Las Vegas City Commission Minutes, January 7, 1947 to October 26, 1949, lvc000006-478

446 Angeles, the City of Las Vegas, with the complete support of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and the Commissioners of Clark County, originally applied to the Civil Aeronautics Board on May 12, 1947, requesting the removal of the restriction which prohibits TWA from offering local service between las Vegas, and Los Angeles, This application of the City of Las Vegas was assigned Docket No. 2933 by the Civil Aer­onautics Board and was later consolidated in Docket No. 2019, the Additional Cali- fornia-Nevada Service Case. The City of Las Vegas, in its sincere effort to obtain removal of this unrealistic restriction, participated in all of the necessary pro­cedural steps with the Civil Aeronautics Board and developed a strong record show­ing the absolute necessity for the removal of the restriction. This record, in sup­port of the removal of the restriction, removes absolutely any possible reason for maintaining the restriction. This case involved may complicated and debatable issues but the Board has seen fit to maintain the restriction despite the fact that the re­cord does not support the restriction. The restriction is not a debatable issue. It is a clear-cut uneconomic and unrealistic handicap to the transportation requirements of this community and the financial obligations this community has undertaken to ob­tain adequate air transportation. 2. The record in this case proves beyond a doubt that Las Vegas has its greatest community of interest by far with Los Angeles, yet the Board inposes an obstacle in the form of this restriction between Las Vegas and the point of our great­est community of interest. Los Angeles is the primary market with which Las Vegas has historically and economically conducted all phases of its business transactions. Los Angeles is our main source of foodstuffs, building materials, manufactured products, and banking services. Los Angeles, likewise, is our largest customer in our very im­portant tourist business as is evidenced by the high percentage of Los Angeles visitors registered in our hotels. 3. The City of Las Vegas spent a considerable amount of money and time in participating in this case because the restriction, which fosters a monopoly, and which is contrary to the development of this community, should be removed. Our citizens and our visitors continually complain of the fact that they cannot obtain air transportation between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, and at the same time planes are operating between Las Vegas and Los Angeles with empty seats. This deplorable situation cannot be justified. The resort hotels in this area are nationally famous for their service and the facilities that they offer. These resort hotels, as well as other business in this area are restricted in their development by the restriction on air transportation as surely as if there were an imposed restriction to the number of rooms that they could offer to the traveling public. The Civil Aeronautics Board may not realize the fact, but it is nevertheless true, that the hotel and resort businesses require a high percentage of occupancy just as the airlines require a high occupancy of their available seats. The business interests of Las Vegas spend vast sums of money annually on promotional acti­vities in all parts of the United States, and particularly in Los Angeles, to attract visitors to this community. We know that a large percentage of this promotional work is being wasted if there is anything which restricts people from traveling to and from Las Vegas. The restriction on air transportation is a direct restriction on the business interests in this community just as definitely as if the individual businesses were named in the restriction. 4. The Civil Aeronautics Board, in its decision, mentioned "public detriment." We in Las Vegas have a perfect example of public detriment resulting from the restriction on air transportation. When the United States Government advised Las Vegas and Clark County that they wished to have exclusive use of the existing army Air Base in Las Vegas, which also served as a municipal airport for Las Vegas and Clark County, the citizens of this community approved a million dollar bond issue by a ten-to-one Vote to finance our share in the development of the new McCarran Airport. This airport, in operation today, represents and investment of $1,600,000 of the taxpayers' money, both federal and local. The ten-to-one vote by which the bond issue was passed, is positive proof that the cit­izens of this community fully realize the importance of adequate air transportation to the continued economic development of this area. Likewise, our citizens are good business men and cannot afford to, and do not intend to, finance "white elephants." Any restriction which prohibits the development of the necessary revenues to make this airport attain its proper function as a public service rather than as a public financial liability, is con­trary to the public welfare. 5. The restrictions, as it applies today to air transportation in Las Vegas, not only prohibits the developments of our business potential with the Los Angeles area, but in addition restricts our business relationships with many important communities to the East. Our hotel registrations show that we have a substantial number of visitors from the eastern part of the United States. Air service is available to these important communities, but it is likewise restricted in quantity due to the fact that the airlines logically cannot afford to operate their transcontinental schedules through Las Vegas in any appreciable number when they are forced to fly all these schedules with empty seats between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. We have heard and read a great deal about the subject of airline subsidies. The Civil Aeronautics Board should be interested in re­moving the restriction which prohibits airlines from carrying passengers when these passengers are readily and constantly available. Just how the Civil Aeronautics Board can justify such a contradictory state of affairs is beyond comprehension. The same factors which have motivated the local resort businesses to carry on extensive promotional advertising campaigns have resulted in the airlines' adoption of family fare plans and similar promotional activities to develop their business. The local hotels and resorts have their heaviest traffic on weekends, and they would most certainly welcome the full benefits of the family fare plan to stimulate their business in the first part of each week. The restriction has resulted in discrimination against local Los Angeles - Las Vegas passengers. The benefits of the family fare plan are available to our citizens and visitors to every point to which we have air service ex­cept to Los Angeles and to the points on Western Air Lines system where they furnish the only air service available. The removal of the restriction would automatically term­inate this discrimination. 6. No one can explain to the satisfaction of our visitors or our citizens why they cannot obtain air transportation to Los Angeles when seats are available. The traveling public objects to their restriction so thoroughly that they resort to