Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 14232.
| Citation | 104 US App. DC 78,259 F.2d 808 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 14232.,14232. |
| Parties | FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent, Bonanza Air Lines, Inc., Western Air Lines, Inc., City of Phoenix, Arizona, City and County of Denver, Colorado, The Town of Farmington, New Mexico, et al., Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Jerrold Scoutt, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Harry A. Bowen, Raymond J. Rasenberger and Scott C. Whitney, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioner.
Mr. O. D. Ozment, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Litigation and Research, Civil Aeronautics Bd., with whom Mr. Franklin M. Stone, Gen. Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Bd., Mr. John H. Wanner, Associate Gen. Counsel, Civil Aeronautics Bd., and Mr. Daniel M. Friedman, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondent.
Mr. William C. Burt, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Robert Matthew Beckman and Albert F. Grisard, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for intervenor Bonanza Air Lines, Inc. Mr. James F. Bell, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. L. Welch Pogue, Philip A. Fleming, Washington, D. C., and John W. Simpson, Los Angeles, Cal., were on the brief, for intervenor Western Air Lines, Inc.
Mr. Berl I. Bernhard, Washington, D. C., for intervenor City of Phoenix, Ariz. Messrs. James M. Verner and William O. Turney, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for intervenor City of Phoenix, Ariz.
Mr. Brackley Shaw, Washington, D. C., for intervenor Town of Farmington, New Mex., and certain other intervenors.
Messrs. Gerald G. Schulsinger and James L. Kaler, Washington, D. C., entered appearances for intervenor City and County of Denver, Colo.
Before PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge, MADDEN, Judge, United States Court of Claims,1 and FAHY, Circuit Judge.
This is a petition to review orders of the Civil Aeronautics Board awarding two airline routes. The facts, being in large part geographical and in large part economic, are difficult to state or to summarize.
The City of Phoenix, Arizona, petitioned the Board for improved air service, having in mind its "expanding economy as one of the leading tourist, industrial, educational, cultural, governmental and agricultural centers in the Southwest". It was particularly interested in service to and through Denver and Salt Lake City, and to Los Angeles. A number of airline companies applied for a certificate to render the increased service. The Board set the matter for comparative hearing.
As of that time the situation, in broad general outline, was that Bonanza Air Lines, Inc., a comparatively small carrier, served a route with several stops between Reno and Phoenix and between Phoenix and Los Angeles-San Diego; Frontier Airlines, Inc., a somewhat larger carrier, served routes north and south from near the Canadian border to near the Mexican border, through such cities as Billings, Salt Lake, Phoenix and Albuquerque, and it operated a many-stop route between Denver and Phoenix; Western Air Lines, Inc., is a trunk-line extending west from Minneapolis-St. Paul to the coast through Salt Lake City and Denver, and also extending north along the Rockies to Calgary and Edmonton. There were other applicants for the new Phoenix service. The Board awarded Western the Denver-Phoenix through route, with an added segment to San Diego, awarded Bonanza the Salt Lake-Phoenix route, and amended Frontier's six-stop Denver-Phoenix certificate to permit two-stop flights.
Many considerations pro and con were discussed in the examiner's report and in the decision of the Board, but basically the award of the non-stop certificate for the Denver route was because Western was a trunk-line and the needs of this traffic were for trunk-line service; the award of the Los Angeles segment was because Phoenix needed that service and the traffic to the Northwest was principally trunk-line; the award to Bonanza was because it was in the field and it needed this strengthening.
The Commission itself discussed in its original opinion only those points upon which it disagreed with the examiner; otherwise it adopted his findings and conclusions, attaching them as an appendix to its opinion. It discussed in detail its award of a multi-stop route between Salt Lake City and Phoenix and amply supported its conclusion. This called for a local service carrier. The Board was of opinion that the direct route and the multi-stop route should be operated by the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Braniff Airways, Incorporated v. CAB, 20160.
...judgment." Lake Central Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 226, 228, 239 F.2d 46, 48 (1956); see Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 80, 259 F.2d 808, 810 (1958). None of these salutary principles of judicial restraint requires the court to accept meekly "administrative......
-
Civil Aeronautics Board v. Delta Air Lines, Inc Lake Central Airlines, Inc v. Delta Air Lines, Inc
...cases, petitioners again are unable to cite any holdings on point. Petitioners rely heavily on Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 259 F.2d 808, 810, but the dispute here involved was not raised in that case. The closest analogy in Frontier is to the arg......
-
STATE OF MO., ETC. v. Coleman
...at hand is inapposite to that in the Braniff case. The present facts more closely approach the facts in Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 259 F.2d 808, 810 (1953), where the circuit Court of Appeals upheld the actions of the 33 The Missouri parties contend that despite th......
-
City of San Antonio v. CAB
...or "back-up" traffic may be considered by the Board in acting on the applications of such carriers. See Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. C.A.B., 104 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 259 F.2d 808 (1958). 4 See, e. g., Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. F.C.C., 326 U.S. 327, 66 S.Ct. 148, 90 L.Ed. 108 (1945). Cf. Eastern Ai......