Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, No. 14232.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtPRETTYMAN, Circuit
Citation104 US App. DC 78,259 F.2d 808
Decision Date26 June 1958
Docket NumberNo. 14232.
PartiesFRONTIER 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.

104 US App. DC 78, 259 F.2d 808 (1958)

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.

No. 14232.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued April 21, 1958.

Decided June 26, 1958.

Petition for Rehearing Denied August 20, 1958.


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.,

259 F.2d 809

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.

PRETTYMAN, 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Braniff Airways, Incorporated v. CAB, No. 20160.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 12, 1967
    ...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 None of these salutary principles of judicial restraint requires the court to accept meekly "administrative pronouncements clearly at varia......
  • Civil Aeronautics Board v. Delta Air Lines, Inc Lake Central Airlines, Inc v. Delta Air Lines, Inc, Nos. 492 and 493
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1961
    ...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 Page 333 is to the argument put forward by......
  • STATE OF MO., ETC. v. Coleman, Civ. A. No. 76-1683.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 8, 1977
    ...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 the Secretary's assertio......
  • City of San Antonio v. CAB, No. 20383
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 7, 1967
    ...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 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 Air Lines, Inc. v. C.A.B., 2 Ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Braniff Airways, Incorporated v. CAB, No. 20160.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 12, 1967
    ...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 None of these salutary principles of judicial restraint requires the court to accept meekly "administrative pronouncements clearly at varia......
  • Civil Aeronautics Board v. Delta Air Lines, Inc Lake Central Airlines, Inc v. Delta Air Lines, Inc, Nos. 492 and 493
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1961
    ...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 Page 333 is to the argument put forward by......
  • STATE OF MO., ETC. v. Coleman, Civ. A. No. 76-1683.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 8, 1977
    ...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 the Secretary's assertio......
  • City of San Antonio v. CAB, No. 20383
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 7, 1967
    ...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 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 Air Lines, Inc. v. C.A.B., 2 Ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT