“LAND CRUISES”

Evening Star, Issue 22193, 22 November 1935, Page 13

“LAND CRUISES”

HO. 9 AUTHORITY’S POLICY NO INTERFERENCE WITH REGULAR SERVICES An important decision has been given by No. 9 Transport Licensing Authority on the question of “ land cruises.” \Vhen the Authority, which comprises Messrs A. I. \V. Wood (chairman), J. Preston, and W. Blackio, sat in Dunedin earlier in the present month it had before it an application from the Mount Cook Tourist Company of New Zealand Ltd. for passenger licenses to conduct three land “cruises.” The Authority has now decided that where these would not interfere with the regular’services they could be granted, but they must bo refused if they interfered witn regular all-round-the-year services. Accordingly, the applicants have been permitted to operate two of the “ cruises,” but one has been declined. The decision stated that the Authority had carefully considered the application for a license for what were termed “ land cruises.” Included in the one application were three separate “ land cruises.” The Authority was of opinion that there should be a separate application for each “ cruise,” as different considerations applied to the different “ cruises.” At the sitting on November 7 evidence was given that the question of “ laud cruises ” was considered in Wellington by representatives of 54 passenger service operators. The present applicant was not represented at that meeting. A resolution was passed that local licensees should be given first opportunity of running any “ land cruises.” After carefully considering the matter the Authority decided to give a decision on each “ cruise ” separately. The Authority was of opinion, that these “ cruises ” to some extent created the traffic fdr which they were catering, and where thev would not interfere with regular services they could be granted. If, however, they were likely to interfere with regular aU-round-the-year services they should be'refused. “ Cruise ” No. 1 was to start and finish in Christchurch. The matter of the application was referred to No. 8 Licensing Authority, and it replied that it had no representations to make with regard to any of the “ cruises.” As this “ cruise ” covered a good deal of the ground already served by the applicant’s own service and there was no objections, the license was granted to operate No. 1“ Cruise,” as applied for. The all-inclusive fare was to be £ls, cruises to commence on November 1 in each year, and to terminate on April 30 in next year. Concerning No. 2 “ Cruise,” the applicant wanted to come to Dunedin, from which point it did not operate at all, and the cruise was to start and terminate at Dunedin. The cruise was to run through Central Otago to Queenstown and Wanaka, and then Mount Cook and back to Dunedin. This cruise would therefore cater for people who contemplated making the Lakes trip, and would, in the opinion of the Authority, seriously interfere with the local all-the-year-round services. People would perhaps be tempted to go by the “ cruise ” instead of by the ordinary services. For these reasons the authority refused the application to run No. 2 “ cruise.” No. 3 “ Cruise ” was to start and terminate at Queenstown, the decision proceeded, and the matter was referred to No. 10 Licensing Authority, and it replied that it had no representations to make. No objections were raised by any local operators to this “ cruise ” and part of the proposed route was al-

ready catered for by qne of the applicant’s own services. The license wa* granted to operate No. 3 “ cruise ” as follows: —Queenstown to Kingston by boat; Lumsden, thence to either Manapouri or Te Anau, Eglinton Valley road, returning via either Manapouri or Te Anau, Lumsden, Garston, Nevis road, Cromwell, Queenstown. The allinclusive fare was fixed at £6 10s. The “cruises'” are to commence on November 1 in each year, and terminate on April 30 in the next year.