DOCSLIB.ORG

California's Air Pollution Hearing Boards

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
California's Air Pollution Hearing Boards UCLA UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy Title Fairness in the Air: California's Air Pollution Hearing Boards Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4kn150bn Journal UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 24(1) Author Manaster, Kenneth A. Publication Date 2005 DOI 10.5070/L5241019526 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Fairness in the Air: California's Air Pollution Hearing Boards Kenneth A. Manaster* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................ 2 II. HEARING BOARD BASICS ..................... 7 A . The M embers .................................. 7 B. "Getting Through" to the Members ........... 11 III. VARIANCES ...................................... 16 A. Variance Applications .......................... 16 B. The Questions to be Answered ................ 20 C . O rders ......................................... 34 1. Explaining the Findings .................... 35 2. D uration ................................... 39 3. Conditions ................................. 41 D. Interim Variances .............................. 47 E. Emergency Variances .......................... 52 F. Variance Variations ............................ 55 1. Product Variances ......................... 55 2. Links to Federal Law ...................... 58 G. General Observations .......................... 67 IV. ABATEMENT ORDERS ......................... 67 * Professor of Law, Santa Clara University; Visiting Professor of Law, Stanford Law School; Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP; Member (1973-1990) and Chairman (1978-1989), Hearing Board, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The author is grateful to the many people who generously assisted in his preparation of this article, beginning an embarrassingly long time ago. At Santa Clara, he was aided by Ralph Hoenle, Samantha Reardon, Eleanor Schuermann, Hilary Steven- son, Akshay Verma, and David Weaver, and at Pillsbury by Norman Carlin, Mere- dith Klein, Heidi Robertson, and Janna Scott. Helpful information also was provided by officials and hearing board members from many air pollution control districts, and most especially by the Hearing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. At the California Air Resources Board, the experience and expertise of Leslie Krinsk and Judy Lewis greatly assisted the author's work. 2 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 24:1 A. Burdens and Penalties ......................... 69 B. A Variance by Any Other Name .............. 70 C . Proof .......................................... 71 D. Terms and Conditions ......................... 73 E. Approaches to Abatement Proceedings ........ 76 V. PERMIT DISPUTES .............................. 77 A. Varieties of Permit Disputes ................... 78 B. Standard of Review ............................ 80 C. To CEQA or Not to CEQA ................... 84 D. Approaches to Permit Cases ................... 88 VI. CHANGES, CONTROVERSIES, AND CONFUSIONS .................................... 88 A . Changes ....................................... 88 B. Controversies .................................. 94 C. Confusions ..................................... 99 VII. CONCLUSION .................................... 101 I. INTRODUCTION Air pollution law is complicated. The statutes and regulations are based on technical knowledge, and educated guesswork, drawn from various fields of environmental and health science and engineering. The complexity and frequent uncertainty of that information contribute to legal mandates which are laden with technical jargon and are often reevaluated and changed.1 The complexity of these laws is compounded in California by this state's unique, multilayered division of governmental author- ity over air pollution. Another complicating factor is the unre- lenting political sensitivity of the topic. The political stakes are high for many reasons, with the economic implications of pollu- tion control topping the list. Despite this complexity, or perhaps because of it, there is no doubt that a lot has been accomplished to improve air quality in California, both before and since the federal government assumed its heavy role in air pollution regu- lation. There also is no doubt that much more needs to be done. There is recurrent doubt, however, about whether California's regulatory system is fair, especially in its treatment of air pollu- 1. See ROBERT L. GLICKSMAN ET AL., ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: LAW AND PoLicY 318 (4th ed. 2003) ("Chemistry, engineering, medicine, and meteorology in- teract with law to produce modem air quality control policy. Scientific understand- ing of air pollution is constantly in flux, which challenges air quality management schemes to stand ready for change."). 2006] FAIRNESS IN THE AIR tion sources and the specific communities they affect. This arti- cle examines California's air pollution hearing boards, an important regulatory forum with direct bearing on this question. These boards are unique in many respects, for they are not quite the same as anything else in California environmental and land use regulation. One of their most striking characteristics is that the hearing boards are predominantly composed of individuals who are not air pollution experts, even though the decisions they make usually involve technical questions, often of an extraordi- narily sophisticated nature. Most significantly, the hearing boards are a key feature-indeed the key feature-of Califor- nia's attempt to ensure that fairness is a consistent component of government efforts to clean and protect the air. Regulation of air pollution from stationary sources in Califor- nia is primarily the responsibility of local and regional air pollu- tion control districts (APCDs).2 In contrast, state government, principally through the California Air Resources Board (ARB), regulates air pollution from most types of motor vehicles. 3 The 2. CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 39002, 40000 (West 2006). See Beentjes v. Placer County Air Pollution Control Dist., 254 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1162-63 (E.D. Cal. 2003) ("The California Legislature has determined that local and regional authori- ties have the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources other than emissions from motor vehicles."); Sherwin-Williams Co. v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 288, 293 (Ct. App. 2001) ("The SCAQMD conducts the primary planning, rulemaking, and enforcement activities at the local level, and adopts regulations to control sources of air pollution in Los Angeles, Orange, River- side, and San Bernardino Counties."); Western Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control Dist., 777 P.2d 157, 162 (1989) ("Air pollution control districts are provided with the primary responsibility for the control of nonvehicular air pollution."); People ex rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino, 36 204 Cal. Rptr. 897, 903 (1984) (holding that local regulation of aerial application of phenoxy herbicides was not prohibited by state or federal statute.) ("Local and regional au- thorities have the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than emissions from motor vehicles."). See also Nicholas C. Yost, En- vironmental Regulation - Are There Better Ways?, 25 ECOLOGY L.Q. 564, 572 (1999); William Simmons & Robert H. Cutting, Jr., A Many Layered Wonder: Nonvehicular Air Pollution Control Law in California,26 HASTINGS L.J. 109, 125 (1974). 3. CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 39500 (West 2006). See Beentjes, 254 F. Supp. 2d at 1168 ("This general framework suggests that the State recognizes that certain aspects of air pollution control are necessarily a highly localized function."); Western Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Orange County Air Pollution Control Dist., 534 P.2d 1329 (1975); 2 KENNETH A. MANASTER & DANIEL P. SELMI, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMEN- TAL LAW AND LAND USE PRACTICE § 41.01 (2005). ("Local and regional authorities have primary responsibility for controlling air pollution from nonvehicular sources, while the control of vehicular sources is the [Air Resources] Board's responsibil- ity.") See also JAMES E. KRIER AND KENNETH URSIN, POLLUTION AND POLICY: A CASE ESSAY ON CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL EXPERIENCE WITH MOTOR VEHICLE AIR POLLUTION 1940-1975 (1977). 4 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 24:1 ARB also plays an important oversight role in stationary source control, but major responsibility there still rests with the 4 APCDs. There are thirty five APCDs in the state, now called either "air quality management districts" (AQMDs) or "air pollution con- trol districts." Most of the published literature on their functions emphasizes their rulemaking or enforcement powers or unusual policy initiatives.5 This article instead examines their adjudica- tory authority, for most of the major conflicts between regulatory authorities and stationary sources in California are brought into 4. See, e.g., CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 42362 (West 2006) (ARB authority to revoke or modify an APCD variance which does not require compliance as expe- ditiously as practicable or otherwise meet statutory requirements); Stauffer Chem. Co. v. California Air Res. Bd., 180 Cal. Rptr. 550 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1982) ("The statutory scheme empowers the Board to oversee the effectiveness of local programs and regulations .... "). For fuller discussion of the functions of the ARB relative to hearing boards, see infra Section VI. See also CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE ON AIR POLLUTION
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report to the Legislature: Indoor Air Pollution in California
    California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board Report to the California Legislature INDOOR AIR POLLUTION IN CALIFORNIA A report submitted by: California Air Resources Board July, 2005 Pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 39930 (Assembly Bill 1173, Keeley, 2002) Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor Indoor Air Pollution in California July, 2005 ii Indoor Air Pollution in California July, 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared with the able and dedicated support from Jacqueline Cummins, Marisa Bolander, Jeania Delaney, Elizabeth Byers, and Heather Choi. We appreciate the valuable input received from the following groups: • Many government agency representatives who provided information and thoughtful comments on draft reports, especially Jed Waldman, Sandy McNeel, Janet Macher, Feng Tsai, and Elizabeth Katz, Department of Health Services; Richard Lam and Bob Blaisdell, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment; Deborah Gold and Bob Nakamura, Cal/OSHA; Bill Pennington and Bruce Maeda, California Energy Commission; Dana Papke and Kathy Frevert, California Integrated Waste Management Board; Randy Segawa, and Madeline Brattesani, Department of Pesticide Regulation; and many others. • Bill Fisk, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, for assistance in assessing the costs of indoor pollution. • Susan Lum, ARB, project website management, and Chris Jakober, for general technical assistance. • Stakeholders from the public and private sectors, who attended the public workshops and shared their experiences and suggestions
    [Show full text]
  • TWA's Caribbean Flights Caribbean Cure for The
    VOLUME 48 NUMBER 9 MAY 6, 1985 Caribbean . TWA's Caribbean Flights Cure for The Doldrums TWA will fly to the Caribbean this fall, President Ed Meyer announced. The air­ line willserve nine Caribbean destinations from New York starting November 15; at the same time, it will inaugurate non-stop service between St. Louis and SanJuan. Islands to be served are St. Thomas, the Bahamas, St. Maarten, St. Croix, Antigua, Martinique, Guadeloupe and Puerto Rico. For more than a decade TWA has con­ sistently been the leading airline across . the North Atlantic in terms of passengers carried. With the addition of the Caribbean routes, TWA willadd an important North­ South dimension to its internationalserv­ ices, Mr. Meyer said. "We expect that strong winter loads to Caribbean vacation destinations will help TWA counterbalance relatively light transatlantic traffic at that time of year, . and vice versa," he explained. "Travelers willbenefit from TWA's premiere experi­ ence in international operations and its reputation for excellent service," he added. Mr. Meyer emphasized TWA's leader­ ship as the largest tour operator across the Atlantic, and pointed to the airline's feeder network at both Kennedy and St. Louis: "Passengers from the west and midwest caneasily connect into these ma- (topage4) Freeport � 1st Quarter: Nassau SAN JUAN A Bit Better St. Thomas With the publication of TWA's first-quar­ St. Croix ter financial results,· the perennial ques­ tion recurs: "With load factors like that, how could we lose so much money?" Martinique As always, the answer isn't simple. First the numbers, then the words.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview and Trends
    9310-01 Chapter 1 10/12/99 14:48 Page 15 1 M Overview and Trends The Transportation Research Board (TRB) study committee that pro- duced Winds of Change held its final meeting in the spring of 1991. The committee had reviewed the general experience of the U.S. airline in- dustry during the more than a dozen years since legislation ended gov- ernment economic regulation of entry, pricing, and ticket distribution in the domestic market.1 The committee examined issues ranging from passenger fares and service in small communities to aviation safety and the federal government’s performance in accommodating the escalating demands on air traffic control. At the time, it was still being debated whether airline deregulation was favorable to consumers. Once viewed as contrary to the public interest,2 the vigorous airline competition 1 The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was preceded by market-oriented administra- tive reforms adopted by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) beginning in 1975. 2 Congress adopted the public utility form of regulation for the airline industry when it created CAB, partly out of concern that the small scale of the industry and number of willing entrants would lead to excessive competition and capacity, ultimately having neg- ative effects on service and perhaps leading to monopolies and having adverse effects on consumers in the end (Levine 1965; Meyer et al. 1959). 15 9310-01 Chapter 1 10/12/99 14:48 Page 16 16 ENTRY AND COMPETITION IN THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY spurred by deregulation now is commonly credited with generating large and lasting public benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Severin Borenstein* December 31, 2010 Abstract: US Airlines Have
    Draft Comments Welcome Why Can’t U.S. Airlines Make Money? Severin Borenstein* December 31, 2010 Abstract: U.S. airlines have lost about $70 billion (net present value) in domestic markets since deregulation, most of it in the last decade. More than 30 years after deregulation, the dismal financial record is a puzzle that challenges the economics of deregulation. I examine some of the most common explanations among industry participants, analysts, and researchers — including high taxes and fuel costs, weak demand, and competition from lower-cost airlines. Descriptive statistics suggest that high taxes have been at most a minor factor and fuel costs shocks played a role only in the last few years. Major drivers seem to be the severe demand downturn after 9/11 — demand remains much weaker today than in 2000 — and the large cost differential between legacy airlines and the low-cost carriers, which has persisted even as their price differentials have greatly declined. *E.T. Grether Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley (faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste); and Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research (www.nber.org). In 2010, Borenstein was a member of the USDOT’s Future of Aviation Advisory Committee. Email: [email protected]. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Alfred E. Kahn who passed away on December 27, 2010. I was lucky enough to work for Fred at the Civil Aeronautics Board in 1978 and to speak with him occasionally since then about the airline industry and government regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Shares TWA Andtwu in .Agreement Game Fare
    VOLUME 47 NUMBER 5 FE�RUARY 27, 1984 Going Places: 'And the Nominees are ...' TWA and TWU GoodFood - In .Agreement It's enough to make your mouth water: a Local 540 of the Transport Workers Union 10-day gastronomic air tour across the (TWU) , representing TWA flight dispatch United States and Europe for winners of . employees, has reached agreement with The Sunday Times of London competition the company on pay, benefit and work rule promoting Egon Ronay's 1984 TWA modifications to the existing contract in Guide to 500 good restaurants . support of TWA's need for co�t relief. , "Good food is good food anywhere in Following opening of the contract for the world," Ronay maintains, "and while that purpose late in 1983 , the new agree­ it is impossible to evaluate a dish in abso­ ment includes: - lute terms, there is no reason why one • Term effective immediately through shouldn't express the same delight about Sept. 30, 1985. the clean flavor of a sea bass with fennel in • A 13% wage concession across the Venice , the light creaminess of a chowder term to be achieved through both reduction in Boston, the delicious blend of shellfish and deferral. and chicken in paella in Barcelona... " • Work rule changes to improve pro­ In setting out to choose 500 good restau­ ductivity. rants in 53 cities in 18 countries for this • Establishment of reduced "B" scale year's guidebook, Ronay assembled an in­ wage and benefit schedules for future new ternational panel "to reach a convincing hires. consensus.': They .were: Rafael Anson, • Profit sharing and participation in the secretary of the Academy of Gastronomy," Class 4 Special Pass privilege.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Cost Carriers: How Are They Changing the Market Dynamics of the U.S
    Low Cost Carriers: How Are They Changing the Market Dynamics of the U.S. Airline Industry? by Erfan Chowdhury An Honours essay submitted to Carleton University in fulfillment of the requirements for the course ECON 4908, as credit toward the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Economics. Department of Economics Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario April 26, 2007 Abstract : The year 1978 was a landmark year for the airline industry. It was the year the airline deregulation was introduced in the United States. Following the deregulation, many airlines set up operation across the country and started to challenge the dominance of traditional full service carriers (FSC) which translated to better service and lower fares for the consumers. However, the initial success of deregulation was short lived and by the late 1980’s most of the newly formed airlines either went out of business or was purchased by their FSC rivals. In spite of this, by the mid 1990’s, a new breed of airlines called low cost carriers (LCC) started to challenge the dominance of full service carriers in the short haul market. The LCCs did not provide any frills such as meals or in-flight-entertainment, but offered ultra low fares on short haul point to point routes. Today, LCCs have a strong presence in every market segment across the U.S with one third share of the domestic air travel market.. This paper will study how the LCC’s are winning the battle against the full service carriers and how the strong presence of LCCs has impacted the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Tesina De Valuación: Jetblue
    Maestría en Finanzas Tesina Final Tesina de valuación: JetBlue Alumno: Matías Lara Mateos DNI: 34.373.065 Profesor Tutor: Alejandro E. Loizaga Tesina de Valuación: JetBlue LARA MATEOS, Matías Buenos Aires, noviembre 2015 Índice I. Introducción ................................................................................................................................ 3 II. Industria ...................................................................................................................................... 4 II.1. Indicadores y conceptos ........................................................................................................... 5 II.2. ¿Por qué se necesitan estos indicadores? ............................................................................... 6 II.3. Datos y perspectivas ................................................................................................................ 7 III. Low Cost Carries (LCC) ........................................................................................................... 11 III.1. ¿A qué se llama aerolínea de bajo costo o LCC? ................................................................... 11 III.2. Características ....................................................................................................................... 11 III.3. Breve historia de las LCC ....................................................................................................... 13 III.4. Modelo de negocio. Comparación con Legacy o Full Service Airlines..................................
    [Show full text]
  • JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT Orange County, California CHRONOLOGY: 1923-PRESENT
    JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT Orange County, California CHRONOLOGY: 1923-PRESENT 2021 APRIL COVID-19 One Year Later: JWA passenger numbers have increased to 48% of pre- pandemic levels, topping 103,000 for the week of March 21, 2021. There were 10,251 passengers this same week in 2020. In addition to CARES grant funding awarded in 2020, the Airport is eligible to claim up to $11M in Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) funds, of which $9.9M is for Airport operating expenses and $1.1M for concession relief. JWA is also eligible to receive funding from the American Rescue Plan (ARP). The Airport continues to implement Healthy Travels measures throughout the Terminal. MARCH Southwest Airlines resumes flights to Cabo San Lucas and Puerto Vallarta. (3.11). FEBRUARY Allegiant initiated commercial service at JWA to the following new markets: Boise, ID; Grand Junction, CO; Medford, OR; Missoula, MT; Provo, UT; Reno/Tahoe, NV and Spokane, WA. (2.12). JANUARY COVID-19 Rapid Testing is offered by Hoag pre-security at JWA (1.18). 2020 NOVEMBER Spirit Airlines initiated commercial service at JWA. (11.17). Hoag Pop-up Health Fair opened at Thomas F. Riley Terminal, near Gate 10. (11.9). Hoag announced plans to open Fly Well Clinic in spring 2021. OCTOBER U.S. President Donald Trump arrived at JWA via Air Force One. (10.18) John Wayne Airport (JWA) ranked #2 among large airports in North America by J.D. Power's 2020 North America Airport Satisfaction Study, continuing its record of top rankings. (10.1) AUGUST The Board of Supervisors awarded ACI Jet and Clay Lacy Aviation the two full-service Fixed Base Operator (FBO) leases and Jay’s Aircraft Maintenance a limited-service FBO lease.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eagles Aerie Publication of the U•S Airways Soaring Eagles September 2018
    The Eagles Aerie Publication of the U•S Airways Soaring Eagles September 2018 ½ Eagle’s Aerie Summer September 2018 Page 1 Summer is starting to wind down in Terrell, NC. That means that the Soaring Eagles Convention is not far ahead. I am looking forward to seeing many of you in Tampa. Don’t forget to send a note along with your dues (or send updates anytime) telling us what you have been up to. This is always one of the highlights for me as I read the Aerie. I can only believe it is one of the highlight for others as well. I have just a little reminder, or perhaps it is a request. When you send me your dues or other checks, please don’t make them out to me personally. All checks should just be made to “Soaring Eagles”. Most of the deposits I make are “mobile” deposits done from my smart phone. The bank usually does not accept mobile deposits made to me personally even after I endorse them to Soaring Eagles. This is not a big deal but just a little reminder. And remember what I told you in the last Aerie! Rumor has it that Captain and Mayor Al Mondell plans to attend, play golf with Mr. Schofield and has told Butch to bring lots of money. Watching that event unfold will be worth the price of the convention tickets even if you don’t play golf! See you in Tampa, Paul Sturpe, Treasurer By the time you read this if you haven’t made your hotel reservations you missed the opportunity to get last year’s rate.
    [Show full text]
  • UFTAA Congress Kuala Lumpur 2013
    UFTAA Congress Kuala Lumpur 2013 Duncan Bureau Senior Vice President Global Sales & Distribution The Airline industry is tough "If I was at Kitty Hawk in 1903 when Orville Wright took off, and would have been farsighted enough, and public-spirited enough -- I owed it to future capitalists -- to shoot them down…” Warren Buffet US Airline Graveyard – A Only AAXICO Airlines (1946 - 1965, to Saturn Airways) Air General Access Air (1998 - 2001) Air Great Lakes ADI Domestic Airlines Air Hawaii (1960s) Aeroamerica (1974 – 1982) Air Hawaii (ceased Operations in 1986) Aero Coach (1983 – 1991) Air Hyannix Aero International Airlines Air Idaho Aeromech Airlines (1951 - 1983, to Wright Airlines) Air Illinois AeroSun International Air Iowa AFS Airlines Airlift International (1946 - 81) Air America (operated by the CIA in SouthEast Asia) Air Kentucky Air America (1980s) Air LA Air Astro Air-Lift Commuter Air Atlanta (1981 - 88) Air Lincoln Air Atlantic Airlines Air Link Airlines Air Bama Air Link Airways Air Berlin, Inc. (1978 – 1990) Air Metro Airborne Express (1946 - 2003, to DHL) Air Miami Air California, later AirCal (1967 - 87, to American) Air Michigan Air Carolina Air Mid-America Air Central (Michigan) Air Midwest Air Central (Oklahoma) Air Missouri Air Chaparral (1980 - 82) Air Molakai (1980) Air Chico Air Molakai (1990) Air Colorado Air Molakai-Tropic Airlines Air Cortez Air Nebraska Air Florida (1972 - 84) Air Nevada Air Gemini Air New England (1975 - 81) US Airline Graveyard – Still A Air New Orleans (1981 – 1988) AirVantage Airways Air
    [Show full text]
  • Ralph Olson Puts Ontario International Airport Under the Microscope To
    FEATURE ONT and by the following year the site was a early operations were limited both in title would not be officially transferred Ontario’s Terminal fully equipped Army Air Corps training frequency and destinations. until 1985. A joint powers agreement 2 is home to six UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operations base. Commercial airline facilities were included plans to develop the airport as airlines including I810102AOW2019 The P-38 Lightning, built by Lockheed mainly former military buildings with the the need arose. It was decided that Los China Airlines, which in Burbank, California, was the first terminal, originally built to house a chapel, Angeles would lead and Ontario follow, launched nonstop military aircraft to be seen with cinema and canteen for servicemen and with a commitment to a regional airport flights to Taipei in regularity at the now Ontario Army workers during World War Two. plan for the facility. late March 2018. Airfield (OAAF) where pilots were trained Although passenger numbers were All images author in air-to-air gunnery. Rookie pilots limited, the airport was still a beehive of More Routes Ontario’s fired at long sleeves pulled by modified activity. Three major aircraft producers Jet service debuted at Ontario in 1968 Lockheed Vega Ventura bombers. The – Lockheed, Douglas and Northrop – had when Pacific Southwest Airlines began airfield was also home to an operational huge facilities on site and the state’s Air Boeing 737 flights to San Francisco. This North American P-51 Mustang unit. National Guard (ANG) was also present. was followed a year later by Air California Operations and training ceased at the Runway extensions in 1952, 1956 and 737 flights to San Jose, California; end of the war and the army declared again in 1962 were funded by the ANG Continental Airlines 720Bs to Denver, the airfield as surplus on November 15, to accommodate its faster and higher Colorado and Chicago; and Western Secret Is Out 1945 when it went into inactive status for performance aircraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Regulation and Airline Passengers' Rights Timothy M
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 67 | Issue 3 Article 7 2002 Re-Regulation and Airline Passengers' Rights Timothy M. Ravich Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Timothy M. Ravich, Re-Regulation and Airline Passengers' Rights, 67 J. Air L. & Com. 935 (2002) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol67/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. RE-REGULATION AND AIRLINE PASSENGERS' RIGHTS TIMOTHY M. RAViCH* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................. 935 II. PASSENGERS' BILL OF RIGHTS .................. 939 A. THE IMPETUS AND HISTORICAL AT'TEMPTS ....... 939 1. The Origin of Passengers' Rights Proposals .... 940 2. Service, Competition, and Preemption.......... 945 B. THE INITIAL EFFORT (1999-2000) ............... 947 C. THE AIRLINES' RESPONSE AND COMMITMENT .... 952 D. THE FINAL DOT REPORT AND 2001 ............. 956 III. DISCU SSIO N ...................................... 958 A. WHITHER DEREGULATION? ...................... 958 B. CULTURAL DEVOLUTION ......................... 964 C. CONTRACT As PANACEA ......................... 970 D. DEMAND MANAGEMENT ......................... 976 1. (Over)Scheduling and Infrastructure .......... 977 2. Industry Consolidation and Market Entry ..... 986 E. SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: A NEW ROLE FOR AIRLINE PASSENGERS ..................................... 992 IV. CONCLUSION ..................................... 996 I. INTRODUCTION Airline passengers increasingly expect basic airline service as a matter of law and entitlement rather than as a function of busi- * Attorney, Hunton & Williams. J.D., cum laude, University of Miami School of Law. The author presented aspects of this Article at the "Fourth International Travel and Tourism: Policy, Law and Management Conference," Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, May, 2002.
    [Show full text]