Factual Matters

There is no dispute over the need for the scheduled service that Applicant proposes to provide. (Tr. 3; Protestant Brief, pg. 20.) This is service by a vessel capable of handling over 700 passengers for a two-hour ride to Avalon. Avalon is presently served by more expensive carriers operating smaller, faster boats. (Tr. 159.) Applicant proposes a round-trip fare of $28.50, with seniors (over 55) having a fare of $26 and children a fare of $23. (Tr. 58, 61.) This contrasts to a fare of $41 for the fast boats. (Tr. 62.) Witnesses for City testified to the need for the additional service, indicating that loss of revenue from tourists adversely affects merchants and the taxes collected by City. (Tr. 154-155; Tr. 177-178; Exh. 8.) City urges the immediate grant of interim authority. Exhibit 7 shows that there are time slots available at the Port of Avalon that would accommodate Applicant's boats. City says that it is holding spaces available for Applicant should interim scheduled service be authorized. (Tr. 179.)

Applicant proposes to use the Catalina Countess for scheduled service four days per week. (Tr. 57.) That boat will require at least 21 days to be ready for service. (Tr. 57.) In the meantime, Applicant could perform a part of the interim scheduled service with the Catalina King when it is not in use for charter operations to camps on the island. Its witness stated that no camp runs are made on Fridays, seldom on Saturdays, and there are times available on Sundays. (Tr. 119-120.) The witness was not certain that Applicant's contract permitted it to operate as a chartered boat one way and a scheduled carrier in the other direction. (Tr. 120.) There was no testimony about mixing charter and scheduled passengers. Similarly, there was no testimony as to what the precise schedules would be, assuming interim authority were granted.

Applicant's witness testified to the qualifications of the employees who would be handling the service. All had extensive experience and proper Coast Guard licenses. (Exhs. 1, 2, 3.) None were experienced with bringing large passenger boats to Avalon, but there was nothing brought out in the hearing that would make such operations beyond the capabilities of these employees. There was no indication that there had been any accident involving the operations of Catalina King since it began operations under charter to another carrier in April of this year.

Protestant takes issue with Applicant as the party to provide the needed service. (Tr. 3.) Protestant's witnesses testified to several instances where former members of the crew on the vessels Protestant proposes to use made application for employment and were not given interviews, or even acknowledgement that their applications had been filed. (Tr. 199-207; Exh. 10.) In one instance an application was sent registered mail and returned marked "Refused". (Exh. 12.) In rebuttal, Applicant's witness testified that the envelope was sent to an address where there are no employees of Applicant (Tr. 293.), though he admitted it was the address given as the principal place of business in the application filed with the Commission. (Tr. 306.) There seems to be little doubt that former employees who worked on these boats are not favored by Applicant. At the hearing, Applicant agreed to receive applications from, and provide interviews to, members of Protestant. (Tr. 116.)

Witnesses for Applicant and Protestant testified to the difficulty of operations at Avalon. Wind, surge, and a plethora of small craft, and even swimmers, provide constant hazards. (Tr. 31, 105, 269, 272.) Witness Cheney, a former captain of the Catalina King, presented a list of what she deemed to be safety problems or improper seamanship on a ride she took on April 23, 2001. (Exh. 13.) This was a trip bringing children to camps, not the service sought in the present interim application. The information was relevant to Applicant's safety practices. These included the presence of unsupervised children in the wheelhouse while the boat was at sea and during docking, inadequate number of crew at the ramps to prevent passengers from falling overboard, and multiple deckhands working the snack bar rather than attending to other matters. Applicant's witness admitted that children were permitted in the wheelhouse. He agreed that this was improper and stated that he had issued an order that this conduct cease immediately. (Tr. 65.) He also said that there is now an agreement between the camps and Applicant that camp counselors would attend the camp ramps and two crewmembers would attend the boat ramps. (Tr. 66, 289.)

The items mentioned in Exh. 13 constitute problems that required attention. Some have already been addressed. Since this interim decision is limited to scheduled service to Avalon, we do not rule on the conduct of the camp service now being performed under a charter. However, we agree that there should be no unauthorized passengers in the wheelhouse while the ship is under way. We further agree that there should be at least two members of the crew at the doorway separating the ship from the boarding ramp to assist passengers.