. Tlie airlines involved were Alaska Airlines, Inc., Eastern Airlines, Inc., The Flying Tiger Line Inc., Pan American World Airways, Inc., Riddle Airlines, Inc., Slick Corporation, and Transportation Corporation of America. The agreements had been submitted by the airlines for approval under § 412 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 770, 49 U.S.C. § 1382, which, provides in pertinent part:

“(a) Every air carrier shall file with the Board a true copy * * * of every contract or agreement * * * affecting air transportation * * * between such air carrier and any other air carrier, foreign air carrier, or other carrier for pooling or apportioning *447earnings, losses, traffic, service, or equipment, or relating to the establishment of transportation rates, fares, charges, or classifications, or for preserving and improving safety, economy, and efficiency of operation, or for controlling, regulating, preventing, or otherwise eliminating destructive, oppressive, or wasteful competition, or for regulating stops, schedules, and character of service, or for other cooperative working arrangements.

“(b) The Board shall by order disapprove any such contract or agreement, whether or not previously approved by it, that it finds to be adverse to the public interest, or in violation of this chapter * *

. The Board found that in the Alaska Airlines and the Flying Tiger Line agreements the rate charged by the airline was equal to or less than the local deferred freight rate regularly charged by the airline.

. Section 1003, 72 Stat. 791, 49 U.S.C. § 1483, provides:

“(a) The Board and the Interstate Commerce Commission shall direct their respective chairmen to designate, from time to time, a like number of members of each to act as a joint board to consider and pass upon matters referred to such board as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

“(b) Air carriers may establish reasonable through service and joint rates, fares, and charges with other common carriers; except that with respect to transportation of property, air carriers not directly engaged in the operation of aircraft in air transportation (other than companies engaged in the air express business) may not establish joint rates or charges, under the provisions of this subsection, with common carriers subject to the Interstate Commerce Act. In case of through service by air carriers and common carriers subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, it shall be the duty of the carriers parties thereto to establish just and reasonable rates, fares, or charges and just and reasonable classifications, rules, regulations, and practices affecting such rates, fares, or charges, or the value of the service thereunder, and if joint rates, fares, or charges shall have been established with respect to such through service, just, reasonable, and equitable divisions of such joint rates, fares, or charges as between the carriers participating therein. Any air carrier, and any common carrier subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, which is participating in such through service and joint rates, fares, or charges, shall include in its tariffs, filed with the Civil Aeronautics Board or the Interstate Commerce Commission, as the case may be, a statement showing such through service and joint rates, fares, or charges.

“(c) Matters relating to such through service and joint rates, fares, or charges may be referred by the Board or the Interstate Commerce Commission, upon complaint or upon its own initiative, to a joint board created as provided in subsection (a) of this section. Complaints may be made to the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Board with respect to any matter which may be referred to a joint board under this subsection.

“(d) With respect to matters referred to any joint board as provided in subsection (e) of this section, if such board finds, after notice and hearing, that any such joint rate, fare, or charge, or classification, rule, regulation, or practice, affecting such joint rate, fare, or charge or the value of the service thereunder is or will be unjust, unreasonable, unjustly discrim*448inatory, or unduly preferential or prejudicial, or that any division of any such joint rate, fare, or charge, is or will be unjust, unreasonable, inequitable, or unduly preferential or prejudicial as between the carriers parties thereto, it is authorized and directed to take the same action with respect thereto as the Board is empowered to take with respect to any joint rate, fare, or charge, between air carriers, or any divisions thereof, or any classification, rule, regulation, or practice affecting such joint rate, fare, or charge or the value of the service thereunder.

. Section 401(a) 72 Stat. 754, 49 U.S.C. § 1371(a), provides:

“No air carrier shall engage in any air transportation unless there is in force a certificate issued by the Board authorizing such air carrier to engage in such transportation.”

The term “air carrier” is defined in § 101(3), 72 Stat. 737, 49 U.S.C. § 1301 (3), as follows:

“ ‘Air carrier’ means any citizen of the United States who undertakes, whether directly or indirectly or by a lease or any other arrangement, to engage in air transportation * *

. Jurisdiction in this court is based on Section 1006 of the Federal Aviation Act, 72 Stat. 795, 49 U.S.C. § 1486.

. See Note 4, supra.

. Under Section 101(3) of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1301(3), the Board may grant an indirect air carrier an exemption “from the provisions of this chapter to the extent and for such periods as may be in the public interest.” See American Air lines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 7 Cir., 178 F.2d 903 (1949).

. Railway Express Agency, Grandfather Certificate, 2 C.A.B. 531, 536 (1941). See also Consolidated Flower Shipments-Bay Area v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 9 Cir., 213 F.2d 814 (1954); National Air Freight Forward. Corp. v. Civil Aero. Bd., 90 U.S.App.D.C. 330, 331-332, 197 F.2d 384, 385-386 (1952); American Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, supra Note 7; Intra-Mar Ship*449ping, Enforcement Proceeding, 27 C.A.B. 568 (1958).

The Board’s definition of this statutory term is entitled to the deference usually accorded to statutory interpretations given by the agency charged with the administration of the statute. Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 800 (1965); Unemployment Compensation Comm’n of Territory of Alaska v. Aragon, 329 U.S. 143, 153, 67 S.Ct. 245, 91 L.Ed. 1136 (1946).

. Under well settled principles of judicial review of administrative action, Board findings supported by the record are conclusive. 49 U.S.C. % 1486(e); N. L. R. B. v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 64 S.Ct. 851, 88 L.Ed. 1170 (1944).

. An “air freight forwarder” is defined as one who “in the ordinary and usual course of its undertaking, assembles and consolidates or provides for assembling and consolidating of property or performs or provides for the performance of break-bulk and distributing operations with respect to consolidated shipments, or both, is responsible for the transportation of such property from the point of receipt to point of destination, and utilizes for the whole or any part of such transportation the services of a direct air carrier.” 14 O.E.R. § 297.2 (1964).

. The Board’s regulations concerning air freight forwarders appear at 14 C.F.R. Parts 296 and 297 (1964).

. See Railway Express, Airfreight Forwarder Application, 27 C.A.B. 500 (1958); and cf. Railway Exress Agency, Inc., and Northwest Airlines, Inc., Agreement, 9 C.A.B. 905 (1948).

. Railway Express, Airfreight Forwarder Application, supra Note 12 at 537-538. Another reason for the Board’s refusal is the fact that REA is controlled by railroads. See Section 408 of the Federal Aviation Act, 72 Stat. 767, 49 U.S.C. § 1378; Railway Express, Airfreight Forwarder Application, supra Note 12 at 502-504. Cf. National Air Freight Forward. Corp. v. Civil Aero. Bd., supra Note 8.

. We find nothing in the legislative history of Section 1003 to warrant the conclusion that the section was intended to provide any exceptions to the broad provision in Section 401. See H.R.Rep. No. 2254, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 8 (1938).

. Cf. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 70 S.Ct. 445, 94 L.Ed. 616 (1950); The Japanese Immigrant Case [Yamataya v. Fisher], 189 U.S. 86, 23 S.Ct. 611, 47 L.Ed. 721 (1903).

. Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. Federal Power Com’n, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 284, 292, 281 F.2d 919, 927 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 827, 81 S.Ct. 712, 5 L.Ed.2d 705 (1961).