Quiero saber acerca de...

10254
gram permitted by Part 225 continues to be successful and in the best interest of all concerned; that the authority has permitted the reduction of expenditures of carriers limited funds fpr advertis ing or increased the amount of advertis ing received from the same expenditures;
that the trade agreement program per mits the carriers to utilize more effective advertising media which would other wise be financially prohibitive, and has assisted the carriers in generating in creased traffic; that additional adver tising is necessary for the development of carriers routes and to exploit the full potential of new types of aircraft with which the local service carriers are presently equipping themselves, which necessitates advertising over and above that for which the present trade agree ment authority provides; and that expansion of the trade agreement au thority to accommodate certain types of air freight, such as television films and newspapers, would be of material benefit to the carriers and the advertisers.
The Board believes that it is desirable to extend this regulation for an addi tional one-year period in view of the continuing increase in the use of the regulation. The Board is. not, however, persuaded to increase the limitation on the total value of trade agreements from $100,000 to $150,000 or to permit trans portation of air freight. Part 225 is intended to grant the carriers covered thereunder a limited amount of relief from the need of paying cash for all of their advertising because of their rela tively limited funds and their depend ence on subsidy. It was never intended to cover the entire cost of such carriers advertising program. I t is significant to note that during the year 1958 the average total value of trade agreements under Part 225 for each of the local serv ice carriers and Hawaiian carriers was approximately $68,000, while through September 4, 1959, the average total value has been less than $67,000. The Board feels that the $100,000 figure R
certainly not insignificant and provides flexibility for each carrier in developing a proper advertising program. In addi tion, the extension of Part 225 to permit carriage of limited airfreight, i.e. news papers, television film, etc., would repre sent a further and unwarranted in-road into the basic principle that air trans portation should be sold, not bartered.
The Board found it appropriate to make only limited exceptions with respect to exchange between anair carrier and a party supplying services or goods for advertising purposes. As long as the privilege of using the air transportation provided pursuant to such an exchange is restricted to specified persons, the numerous safeguards embodied in Part 225 constitute effective prohibition against discriminating practices.
In support o f its request for cancella tion of the requirement of 225.9b that the individual issued an identifica tion card is entitled to use transporta tion thereunder only during a stated period of time, the petitioner states that such requirement prevents carriers with on-line charge account systems from incorporating the trade agreement iden
RULES AND REGULATIONS
tification cards into such systems, there by requiring two types of cards and addi tional expense in the administration of the trade agreement program.
The Board sees no merit in this requested amendment since the trade agreement program is very different from charge account systems. Under charge account systems, collection is generally made within 30 days for all transportation purchased on credit. Under the trade agreement program, however, there is no charge against the card holder, and there will be no collection in cash for transportation furnished under such program unless the air carrier uses less advertising under a particular agree ment than the amount of transportation used by the advertising supplier. It is therefore believed that the cards and accounts for the trade agreement pro gram should be kept separate and di stinct from any other cards and accounts maintained by a carrier, such as credit cards and charge account systems.
In connection with its request for re vision of the requirements of 225.3b to enable carriers to show only the dollar amount and published advertising rates in the notice of the agreement to the Board, the petitioner states that the present requirement has been found by the carriers to work considerable hard ships in administering the program by preventing desirable flexibility in pro graming advertising to be received.
However, the Board is aware that most carriers and their suppliers have elected to set forth in precise detail the exact number, type, and unit price of the ad vertising to be received under trade agreements they negotiate.
This re quested amendment would have the effect of enabling a carrier and supplier to alter the terms of such an agreement, and in substance to enter into a new agreement, retroactively without giving the Board the 14 days notice required by 225.2. It is believed that such changes without the required notice should not be permitted. Moreover, cer tain carriers so draw their agreements under the existing regulation as to achieve the programing flexibility which the petition seeks and still meet the requirements of 225.3b. The Board therefore believes that there is no need for revision of 225.3b as re quested.
V W ith respect to its request that 225.9
b be revised to permit carriers to issue family identification cards, the petitioner represents that the requirement $hat a card be issued for each individual au thorized to obtain transportation under an agreement requires the air lines to make out numerous cards, some o f which may be issued to minor children who are not capable of signing their own names, and that this situation could be corrected, and inconvenience and expense avoided for all if 225.9b were amended to per mit the issuance of a family card which would state thereon the name of the in dividual to whom issued and also the names of the spouse and each of the children to be covered by such card. The Board believes that such a revision would most, likely lead to use of a card by per sons other than the person to whom is
sued. I t is also believed that a separate card should be issued for each person in order to facilitate carriers main tenance of proper records o f trans portation provided under each trade agreement. Further, there is no pro vision in Part 225 with respect to sig nature of each card by the person to whom it is issued, and carriers may so draw their agreements as to permit the parent officer, director, or employee of the advertising supplier of children un able to sign their names to sign such childrens cards on their behalf.
The petitioner requests a modification of 225.9b to permit issuance of a card to a single individual in an advertising organization, who could then purchase transportation tickets for any eligible employee within the organization, on the grounds that such a revision would elim inate the need for issuing a number of cards, and also enable .organizations which prefer to vest responsibility for trade agreement travel in one person to accomplish their desires. The Board is of the view that such a revision would enable the person to whom the single card was issued to use the card for whom and as he saw fit, and would greatly hamper, if not destroy, the control of transportation used under a trade agree ment. Such a revision is therefore un desirable and contrary to the public interest.
The amendment herein effectuated will serve to continue the present provi sions of Part 225. The amendment to 225.6, paragraph 2, implements the Boards determination in amendment 4
to this part, 24 F.R. 4906, that the maxi mum aggregate value of trade agree ments entered into by each Alaskan air carrier should be $20,000 per year. In
asmuch as these amendments do not im pose any burden on any persons, the Board finds that notice and public pro cedure thereon are unnecessary.
The Board finds that the findings and conclusions which prompted the issu ance of this regulation continue to be applicable and valid.
In consideration o f the forgoing, the Civil Aeronautics Board hereby amends Part 225 of the Economic Regulations 14 CFR Part 225, effective January 1, 1960, as follows:
1.
By changing the date specified in 225.2 from December 17,1959 to De cember 17,1960.
2. By changing the date specified in paragraph a of 225.5 from January 1, 1960 to January 1, 1961.
3. By amending 225.6, paragraph b ,t o read:
b $20,000 in the aggregate each year for those airlines identified under 225.1
a 4 .
4. By changing the date specified in 225.13 from January 1,1959 to Jan uary 1,1960.
Sec. 2 0 4 a, 72 Stat. 743, 49 U.S.C. 1324. In
terpret or apply secs. 403, 404, and 416, 72
Stat. 758, 760, 771; 49 U.S.C. 1373, 1374, 1386

By the Civil Aeronautics Board.
seal
M a b e l M c C ar t ,
Acting Secretary. , F.R. Doc. 59-10729; Filed, Dec. 17, 1959;
8:47 a.m.