AIR TRANSPORT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 233, 16 July 1935, Page 2

AIR TRANSPORT

THE REFUSAL OF LICENSES. BOARD STATES ITS REASONS. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 15. Why the Transport Co - ordination Board refused permission to New Zealand Airways, Ltd., to operate services with five Boeing aeroplanes which it had purchased, was explained in the decision of the hoard on the company’s application for permission to run services, between Whangarei and Gisborne, Auckland and Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. The two first-mentioned applications were refused ; but the company was ‘granted a license to carry on a service between Timaru and Dunedin with six English machines at present in its possession.

“It will be noted,” ran the board’s decision, “that we do not include the Boeing machines, which have not received the necessary certificates. We take the opportunity of pointing 'out that one of the factors the board must take into account under Section 8 of the Act in any application for a license is the aircraft proposed to be used. In this case Boeing aeroplanes were ordered. some months after the Act came into force on' October 31, 1934, and even after the board had commenced the hearing of the ‘ trunk ’ service applications in February, 1935, the applicant was warned of the danger of purchasing new machines, and a report was read in which the Controller of Civil Aviation had expressed a marked lack of enthusiasm for these aeroplanes. The applicant company, therefore, cannot complain if the use of these machines is not viewed with favour at the present.” The report stated that the company applied to carry out regular services over three specified routes. Itoute 1 Whangarei - AucklandIlamilton - Rotorua ~ Whakatane - Gisborne, with extension from Whangarei to liussell as required. Route 2 —Auckland-Rotorua-Napier-Masterton-Wellington, with permission to call at places on route as required.

Route 3 Christchurch - TimaruCromwell- Queenstown- Dunedin, \yith the right to call at Roxburgh or Ranfurly as required.

“No Pressing Need.” The report adds: “We doubt if service over routes (1) and (2) is desira- . ble. At present there is no pressing need for- either service, and though all increased facilities for rapid travel may ,be desirable in some ways, other factors, including those mentioned above, must be taken into account. No evidence of any public demand which might indicate the need for such a service has been tendered to us. The preparation of landing grounds and navigational facilities on intended routes should advance further before they are reasonably safe for flying a regular service, and no attempt to do so ought to be made until the woi-k on these has made substantial progress, otherwise the result may be disaster. “If a license were granted, and machines were ready, it is probable that landing grounds, for instance, at Rotorua, which is the junction of the two routes, would not be available for the service to start as planned.” As to route (3) the board states that it / is more favourably inclined to this application. The service proposed is in no sense a main route, and is a feeder service to main ones_ which have already been granted licenses. The board upholds the objection to the route proposed between Timaru and Christchurch; but it is prepared to grant the applicant a license for the remainder of the proposed route.