British Overseas Airways Corp., British West Indian Airways, Ltd., & Bahamas Airways, Ltd. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors. Scandinavian Airlines Sys. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors. Societe Anonyme Belge D'Exploitation De La Navigation Aerienne (Sabena) v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors. Klm Royal Dutch Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors, 304 F.2d 952 (D.C. Cir. 1962). · Go Syfert
Search
British Overseas Airways Corp., British West Indian Airways, Ltd., & Bahamas Airways, Ltd. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors. Scandinavian Airlines Sys. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors. Societe Anonyme Belge D'Exploitation De La Navigation Aerienne (Sabena) v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors. Klm Royal Dutch Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors, 304 F.2d 952 (D.C. Cir. 1962). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
43 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Charles Coles Diggs v. Civil Aeronautics Board, South African Airways, Intervenor (cadc, 1975-08-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1962 1994 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charles Coles Diggs v. Civil Aeronautics Board, South African Airways, Intervenor
D.C. Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
British Overseas Airways Corp. v. CAB, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 76 , 304 F.2d 952 *1250 (1962); Dan-Air Services, Ltd. v. CAB, 154 U.S.App.D.C. 297 , 300-301, 475 F.2d 408 , 411-412 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pan American-Grace Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Master Executive Councils of Pilots of Braniff Airways, Inc., and Pan American-Grace Airways, Inc., Lufthansa German Airlines and Pan American World Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Master Executive Councils of Pilots of Braniff Airways, Inc., and Pan American-Grace Airways, Inc., Lufthansa German Airlines and Pan American World Airways, Inc., Intervenors
D.C. Cir. · 1965 · confidence medium
D.C. 76, 77, 304 F.2d 952, 953 (1962), is applicable to this case: "The prohibition [against appeal] cannot be circumvented by the expedient attempted here." Notes: 1 In his letter to the Attorney General with respect to this case, the Secretary of State states, in part: "It is our view that any substantial delay in the processing of Lufthansa's application, whether for a period of months or years, will severely compromise our international aviation relations and will impair our ability to negotiate effective exchanges of air routes with other countries.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pan American-Grace Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board
D.C. Cir. · 1964 · confidence medium
D.C. 76, 77, 304 F.2d 952, 953 (1962), is applicable to this case: “The prohibition [against appeal] cannot be circumvented by the expedient attempted here.” .
discussed Cited "see" Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., Alan S. Boyd, as Individuals and Members of the Civil Aeronautics Board v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See British Overseas Airways Corp. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 113 U.S.App.D.C. 76 , 304 F.2d 952 (1962); United States Overseas Air v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 95 U.S.App.D.C. 363 , 222 F.2d 303 (1955); see also Trans World Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 184 F.2d 66 (2d Cir., 1950) 6 Of course, it is possible that the Board's action will be of a character not requiring submission to the President or the taking of any action on his part
discussed Cited "see" Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See British Overseas Airways Corp. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 113 U.S.App.D.C. 76 , 304 F.2d 952 (1962); United States Overseas Air v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 95 U.S.App.D.C. 363 , 222 F.2d 303 (1955); see also Trans World Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 184 F.2d 66 (2d Cir., 1950). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Braniff Airways, Inc., a Corporation v. Civil Aeronautics Board, , American Airlines, Inc., Intervenor. Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, American Airlines, Inc., United States of America, Delta Air Lines, Inc., City of Kansas City, Missouri and Chamber of Commerce of Greater Kansas City, Intervenors. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, American Airlines, Inc. And Delta Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc. And City of Kansas City, Missouri, Intervenors. Ozark Air Lines, Inc., a Corporation v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Delta Air Lines, Inc. And American Airlines, Inc., Intervenors (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also British Overseas Airways Corp. v. CAB 113 U.S.App.D.C. 76 , 304 F.2d 952 , 953, (1962); United States Overseas Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 363 , 222 F.2d 303, 304 (1955). 14 Echoing Waterman, Judge Burger supported this latter statement by noting that "the President must be free to consider broad 'evidentiary' policy factors not involved, and indeed not relevant, in Board proceedings and that the President must be free to exercise unreviewable discretion as to the weight to be given to such extrajudicial factors." American Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 121 U.S.App.D.C. at 123, 348…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also British Overseas Airways Corp. v. CAB 113 U.S.App.D.C. 76 , 304 F.2d 952 , 953, (1962); United States Overseas Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 363 , 222 F.2d 303, 304 (1955). 14 Echoing Waterman, Judge Burger supported this latter statement by noting that “the President must be free to consider broad ‘evidentiary’ policy factors not involved, and indeed not relevant, in Board proceedings and that the President must be free to exercise unreviewable discretion as to the weight to be given to such extrajudicial factors.” American Airlines, Inc. v. CAB, 121 U.S.App.D.C. at …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
British Overseas Airways Corporation, British West Indian Airways, Limited, and Bahamas Airways, Limited
v.
Civil Aeronautics Board, Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors. Scandinavian Airlines System v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors. Societe Anonyme Belge D'Exploitation De La Navigation Aerienne (Sabena) v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors. Klm Royal Dutch Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., Intervenors
16652_1.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jun 14, 1962.
304 F.2d 952
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

304 F.2d 952

BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION, British West Indian Airways, Limited, and Bahamas Airways, Limited, Petitioners,
v.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent,
Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., et al., Intervenors.
SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM, Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent,
Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., et al., Intervenors.
SOCIETE ANONYME BELGE D'EXPLOITATION DE LA NAVIGATION AERIENNE (SABENA), Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent,
Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., et al., Intervenors.
KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES, Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent,
Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd., et al., Intervenors.

No. 16640.

No. 16643.

No. 16644.

No. 16652.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 16, 1962.

Decided June 14, 1962.

Mr. George N. Tompkins, Jr., New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Abbot P. Mills, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioners in No. 16,640.

Mr. Hamilton O. Hale, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Robert T. A. Molloy, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioner in No. 16,643.

Mr. Samuel E. Gates, New York City, for petitioner in No. 16,652.

Mr. O. D. Ozment, Associate Gen. Counsel, Litigation and Research, Civil Aeronautics Bd., with whom Messrs. John H. Wanner, Gen. Counsel, Joseph B. Goldman, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Arthur R. Schor, William F. Becker, Attys., Civil Aeronautics Bd., and Richard A. Solomon, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for respondent.

Messrs. Ronald H. Cohen, New York City, and Albert F. Grisard, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for petitioner in No. 16,644.

Messrs. William C. Burt and Robert M. Beckman, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for intervenors.

Mr. Grant W. Wiprud, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for petitioner in No. 16,643.

Before DANAHER, BASTIAN and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

1

Section 1006(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1486(a), here relied on, does not authorize review by this court, now or later, of the proposed regulation in suit, since it is "[an] order in respect of * * * foreign air carrier[s] subject to the approval of the President" under Section 801 of the Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1461. See Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 68 S.Ct. 431, 92 L. Ed. 568, interpreting the identical provision of the Civil Aeronautics Act, § 1006(a), formerly 49 U.S.C.A. § 646. The prohibition cannot be circumvented by the expedient attempted here. This is not to say that there may not be a judicial remedy against administrative, or even Presidential, action beyond the scope of lawful authority, as defined by the Aviation Act. The petitions will accordingly be dismissed, without prejudice to independent proceedings in the District Court challenging the validity of the proposed regulation if and when promulgated.

2

Petitions dismissed.