The Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board ( Nyrop ) to the Director of the Office of Transport and Communications Policy ( Radius )


Dear Mr. Radius: Reference is made to your letter dated June 5, 1951,1 relative to the negotiation of an air transport agreement with Mexico.

It appears that at the present time the attitude of the Mexican Government is more favorable than heretofore toward the conclusion of an air transport agreement with the United States, and there is reason to believe that a mutually satisfactory agreement may be effected. It is requested, therefore, that arrangements be made for an immediate meeting with the appropriate Mexican officials in Mexico City with a view to the negotiation of an agreement. The Board has designated as its representatives at this meeting the Chairman, Mr. Donald W. Nyrop, Mr. Gordon M. Bain, Director, Bureau of Air Operations and Mr. Edward A. Bolster, Chief, Foreign Air Division.

The Board has reviewed the various route proposals under consideration, and has determined that the following routes should be obtained for United States carriers:

New York–New Orleans–Mexico City. The Board is unwilling to grant reciprocal rights over the entire route, but has approved the grant of a Mexico City-New Orleans route. If the Mexicans insist upon a monopoly for a Mexican carrier on the New Orleans route, the Board would be agreeable to exclusive operations by a Mexican carrier for one year, during which time the U.S. carrier would operate between Mobile or Birmingham or Atlanta and Mexico. As a maximum concession, the Board would accept exclusive Mexican operations for two years.
Houston–Brownsville–Tampico–Mexico City–Tapachula and beyond.
New York–Washington–Fort Worth/Dallas–San Antonio–Monterrey–Mexico City. The Board will agree to the elimination of Monterrey [Page 1501] from this route, despite the substantial investment of American Airlines at this point. In relinquishing this point, the United States should secure Mexican recognition of the obligation to reimburse American Airlines for such investment and a release to American Airlines from any future obligations under its Monterrey airport contract.
Los Angeles–El Paso–Mexico City. If the resistance of the Mexicans to the grant of this route is sufficiently strong to endanger the agreement, the request may be withdrawn.
Los Angeles–San Diego–La Paz–Mexico City. There should be a clear understanding with Mexico that the carrier operating this route will be permitted to terminate service either at La Paz or Mexico City.
San Antonio–Laredo–Monterrey–Mexico City. If the Mexicans are strongly opposed to the grant of this route, it may be abandoned. However, this route should not be relinquished prior to the relinquishment of the Los Angeles-El Paso-Mexico City route.
Houston/New Orleans-Merida and beyond.
Miami–Merida and beyond.

Any agreement reached must include the new Los Angeles and New Orleans routes as described above for U.S. carriers.

The Board is agreeable to the grant of the following routes to Mexico:

Mexico City – Guadalajara – Mazatlan – Hermosillo – Mexicali – Tijuana–Los Angeles.
Mexico City–New Orleans.
Mexico City–Miami and beyond.
Mexico City–Monterrey–Laredo–San Antonio.
Torreon-Monterrey–San Antonio.
Chihuahua–El Paso.

The Mexican request for a route, Nogales-San Diego, and for Houston as a co-terminal on route 5 should be refused.

It is further the opinion of the Board that the United States Government should have the authority to grant to each designated U.S. air carrier the right to operate schedules non-stop between any point in the United States on such route and any point in Mexico on such route and that this right should be specified in the agreement.

Sincerely yours,

Donald W. Nyrop
  1. Ante, p. 1486.