RESPONDENT: Pan American World Airways Inc. et al.
LOCATION: United States District Court of Maryland
DOCKET NO.: 800
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1967-1969)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
CITATION: 391 US 461 (1968)
ARGUED: Apr 29, 1968 / Apr 30, 1968
DECIDED: May 27, 1968
Facts of the case
Media for World Airways, Inc. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 29, 1968 in World Airways, Inc. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 30, 1968 in World Airways, Inc. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
Numbers 800, 946 and 969 Mr. Scoutt rather --
Edward R. Neaher:
Mr. Chief Justice, I'm Mr. Neaher.
I beg your pardon Mr. Neaher.
Edward R. Neaher:
Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.
Yesterday in response to questions.
I touched only briefly on the background relevant to an understanding of the terms used in the 1962 amendment.
That background makes it clears that all expense or package tours or what the board now designates as inclusive tours, were never operated in the past as charter trips.
No carry, whether certificated or un-certificated, would have been able to do that because all what prohibited from conducting such tours, if you can call them that as charter trips.
The certificated carriers conducted tours of that type not under any charter authority at all, but under their individually certificated authority.
Now you must bear in mind that under the Civil Aeronautic Acts in 1938, the certificated carriers were given the broadest possible scope of authority.
Air transportation was defined as virtually everything subject to the regulations of the board.
It included individual ticketing.
It included charter services.
It included so called special services.
Now why was there a Section 40 (e) to which I referred to yesterday.
Section 40 (e) was concerned only with activities of certificated carriers off their routes.
On their routes they could sell tours as part of their individually ticketed services, when I say tours I mean what we then call all expense package tours.
Off their routes they could perform charter trips and it was in that connection as charter trips or special services that you found a grate many board regulations designed to make sure that charter trips were not used to infringe upon individually ticketed services off route of other carriers.
Now the boards own regulation as I say for almost three decades have recognized that basic distinction between the individually ticketed type of travel and the charter type of travel which did not involve directly or indirectly the solicitation of individual members of the public, or the individual ticketing of members of the public, or the use of travel agents to sell to the public for the purpose of providing the patronage for charters.
Now everybody agrees here I believe that the primary purpose of the 1962 amendment was to confine the supplemental carriers, hereafter from that point forward to charter operations exclusively and to keep them away from individually ticketed services.
As the conference committee report pointed out when it was talking about the Bill which became law, it said that under the House Bill the term, and I'm reading from page 199 (b) of the petitioner's of appendix, the legislative materials appendix.
Under the House amendments the House Bill the term “supplemental air transportation” did not include individually ticketed and way Bill services.
Therefore supplemental air carriers could not have had engaged in such services on a permanent basis.
The substitute agreed to in conference adopts the provisions of the House amendment with respect to the prohibition of individually ticketed and way Bill services on a permanent basis.
The Senate Bill would've done the opposite.
Edward R. Neaher:
The Senate Bill as its pointed out here would have included such services and those supplemental carriers under the Senate Bill could have engaged in individually ticketed services but the Senate Bill was rejected.
Now in a reply brief the petitioner, American Society of Travel Agents ASTA, while freely considering -- conceding that the supplemental could work prohibited from engaging in individually ticketed services, attempts to put a gloss on what individually ticketed services means.
It refers to them as so called point to point services.
That's essentially its principle contagion that individually ticketed services as prohibited to the supplemental carriers only meant that narrow area.
Well in the first place the statute on its face says nothing about point to point.