The Supreme Court yesterday removed a possible barrier to low-cost, no-frills transcontinental passenger flightsby World Airways, Inc., of Oakland, Calif., and other so-called supplemental carriers.

The court denied without comment a petition by American Airlines and Trans World Airlines to review a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on whether the Civil Aeronautics Board can approve regular flights by a supplemental carrier.

The ruling was that the CAB was empowered by the 1958 Federal Aviation Act to address the merits of an application by World Airways to provide under $100 coach flights between "satellite" airports - Baltimore and Newark on the East Coast and Oakland and Ontario in California.

Currently, the lowest price offered by regular airlines is $227 round-trip on certain flights between New York City and the West Coast.

In addition to World Airways, Pan American World Airways and Northwest Airlines propose to offer under $100 fares on West Coast-East Coast portions of certain international flights.

In February, the Justice Department urged the CAB to approve the proposal by World Airways, which first began seeking permission for no-frills fares in 1967.

Yesterday, World Airways' counsel here said he will file with the CAB immediately a petition to speed up consideration of no-frills fares by acting on a motion to consolidate his client's proceeding with that of other carriers. FTC Consent Agreements

Four years ago, the Federal Trade Commission issued complaints accusing major automobile manufacturers and their advertising agencies of making false claims about the peformance, fuel economy or other pectas some makes of cars.

In early 1974, while proceedings against other manufacturers were pending, Ford Motor Co. and its agency, J. Walter Thompson Co., entered into a proposed consent order with the FTC staff under which the company agreed not to repeat allegedly false-claims it had made about the structural strength, safety and quietness of Ford Division cars.

After the FTC accepted the order, the company and the agency sought to withdraw their consent on the ground that General Motors Corp. had gained an unexpected competitive advantage from the commission by entering into a less onerous consent agreement.

When the FTC blocked the proposal, the company and the agency sued.