The airlines therefore want to keep the basic fare for businessmen at a profitable level. At the same time, of course, they want to encourage more people to fly. Lower fares can greatly increase the numbers of non-businessmen using the airlines--grandmothers, students, housewives and virtually every middle-class group in society has a very elastic demand for air travel. In Ec 1 terms, the airlines know that through fare discrimination--one fare for the elastic sector and one for the inelastic business sector--they can greatly increase both their profits and the number of people who fly.

The problem, from the airlines' point of view, is that a statute specifically prohibits unjust discrimination in fares. Discrimination in fare policy consists of offering "a special tariff . . . to a limited class of persons . . . under substantially similar circumstances and conditions as the service rendered to those not eligible for the tariff." In other words, age alone is not justification for offering reduced fares so long as both old and young receive the same basic service--in this case, a plane ride from one city to another.

Non-discrimination in fares is a basic tenet of American transportation policy. And it makes promotional fares--like Youth Fare--hard to guide through the maze of regulatory agencies and courts.

In order to capture segments of the population that otherwise would not fly, the airlines have to devise special fares that are not discriminatory or, at the very least, not unjustly discriminatory. The range of fares paid by various passengers on any given flight today testifies to the ingenuity of the airlines in doing just that.

What is it then that makes Youth Fare different from Discover America (excursion) Fare, Family Fare, Group Fare, or Military Standby? Is it any more discriminatory than any of these?

The court and the Examiner believe that it is. Discover America is subject to restrictions that render it "substantially:" different from the service full-fare passengers receive. Family and Group Fares, by definition, do not deal with a single passenger but with a quantitatively different consumer unit. And Military Fare, which superficially appears to be the same as Youth Fare, is authorized by statute and by judicial decision because it contributes to the National Defense by raising the morale of out troops--but the government could probably demand it legally in any event.

Despite the arguments in Youth Fare's favor -- and the airlines presented many--neither the court nor the Examiner could find a legal basis for age being used to justify discrimination. As far as air travel goes, there is nothing about the 12-22 group that distinguishes it from any other subgroup of the population--all of whom would like to fly for less.

The argument that Youth Fare promotes education, incidentally, seems as specious to the Examiner as the contention that it promotes highway safety by keeping young people off the road. Said Present' "No probative evidence [suggests] that youth fares have in any way facilitated the acquisition of a college education by any youth."

Such was the reasoning of the CAB Examiner as he signed what he supposed was the document that would kill Youth Fare.

IS YOUTH FARE really dead then? Or will it, like the legendary Phoenix, rise from its funeral pyre to fly again?

My own inclination is not to throw my little plastic card away yet. For one thing, the fact that the CAB decided to review the Examiner's Report instead of routinely accepting it suggests that the Board's traditional pro-Youth Fare policy may not die easily. For another, there are many forces at work to encourage CAB leniency.

First, most of the airlines want to keep Youth Fare. Rumor has it they have retained President Nixon's former law firm to represent them in the matter (another rumor is that the firm turned them down). The CAB may very well accept the industry point of view, provided it can find statutory justification for doing so. Perhaps the controversial Trans-Pacific Case has involved the Board in enough recriminations for one year.

Congress, too, is pushing the CAB. On February 19, Senator Magnuson, Chairman of both the Senate Commerce Committee and its important Aviation Subcommittee, wrote CAB Chairman John Crooker. Magnuson asked the CAB to retain Youth Fare on "national interest" grounds--for which, conceivably, justification may be found in the 1958 Federal Aviation Act. The Magnuson letter stresses the role of Youth Fare in making possible the broad formal and informal education "so essential in our modern society." Congressman Olsen, in addition, has initiated a national campaign to flood the CAB with letters from students urging retention.

Whether or not such efforts can succeed remains unknown. Magnuson aides on the Commerce Committee aren't overly optimistic: even if the CAB rejects the Examiner's Report, further suits by the bus companies may ultimately result in the decision being overturned in court. The court has specifically stated that "social policy" is not one of the CAB's responsibilities. Enforcement of the existing statute is.

Only the CAB's decision later this month will tell whether Youth Fare is really dead or whether it faces, at best, another reprieve and another era of controversy. If the CAB does kill the Fare, or if the courts kill it at some time in the future, only special Congressional legislation can resurrect it. Senator Percy has in fact proposed such legislation, but even if his bill in its present form would be feasible (and some Hill veterans doubt that it would be), no one knows when, if at all, Congress will enact it.

So if you've always wanted to visit San Francisco, you'd better go over Spring Break: you may never get another chance -- at least not until you're fat, rich, and too old to enjoy it