TAXIMEN WANT CITY’S REASON FOR CHARGES

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30739, 1 May 1965, Page 19

TAXIMEN WANT CITY’S REASON FOR CHARGES

The Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Taxi Proprietors’ Federation yesterday called on the Christchurch City Council to state publicly its justification for imposing a fee on taxis using the Christchurch airport. Mr B. O. Morgan, the branch secretary, said in statement to “The Press” that the minimum fare to the airport was now 9s because the airport had been included in the meter area. On the previous mileage basis the minimum fare was about 13s. He said the 9s fare would be uneconomic if it was loaded with the City Council’s £2 10s a year or 2s 6d a trip charge, which could not be passed on to the public. The service would then suffer, through no fault of the taxi industry. Mr Morgan said negotiations with the airport began in November, 1961; and nine months after the request was made, the taxi proprietors were granted a disengaged stand outside the main door of the administration building. Subsequently, a request was made for an engaged stand to cater for pre-booked orders because it had been found that the three-minute limit for dropping off and picking up was inadequate. Interview Given At an interview with the airport manager (Mr A. I. R. Jamieson), in October, 1962, the branch secretary was given to understand that an

engaged stand would be provided as soon as the road sealing was completed. The matter was again brought to Mr Jamieson’s notice on March 18 last year. An interview was arranged for April 14, said Mr Morgan, but the branch president and secretary were kept waiting for 35 minutes. “We felt that we had been treated with indifference,” he said, “and there appeared to be no visible reason for this action.”

The airport taxi service was discussed, and Mr Jamieson was asked to put the proposals in writing so that the branch members could consider them. The proposal at that stage was for a Is charge to be levied on all taxis using the airport with or without passengers, and for a special area to be reserved for taxis. Mr Morgan said the taxi proprietors considered the proposed area was too far away from airport activities to ensure smooth and efficient service. Alternative Proposal “On May 22, 1964, we suggested an alternative proposal which would not interrupt or disturb other airport traffic. At the same time we stated our objections to the proposed levy of Is on taxis only and stated that the collecting of airport surcharges should rest fully on the shoulders of the airport authority and not the taxi industry, quoting the conditions pertaining at the Wellington Airport. “On August 30 the airport

manager was advised that the scheme was not realistic or practical to the taxi operators.

“On August 24, 1964, the airport manager advised that the City Council proposed to make an annual bulk charge of £5OO on the Taxi Proprietors’ Federation, and install a telephone system, which in our opinion is not required as communications can be adequately provided by our present two-way radio systems.

“The commencing date for this annual charge was tentatively October 1, 1964. “On September 8, 1964, we advised the airport manager that the proposed scheme for a bulk charge on the industry was inequitable, unfair and contrary to orthodox business methods.

“At the same time public were advised of this proposed charge. On September 14, the airport manager asked for an early meeting with the executives of the federation, ‘to avoid further misunderstanding and unnecessary publicity arising.’ “At this stage it was decided to study the legal side of the question and our solicitor was engaged to provide the necessary information. The airport manager mistakenly took this action as a breakdown in negotiations and acted accordingly,” said Mr Morgan.

I think I loathe the pursuit of power—and most of the people who pursue it.— John Freeman.