Both before and after incorporation, future trips were planned by Scheibly, Sr. Such trips were advertised by him in local newspapers and by direct mailing. Tickets were sold on an individual basis, to members, and to nonmembers. There were about 30 trips in 1961, and in the first 9 months of 1962, there were about 20 trips. At times, trips were taken to points beyond applicant's territorial, charter authority, there being at least two trips to Florida. In 1961, a bus was "leased" to the club for a Florida trip. Since the lease agreement was not sufficient to divest applicant from control of the movement, thereby making it a unlawful operation, another lease was executed. A standby lease was entered into between applicant, represented by Scheibly, Jr., and the club, respresented by Scheibly, Sr. The 1962 Florida trip was made under such a lease. As recently as 1961 and 1962, applicant transported passengers, under individual ticket arrangements, to a Vermont ski resort, to certain race tracks in Massachusetts, and to Washington, D. C. The application is supported by 17 witnesses from the involved area. Their testimony is discussed in detail in the examiner's report, and will be referred to here only briefly. All but two of them have used applicant's service for collective tour trips, to Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Florida, and Washington, D. C. Ten witnesses are members or former members of Yankee Travelers. Five others had taken trips with applicant as nonmember guests of the club. On such trips, the tickets were purchased individually. The persons supporting the application are interested in traveling in the involved area with others with whom they have common interest, and they believe that applicant will generate trips with acceptable companions. Those witnesses who have traveled with applicant are very well satisfied with the service. Most of them have taken tours with Bohl Tours, Inc. Some were displeased with the latter's service mainly because of the carrier's failure to secure sufficient hotel reservations. Greyhound is a motor common carrier of passengers operating over a nationwide system of regular routes and serves the involved area, and may conduct charter trips, from the points or areas served by it to any point in the United States. From Albany, a point in the involved origin area, Greyhound offers tour service to points of interest in New England, Virginia, and other areas. Such tours are limited to points on the carrier's authorized routes and are offered on an individual basis to the general public. In 1961 and the first 4 months of 1962, it originated 98 charter trips in the involved area, deriving about $16,000 in revenue therefrom. Vermont Transit, Mountain View, and Adirondack Transit Lines, Inc., also are regular route passenger carriers conducting incidental charter operations in the part of the involved area each serves. High Adventure Tours, Inc., is a licensed broker authorized to arrange tours in the considered area. The remaining protestants offered no evidence at the hearing. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Since 1948, the parties here considered have conducted some form of unlawful operations. For about 4 years, bus service was furnished without any authority from this Commission. After obtaining the present charter authority, certain operations were conducted beyond the scope of such authority as shown by a criminal conviction and a cease and desist order from this Commission. Except for the injunction proceeding now pending in a Federal court, there have been no formal proceedings brought against these parties since 1957. However, unlawful operations admittedly have continued. Mainly they consist of providing tours in interstate commerce under individual ticket arrangements. Some of these tours were conducted under a trade name, and after its incorporation in 1959, Scheibly, Sr., continued to use Yankee Travelers as a method to obtain passengers. His relationships with the club have now diminished, but we are not convinced that this organization is an independent travel club, limited to the chartering of buses for the benefit of its members. Until it obtains a status equal to that of any other club which may have occasion to travel in this manner, considering past events, it must be considered (1) as a device used by applicant or its representatives to obtain passengers for tours, or (2) as an unlicensed broker. In our opinion, there is nothing in the opinion of the Federal court, referred to above, inconsistent with this conclusion. Additionally, there have been other forms of unlawful special operations conducted by applicant. Passengers have been transported under individual ticket arrangements, to ski resorts, race tracks, and other points. Also, there have been trips to points beyond applicant's territorial authority. There is no apparent difference between the furnishing of exclusive use of a vehicle under charter and the furnishing of exclusive use of a vehicle under the so-called lease agreement executed by Scheibly, Jr., acting for applicant, and Scheibly, Sr., for the club. See Asbury Park-N. Y. Transit Corp. v. Bingler Vacation Tours, 62 M.C.C. 731, 739. Manifested by the practices described above is an apparent unwillingness of the persons concerned to conform to the requirements of part II of the Interstate Commerce Act. To authorize additional authority herein would have the effect of condoning past acts and encouraging unlawful operations on a broader scale. We see nothing in the so-called fine line between special operations and charter operations which could justify these past activities. Applicant argues that there was some basis for the past activities, since the original grandfather certificate of its predecessor authorized "special or charter service." This argument is not consistent with applicant's argument concering the veil of legality surrounding its activities with Yankee Travelers. Furthermore, this claim arose after an extended history of unlawful operations, and the certificate it now holds is clear on its face. The facts in No. MC-172, Arnold E. Wade, Schenectady, N. Y., supra, are easily distinguishable from those involved here. There, the carrier holding a certificate to conduct charter operations, immediately discontinued special operations upon being warned by a representative of the Commission. Thereafter, upon the carrier's petition, its certificate was modified to reflect the actual operations conducted in the "grandfather" period. Here applicant does not seek to have its certificate modified, and we have before us willful and continuing violations of the act. We can only conclude that applicant is not fit to receive a grant of authority; and that the application should be denied. Applicant is admonished to limit its operations to those authorized. In view of this conclusion, we do not deem it necessary to determine whether a need exists for this service. We find that applicant has failed to show that it is fit properly to conduct the proposed operation or to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and our rules and regulations thereunder; and that the application should be denied. An appropriate order will be entered. 95 M.C.C. INDEX DIGEST Principles of law and important conclusions of fact, which are discussed in reports In most instances, cross-references are provided as leads from the most general The page citations following entries are to those pages on which the rules of law Topics and subtopics are alphabetized by letter as though the lines comprising |