AIR SERVICE PROTEST

Taranaki Daily News, 25 February 1935, Page 7

AIR SERVICE PROTEST

COUNCIL’S STRONG LETTER “FARCICAL IF NOT TRAGIC.” PALMERSTON-DUNEDIN ROUTE. .SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS. The Mayor of New Plymouth, Mr. E. R. C. Gilmour, has written to the Minister of Transport a strong protest against the proposed Palmerston North-Dunedin air service being granted a license by the Transport Board. Following is the text of the communnication: — “I am directed to inform you that the New Plymouth Borough Council views with amazement and indignation the pronouncement of the chairman of the Transport Co-ordination Board, which recently appeared in the Press, reading as follows: ‘ln our opinion the most important trunk route will be that which will operate between Palmerston North and Dunedin. The value of this route for the carriage of passengers, and more so for the carriage of mails, must be apparent to all.’ If it were not a tragedy and an intolerable injustice to the whole Dominion this pronouncement might well be received as farcical in the extreme. “There is a great desire on the part of the public of New Zealand that national airlines should be developed as quickly and as efficiently as possible. An essential part of any national airline must necessarily be the ‘trunk route.’ No route in New Zealand can possibly be termed a ‘trunk route’ unless it extends from Auckland to Invercargill, on a direct air line from north to south. Two applications have been made for a license for such a route, yet the board, in the pronouncement given by its chairman, indicates that it discards these in favour of a route from Palmerston North to Dunedin which it entirely erroneously described as a ‘trunk route.’ No route which leaves out one third of New Zealand’s population, one third of its area, and its two chief cities, can possibly be termed a ‘trunk route.’ ONE AERODROME IN ISLAND. “How erroneous the pronouncement is will be apparent when it is realised that the so-called ‘trunk route’ will include only one aerodrome in the North Island. No restricted route, such as from Palmerston North to Dunedin, irrespective of what branch services converge on its termini, can possibly compare in national utility with a real trunk service from Auckland to Invercargill. “The board commends the value of this restricted route for the carriage of passengers and more so for the carriage of mails. It prescribes an airline of 500 miles, and denies the probable ultimate development of 1000 miles, thus halving the usefulness of the service and robbing it of its proper function, which is fast transport over long distances. In regard to the carriage .of mails, it ignores the fact that all regular New Zealand mails to and from overseas are despatched from or received at Auckland and Wellington, and not at Palmerston North or any of the three South Island airports included in the restricted route. It also coolly ignores the patent fact that Auckland and Wellington, along with the bulk of the North Island omitted from the trunk route, would also contribute as much or more internal mail matter to air services as the reSt of the Dominion put together. “My council desires to make it .clear that it is not concerned with the merits of the different applicants for a license. It -is,' however, vitally interested to do everything within its power to ensure that any trunk air service established is adequate for the needs of New Zealand. It is firmly of the opinion that any trunk service which does not extend from Auckland to Invercargill will be entirely inadequate, and quite unworthy of public support. DEFENCE AND AVIATION. “The council is also concerned to endeavour to ensure that the policy of the board in the interest of both national defence and commercial aviation will be to encourage air services and to assist in increasing and developing them. It should not be the policy of the board, to deliberately hamper and stifle them in the manner indicated in the pronouncement referred to. . “We support the request of the Auckland City Council and the Auckland Chamber of Commerce that the board should sit at Auckland to take evidence. It also desires that the board should sit at New Plymouth on the way to Auckland for the same purpose. If this is not possible, my council desires that it may be heard by the board in Wellington on March 6. “The council has seen the letter addressed to you on February 18 by the New Plymouth Airport Board, also the leading articles in the Auckland and ■New Plymouth papers, commenting upon the position. It is in cordial agreement with the views expressed in the letter and leading articles referred to. As you will notice, I have, in the compilation of this letter, made very free use ofthe comments and views referred to. They were so frankly and clearly expressed, and so much in accord with the views of my council that I had no hesitation in using them. * “I am Sending a copy of this letter to the board but I thought it well to address it to you direct, as Minister of Transport, and let you know our views.