REFUSAL OF LICENSES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18759, 16 July 1935, Page 9

REFUSAL OF LICENSES

PROPOSED AIR SERVICES UNCERTIFICATED PLANES COMPANY HAD BEEN WARNED (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last, night. Why the Transport Co-ordination Board refused permission to New Zealand Airways, Limited, to operate services with five Boeing aeroplanes it had purchased, was explained in tho decision of the board on the company’s application for permission to run air services between Whangarei and Gisborne, Auckland and Wellington, and Christchurch, and Dunedin? The two first-mentioned applications wore refused, but the company was granted a license to. carry oii 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 Boeing machines, which have not received tho necessary'certificates. We take this opportunity of pointing out that of the factors that the board must take into account under section 8 of the Act in any appliaction for a licehse is ‘aircraft' proposed to ;bo used. ’ '| '"“In this ease, the Boeings were ordered some months after the Act came iiito force, on October 31, 1934, and even after the hoard had commenced the hearing of 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 favor at present.” SERVICES NOT DESIRABLE The report states that the company applied to carry out regular services over three specified routes: Route 1, Whangarei-Auckland-Hamilton-Rotorna-Whakatanc-Gisbornc, with an extension from Whangarei to,Russell as required; route 2, Auckland - Rotorua - Napier-Masterton-Wellington, with permission to call at places en route as required; route 3, Christehurch-Timaru-Crom-well-Queen sto\vn-Dunedin, with tho right to call at. Roxburgh or Ranfurly as required. The report adds: “We doubt if a service over either routes 1 and 2 is desirable at present. There is no pressing need for either service, and though all the increased facilities for rapid travel may be desirable in some ways, other factors, including those mentioned above, -must bo taken into account. No evidence of any public demand which might indicate the need for such service, was tendered to us. • “The preparation of landing grounds and navigational facilities on tho 'intended Toutcs should advance further before they arc reasonably safe for flying a regular service, and no. attempt to do so ought to be made until work on these has made substantial progress, ohenviso the result would be a disaster. If a license wero granted* and the machines wero ready, it .is probable that landing grounds, for instance, at Rotorua, which is at the junction of two routes, would not be available for tho service to start as .planned.” With regard to route 3, the board states it is more favorably inclined to this application. The service -proposed is in no sense a mail route,- and is a feeder service to the main ones already granted licenses. The board upholds the objection to the route proposed between Timaru and Christchurch, but is prepared to grant the applicant a license for the remainder of the proposed route.