AIR TRAVEL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIX, 1 February 1936, Page 8

AIR TRAVEL

COOK STRAIT SERVICE QUESTION OF FARES CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION The Nelson City Council at this week’s meeting discussed the question of lures charged by Cook Strait Airways on the Nelson-Wellington service. It was decided that the Finance Committee confer with Cook Strait Airways and report to the Council. Councillor J. Fitz-Gerald said he wished to bring before the Council the question of the fares charged bv Cook Strait Airways on the Nelson-Wellington service. The distance between Nelson and Wellington could be taken at approximately 80 miles. He had investigated the quitter and it appeared to him that tire rates were in proportion excessive. He then gave the distances of the route covered by Union Airways and the charges which were as follows: Falmerston North-Wellington, 124 miles, £2 5s (Nelson- Wellington, 80 miles, £2 ss): Blenheim-Christehurcli, 168 miles, £2 ]ss; Christchurch-Dunedin, 200 miles. £3 10s; Christchurch-Wellington, 203 miles £4; Christchuvch-Palmersion North via Blenheim, 292 miles, £5. His figures for distances were based on a Christchurch press report. He said tm> Transport Co-ordination Board would sit in February and would probably finally fix .*the Kvirways Tares. Under the Transport Licensing Act it was provided that the evidence of 'local authorities could be taken on such matters. In the first month Cook Strait Airways had carried 950 passengers on the seivme and 110 on local passenger flights. He considered that on the figures mentioned the Nelson-Weliington fare should not exceed 355. He moved that the Council make representations to the Transport Co-ordination Board for a reduction of the iare to 355. Councillor Fitz-Cerald pointed out that the fare originally proposed for the Blenheim-Wellington section of 30 nnles was 35s but representations liacl been made and it was reduced to 255. Neither the Progress League nor any other body had made any representations from Nelson, and if something was not done it would probably be taken to mean that Nelson was satisfied. It was a question if the facts should be pointed out by letter only or be supported by evidence as was done in Blenheim. Councillor G. P. Russell seconded the motion pro forma, to assist the discussion. , , , „ Councillor J. Glasgow asked if Councillor Fitz-Gerald had found out the cost of the machines, the depreciation and running costs. Councillor S. H. Moyiingh said he could not support a motion for the reduction of fares as there was no data before the Council to prove the case. Cook Strait Airways might have a good case and he moved as an amendment that the- matter of airway fares be referred to the Finance Committee to confer with Cook Strait Airways and report to the Council explaining the basis on which the fares were fixed, and that if necessary a special meeting )'“ held to consider it. In a way he thought the matter was outside the duties of the Council. . Councillor G. P. Russell said it seein/vl obvious that the Nelson-Weliington fares were too high. The Council represented the citizens and he considered ft. quite entitled to express an opinion on such a matter. He pointed out that the Nelson-Weliington boat fare was also too high in proportion to the distance and fare paid on the WellingtonLytteiton bout service. Councillor Fitz-Gerald pointed out that. Blenheim took action on the figures he had quoted and received a reduction of 10s. . Councillor S. A. Gibbs pointed out that on the figures given the charges per mile were: Palmerston North-Blen-heim, 4 l-3d; Nelson-Weliington, 6|d; Blenlieim-Weliington, Bgd; ChristchurchPalmerston North, 4 l-9d ; BlenheimCliristchurch, 4d; Dimedin-Christcliuvch, 4 l-sd; and Clirisichurcli-Wellington, 4 id. ‘Councillor E. R. Neale seconded the amendment as he considered the Council should not suggest the fare to be charged. He pointed out that for all passenger travel one paid more in proportion for short distances.

Councillor Gibbs considered the Council did not have sufficient data. They could not form their opinion on distance only. The Transport Board had laid if down as a general principle that land fares should lie about 2d, but in some eases it was up to 5d per mile. Some districts would be deprived of transport facilities if the general level of 2d was insisted upon. The amendment would allow the Council lo get more information. It was unreasonable to dcnuind a reduction of the Nelson-Wel-iingtou air fares at the present time. Councillor Fitz-Gerald: Blenheim did not hesitate.’ Councillors Gibbs: "But they are, still nayii'm more per mile than Nelson.” The Mayor (Mr U. L. Page) said that he understood distance was not the main cost in the running of air services. The actual cost of flying the distance was only about 25 per cent., the other 75 per cent, being made lip oi other charges. It did not matter if the length of a service was long or short, the same ground costs and supervision were- the same. Ground charges tor aSO mile service would be similar to those for a 300 mile service. He understood the Palmerston North-Bleniicim route could nut be compared with Nelson-Bleiilieim, because the former route was workable almost 365 days of the year, while iccords showed that the W eiungtou aerodrome Rongatai, was not workable on an average of 60 clays per year. That would lead to decreased revenue, .betore the Council couid say the Company was overcharging they should allow them to ran one year and then judge. It was a monopoly, and if an excessive charge was ocmg made then the Government ■mould investigate and take action n necessary. Up to the present Cook strait Airways Had had the advantage oi holiday travellers. It a cheaper route was tiesired people would go by sea. When speaking of the lares the Council would have to consider Hie taxi to and from Hie aerodrome at Nelson and from Rongatai to Wellington Citj, which were provided by the Company m the fares. He would like to see more investigation made before a price was sucro-csted. Nevertheless he the” point in Councillor Fitz-Gerald s ‘"councillor S. McArthur said he did not think the Council should sugges > fare but yet the matter could be placed before the Co-ordination Board for enql Councillor Fitz-Gerald asked if tlie fares were not fixed for a period of tlnee vears. He bad brought the matter forward in the public interest, aud he thd not care how the Council dealt with it. Councillor Gibbs explained that Ml I ransuort services were required to pio duce balance sheets and lull statements lo the transport authorities, and Rues could be reviewed from tune to ting Councillor Russell explained that he had seconded the motion pro forma and wished for further explanation of the position before a decision was come to The amendment on being put to meeting was carried.