioners, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, Americans for Chartertravel et al., Intervenors.national Air Carrier Association, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, Dan-air Services, Ltd.,et al., Intervenors.transworld Airlines, Inc., Petitioner, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, Lynn M. Tschirhart Etal., Intervenors.pan American World Airways Inc., Petitioner, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, National Air Carrierassociation, Inc., et al., Intervenors.american Airlines, Inc., Petitioner, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, National Air Carrierassociation, Inc., et al., Intervenors.american Society of Travel Agents, Inc., Petitioner, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, National Air Carrierassociation, Inc. and Overseas National Airways,inc., Saturn Airways, Inc., et al., Intervenors.master Executive Council of the Air Line Pilots in Theemploy of United Air Lines, Inc., Petitioner, v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Respondent, National Air Carrierassociation, Inc., et al., Intervenors, 483 F.2d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 483 F.2d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1973) Argued April 24, 1973. Decided July 11, 1973
"This case presents essentially a question of statutory construction. It grows out of the protracted and absorbing battle over the years between the regularly scheduled airlines and the so-called 'supplemental' airlines." Almost seven years ago we introduced our opinion in American Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 125 U.S.App. D.C. 6, 365 F.2d 939, 940 (1966), with those two sentences; we find them an equally appropriate preface to today's decision. The passage of time has soured rather than mellowed the pugnacious disposition of the scheduled and supplemental airlines, and we are once again called upon to exercise our judgment concerning the "liberalization" (if that beleaguered term is indeed appropos) of regulations governing the jurisdiction of supplemental air carriers to provide "charter trips . . . in air transportation." 49 U.S.C. § 1301(34) (1970).
* Supplemental air carriers are those certificated by the Board pursuant to a finding of public convenience and necessity to engage solely in "supplemental air transportation," 49 U.S.C. § 1371(d) (3) (1970), which is basically defined as "charter trips . . . in air transportation." 49 U.S.C. § 1301(34) (1970). The act of Congress providing for such certification, passed in 1962,3 purposefully avoided a delineation of the term "charter trips," leaving the Board with the task of "evolv [ing] a definition in relation to such variable factors as changing needs and changing aircraft . . .." American Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 348 F.2d 349, 354 (1965). In the past decade the Board has responded to the challenge in a painstaking, almost evolutionary process of developing comprehensive regulations which authorize various types of charter flights. See 14 C. F.R. Sec. 208.6. These include (1) "single-entity" charters, which involve engagement of an aircraft by one person for the transportation of others who pay nothing; (2) "affinity" charters, where groups having some community of interest apart from transportation, for example membership in a club, engage an aircraft for transportation to be paid for on a pro rata basis; (3) "inclusive tour charters," which involve the charter of an aircraft by an entrepreneur who offers space to the public as part of an all expense paid tour; and (4) "travel group charters," where individual travelers without a community of interest apart from transportation are organized by a third party and, subject to certain travel related restrictions, charter an aircraft on a pro rata basis.4
The Board action was challenged by certain scheduled air carriers who sought review in this court as to the domestic charters, American Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 6, 365 F.2d 939 (1966) [hereinafter "American Airlines II"], and in the second circuit court of appeals as to the transatlantic charters. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. CAB, 380 F.2d 770 (2d Cir. 1967), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 391 U.S. 461, 88 S. Ct. 1715, 20 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1968). Although American Airlines I had settled the question of the Board's basic power to evolve changing definitions of charter, the scheduled air carriers questioned whether the Board had exceeded the limits of this authority by failing to maintain the individually ticketed-group fair distinction that Congress desired. This line of attack required the courts to take a hard look at congressional intent in the passage of the 1962 legislation.
The Supreme Court's effort to relieve this conflict between the circuits was far from totally successful, for its consideration of the Pan American decision resulted only in a per curiam affirmance by an equally divided court. World Airways, Inc. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 391 U.S. 461, 88 S. Ct. 1715, 20 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1968). Although an affirmance by an equally divided Supreme Court is not "entitled to precedential weight," Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 192, 93 S. Ct. 375, 34 L. Ed. 2d 401, (1972), its restricted effect was to affirm the second circuit's decision, and thus while domestic inclusive tours were allowed by this court's decision, transatlantic inclusive tours were forbidden. Accordingly, Congress quickly passed legislation which expressly included inclusive tour charters within the definition of supplemental air transportation. Act of September 26, 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-514, 82 Stat. 867, amending 49 U.S.C. § 1301(33) (1964) (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 1301(34) (1970)).14 We note that the Senate and House committee reports enunciated that the purpose of the new legislation was to "clarify" rather than add to the authority of the Board as originally granted in the 1962 legislation.15
We have analyzed the record in light of the history-both litigious and legislative-of charter air travel. We adhere to the analysis and conclusions of our American Airlines II decision, and find that in authorizing the TGCs the Board met its obligations to encourage " [t]he promotion of adequate, economical, and efficient service by air carriers at reasonable charges, without unjust discriminations, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive competitive practices," pursuant to the mandate of 49 U.S.C. § 1302(c) (1970), and to maintain the legislatively desired distinction between individually ticketed and group travel.
We want to stress two items that have particularly influenced us, and which we have drawn from our review of this case and other experiences with this type of litigation. First, the test we must apply is result oriented-one cannot really know how the public will react and how the TGCs will affect scheduled travel until they are tested in the crucible of the marketplace. This is a situation in which, in Judge Leventhal's words, "a month of experience will be worth a year of hearings." American Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 359 F.2d 624, 633 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 843, 87 S. Ct. 73, 17 L. Ed. 2d 75 (1966). We can only look to the record, contradictory legislative history, and the purposes of the enabling legislation itself to determine if the Board's action is reasonable, and within its authority. We are loathe to be held out either as seers of the future or overseers of the air transportation system in this country. Secondly, the consistent lamentations and predictions of doom by diversion raised by the scheduled air carriers in the past have proved, to our way of thinking, to be considerably overstated. The actions of the Board in this area have provided for steady growth in both the scheduled and supplemental markets. and the public, as it should be, has been the primary beneficiary.16
Finally, we find nothing at fault with the Board's decision to forego an evidentiary hearing on the diversionary effects of the TGC authorizations. The Board stated that "insofar as the principal factual issues here involve largely unpredictable questions as to the traffic which these new rules will generate or cause to be diverted from scheduled carriers, they can best be resolved in light of experience gained through actual experimentation." 37 Fed.Reg. 20811 (1972). The TGC regulations and authorizations are temporary in nature, with a termination date set for December 31, 1975. 14 C.F.R. Sec. 372 A. 5. This is the best way to test the true effects of the TGCs, and the Board remains free at all times to adjust its regulations in the interim to adapt to unexpected results. The Board's experience with charter definitions in the past and the comments and oral arguments submitted to it led it to believe that this experimentation approach was the proper manner in which to proceed. We cannot fault such an approach.19 See American Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, supra, 359 F.2d at 633, and Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. CAB, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 455 F.2d 1340, 1344 (1971).
The Board's reason for requiring an independent organizer is almost disarmingly simple-it is a further mechanism for separating the supplemental air carrier from the marketing of individual tickets to the general public. In light of Congress' specific prohibition in the inclusive tour market, 49 U.S.C. § 1301(34) (1970):
Act of July 10, 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-528, 76 Stat. 143, amending the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 731, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq. (1970)
Trans World Airlines, Pan American World Airways, American Airlines, Braniff Airways, Delta Air Lines, Eastern Air Lines, National Airlines, Northwest Airlines, United Air Lines, and Western Air Lines are all certified pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 1371(d) (1) (1970), and thus are representative scheduled or trunkline air carriers
It is important to note that 49 U.S.C. § 1371(e) (6) (1970) provides that " [a]ny air carrier, other than a supplemental air carrier, may perform charter trips . . . or any other special service . . . ." Therefore, the scheduled air carriers can, should they so desire, compete with the supplemental air carriers in the charter travel market.
See generally the thorough analysis of the legislative history contained in American Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 6, 365 F.2d 939 (1966), and Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. CAB, 380 F.2d 770 (2d Cir. 1967), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 391 U.S. 461, 88 S. Ct. 1715, 20 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1968)
The Act of September 26, 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-514, 82 Stat. 867, amending 49 U.S.C. § 1301(33) (1964) (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 1301(34) (1970)), amended the definition of supplemental air transportation by providing, inter alia, that " [n]othing in this paragraph shall permit a supplemental air carrier to sell or offer for sale an inclusive tour in air transportation by selling or offering for sale individual tickets directly to members of the general public . . . ."
The bill which evolved into the Act of July 10, 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-528, 76 Stat. 143, was prepared by the Board and introduced in both houses of Congress early in the 87th Congress. See S.1969, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961); H.R. 7318, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). Following lengthy committee hearings and floor argument the Senate and House versions of the bill became strikingly different-the Senate version attempted a definition of "charter service," one which prevented individually ticketed service excepting that offered to "a member of a group on an all-expense-paid tour," while the House version contained no definition whatsoever. The conflicting bills were submitted to a Conference Committee which reported out a substitute bill adopting the House version, and eliminating the definition of "charter" found in the Senate bill. This bill was ultimately enacted into law
As both Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. CAB, 380 F.2d 770, 777-782 (2d Cir. 1967), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 391 U.S. 461, 88 S. Ct. 1715, 20 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1968), and American Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 6, 365 F.2d 939, 941-949 (1966), contain extensive analysis of conflicts in the legislative history, we find it unnecessary to repeat the discussion here.
Section (1) of Pub. L. 90-514 reads:
"(33) 'Supplemental air transportation' means charter trips, including inclusive tour charter trips, in air transportation, other than the transportation of mail by aircraft, rendered pursuant to a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to section 401 (d) (3) of this Act to supplement the scheduled service authorized by certificates of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to sections 401(d) (1) and (2) of this Act. Nothing in this paragraph shall permit a supplemental air carrier to sell or offer for sale an inclusive tour in air transportation by selling or offering for sale individual tickets directly to members of the general public, or to do so indirectly by controlling, being controlled by, or under common control with, a person authorized by the Board to make such sales."
The scheduled air carriers' contention that a hearing should otherwise be held as a matter of right because the Board's action amounts to altering, amending or modifying certificates of public convenience within the scope and intent of 49 U.S.C. §§ 1371(g) and 1372(f) (1970) is rejected. See Dan-Air Services, Ltd. v. CAB, 154 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 475 F.2d 408 (March 15, 1973)