STATEMENT OF ROSS RIZLEY, CHAIRMAN, CIVIL AERONAUTICS

BOARD

Mr. RIZLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Board is very pleased to have this opportunity to present its views on S. 1855, a bill to amend the Federal Airport Act, which your committee is considering today.

As the members of the committee are aware, the Board has only a general advisory function in connection with the administration of the Federal Airport Act, the Secretary of Commerce being required to consult the Board in connection with the formulation and revision of the national airport plan each year. Accordingly, we are by no means experts in the administration and details of the Federal Airport Act, and our comments on the bill will accordingly be quite general in nature and addressed primarily to the need for a strong airport program rather than to the mechanics by which it is accomplished.

The Board believes that there is a definite need for more airports and for improvements on many existing airports. Over the period of the last 4 years, during which time the present Federal Airport Act was fully functioning, the Board has authorized air carriers to suspend service at 88 points throughout the country because of inadequate airport conditions. Almost all of these suspensions were for local service carrier points. The great majority of the suspensions were granted because no airport adequate for air carrier use existed at the point at all rather than because an existing airport fell into disrepair.

Six of the suspensions have now been lifted because a suitable airport has become available. However, in the case of 82 points, suspensions are either still in existence, or the point has been eliminated from the carrier's certificate upon renewal because of lack of suitable airport facilities. Each one of these suspensions of service operates to the detriment of air service to the locality involved, and in some measure at least impedes the development of local service air transportation.

We believe that these figures definitely establish a need for a continued and vigorous airport program. True, reexamination might indicate a lack of economic justification for service into some of these points, and we certainly do not recommend the building of airports unless there is a real public need for them.

In the main, however, the Board is convinced there is a real need for more airports. As the Board views it, the need lies in two fieldsfirst, the building of new airports at suitable locations in order to permit the sound development of local service air transportation and to make this service available to a greater number of our citizens. Secondly, expanded facilities will increasingly become needed at busy metropolitan centers, where booming traffic is already overtaxing hard-pressed facilities.

We understand from the Department of Commerce that there are substantial financial needs for the operation of the Federal airways, air-navigation facilities, and development planning in the safety field, which we believe are highly important as well. They are bound to become increasingly important as traffic gains continue and as turbinepowered aircraft are put into service.

In the last analysis it is our belief that the air-transportation system, as we know it, is dependent upon several elements. Obviously, there must be air carriers to provide the transportation, but unless they have available to them modern aircraft capable of performing the service efficiently, safely, and rapidly, the service will suffer.

In short, the Board is of the opinion that each aspect of governmental aid to aviation should be examined as to its relationship to the whole program, and that no part of Government participation should be allowed to fall behind or far outdistance the other aspects.

As the arm of Congress charged with the duty of regulation of air transportation, the Board is not in a position to advise the committee with respect to the relative importance of airports as compared to airways aids and other navigational facilities. This is an operational matter in the hands of the executive branch, and we think the recommendation should come from the people who deal with the subject from day to day.

The Board does believe it quite important to have a certain stability in any program Congress may undertake with respect to airports, so that plans may be made by the States and local communities in reliance thereon. This stability would also help the Board in its certificate work so that the suspensions of service which have been experienced in the past 3 years will not be repeated in such number in the future.

However, the exact form by which this added stability is attained is, in the Board's opinion, a matter coming primarily under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce and the Bureau of the Budget. And whether it is attained by contract authorization authority or by some other means would appear to be a matter of detail of adminis

tration.

The large majority of the detailed provisions of S. 1855 affect the specific administration and operation of the Federal Airport Act, and consequently the Board will not comment thereon. However, on one point, the Board does have an interest. S. 1855 would amend the present Federal Airport Act expressly to permit the grant of funds with respect to passenger or freight terminal buildings. We understand that this discretion is now contained in the general language of section 2 (3) of the Federal Airport Act, and whether this provision requires clarification along the lines proposed in S. 1855 is a matter on which we express no opinion. The Board does, however, believe that continuation of this discretionary authority in the Secretary is desirable, since at many airports the Board is of the opinion that passenger and freight-handling facilities are becoming woefully inadequate.

Whether the desired building program can now be achieved solely through the medium of private investment is again a matter on which the people concerned with the administrative details of the program can best testify. It is quite probable that the tremendous and continuing growth of airline traffic should make concessionaire space in terminal buildings increasingly valuable with a resultant ability on the part of the concessionaires to shoulder a greater amount of the financial burden of adequate terminal facilities.

Notwithstanding this potentiality, the Board believes that the Secretary should have continuing discretionary authority to make grants for terminal buildings should the need arise.

One further point: last year when amendments to the Federal Airport Act were being considered by this committee, the Board was requested by Senator Bricker to comment upon the possible adverse economic impact of excluding terminal buildings on the air carriers serving these points. We said in reply that the studies of airport charges which the Board had made up to that time did—

not indicate any appreciable difference in level irrespective of whether Federal funds have been used in the construction of buildings or not. In other words, it appears that factors other than Government construction aid have played a predominant part in arriving at the amount of charges for terminal space. We believe this situation to remain basically the same today. The Board also stated in reply to Senator Bricker that—

It is also possible, of course, that without Federal aid terminal buildings may be somewhat less adequate. Local communities may spend on such terminal buildings only that amount which they would have spent had there been a grant under the Federal Airport Act. The result of such course of action would be that the terminal buildings might be less elaborate, and perhaps barely adequate

The Board believes that this is further justification for retention of discretionary authority to make grants for terminal building construction should the need arise.

Mr. Chairman, this ends the Board's formal presentation on S. 1855. Due to the shortness of time this statement has not been cleared with the Bureau of the Budget as to its relationship to the program of the President.

Senator MONRONEY. Mr. Rizley, one of the fundamental duties of the Civil Aeronautics Board is the provision for air safety, is it not? Mr. RIZLEY. That is right.

Senator MONRONEY. Would not you say that the present condition, particularly in relationship to the overcrowded airports at the larger terminals presents a traffic hazard today that must be dealt with? Mr. RIZLEY. I think so, Senator.

Senator MONRONEY. And do you think that there is any way possible that this could be met without a matching program of Federal funds adequate to either enlarge the airports or, in some cases, to duplicate those facilities in another adjacent-or another portion of the area that would not conflict with the flight pattern?

Mr. RIZLEY. Well, I wouldn't know of any way generally that you could do that. It would certainly be true here in Washington.

Senator MONRONEY. And it is largely true in many other metropolitan areas, is it not?

Mr. RIZLEY. Well, I would imagine so. Of course, I suppose in metropolitan cities-some of the larger cities, if they wanted to put up their own funds, they could do it.

Senator MONRONEY. But in regard to your statement I notice you hold out the hope that these could be self-sustaining, due to leases from concessionaires and landing fees and other things.

Mr. RIZLEY. That's right.

Senator MONRONEY. Are any of the airports that you know of actually self-sustaining?

Mr. RIZLEY. I don't think I would have enough information to answer that question. There are none that I know of, but there may be some.

Senator MONRONEY. I mean, some of them raise enough money to help them with current costs, but I do not think any of them are capable of retiring the cost of the airport.

Mr. RIZLEY. I expect that's true, Senator.

Senator MONRONEY. The continuing load of passengers, also, makes it absolutely necessary that something be done at an early time to relieve the congestion not only in the landing areas but also the terminals, does it not?

Mr. RIZLEY. That is correct.

Senator MONRONEY. And testimony later, I presume, will show—I wish you would give us for the record the percentage increase each year that has occurred in air travel.

Mr. RIZLEY. Yes; we may have that information here now. No. We can supply it.

Senator MONRONEY. Would you submit that for the record? mean, go back about 10 years and show the number of passengers enplaned and deplaned on the airlines.

Mr. RIZLEY. We can get that.

(The information requested follows:)

Domestic air carrier passenger traffic and change from previous year, 1946-54

NOTE. Based on figures for domestic trunklines, local service carriers, helicopter carriers, Hawaiian Airlines, and Trans-Pacific Airlines.

Senator MONRONEY. It would not come under your Department on the amounts of money that have been spent by the Federal Government on airport improvement by the past airport programs?

Mr. RIZLEY. Maybe. Not the money. We have the amount that has been appropriated, I believe, each year.

Senator MONRONEY. You mean for each year?

Mr. RIZLEY. Yes; we do.

Senator MONRONEY. Would you read that?

Mr. RIZLEY. 1947, $42,750; 1948, $35,662,000; 1949, $36,817,000; 1950, $36,500,000; 1951, $21,200,000; 1952, $15,850,000; 1953, $10,250,000; 1954, nothing; 1955, $20.750,000.

Senator MONRONEY. And 1956?

Mr. RIZLEY. $11 million requested.

Senator MONRONEY. Oh, I see. The $20 million is the figure that we are operating under today?

Mr. RIZLEY. That's right.

Senator MONRONEY. The House, I understand, has a figure of $20 million?

Mr. RIZLEY. That's right.

Senator MONRONEY. Do you think that list would show that we are giving adequate Federal financing to this dynamic mode of transportation?

Mr. RIZLEY. Well, my personal opinion-I don't know what my Board will think about the question; we didn't discuss that--but my personal opinion-that's a pretty small sum. Of course, it may be the communities could help a little more than they have, Senator.

Senator MONRONEY. Well, I think the communities are doing a great deal of work in raising the matching amount. And now, since the very inadequate appropriations have been made, including the withholding of any appropriations in 1954, $10 million in 1953, and only $20 million in 1955, many of the municipalities have just given up on Federal aid and have gone ahead to try and make meager, makeshift improvements on their own.

The airport construction has just been almost on deadcenter since about 1952.

Mr. RIZLEY. I notice that it is gradually going down each year. Senator MONRONEY. And yet the traffic load and the use of aircraft-and now with the jet plane and turbojets and other planes needing longer and probably heavier runways coming in, we are tapering off to almost nothing in the development of our air facilities.

Mr. RIZLEY. That's right. Of course, there are probably two schools of thought on it. Some people take the position that insofar as the terminals themselves are concerned, that they should be built by the municipality. As I say, that is a matter that is not under the jurisdiction of the Board. We are leaving that up to the people who do have jurisdiction.

Senator MONRONEY. Well, as I gather from your statement, you are strongly in favor of the clarification that is contained in this language making it possible, if the Secretary so determines, to construct not only passenger, but also the freight facilities.

Mr. RIZLEY. That's right, that's right.

Senator MONRONEY. Do you not think that that freight facility matter is of prime importance? I mean, you are charged with developing an all-around aviation industry. We have developed a great passenger industry, but we are still lagging very far behind in freight. We have a very ineffective, insufficient, and meager freight service. Mr. RIZLEY. Woefully so, all over the country.

Senator MONRONEY. Yet the possibilities of that could be extremely great.

Mr. RIZLEY. Oh, yes.

Senator MONRONEY. It would seem to me that one of the objectsand I am glad it was incorporated in a bill-was providing for funds to match local funds on freight terminals, since no airport that I have ever been at is handling freight on a modern basis.

Mr. RIZLEY. That's right.

Senator MONRONEY. And it is entirely possible--I have seen some drawings of new freight loading plans that would provide for laborsaving devices that would move automatically, almost from truck to plane, this freight. And it would not only speed it, but would cut down the cost tremendously of the hand loading that has in the past featured practically all airfreight business.