FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1976
1976 - 0074.PDF
100 FLIGHT International. 17 lanuary 1976 AIR TRANSPORT Concorde USA: decision awaited Earlier this month in Washington US Secretary of Transportation Mr William Coleman heard arguments for and against Concorde operations to the USA. WARREN GOODMAN gives a personal view US Secretary of Transportation William T. Coleman's public hearing in Washington to consider the request for Concorde landing rights in Washington and New York occupied ten hours and just over 70 witnesses: about 30 for Concorde and 40 against. Most observers agreed that no witness on either side had presented any argument or fact that had not been heard many times before. The most significant contribution to the proceedings was made by Coleman himself, whose intentions were made plain by his questions to some of the witnesses and his comments on their responsibilities. For example, he questioned US State Department and the British and French Government attempts to elicit from his department an undertaking that Concorde would be treated fairly and equitably. This was obviously intended to counter allega tions by Concorde opponents that former President Nixon, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and President Ford had already promised to approve Concorde operations in the US. Members of the pro-Concorde team, headed by Gerald Kaufman, Minister of State at the Department of Industry, and Claude Abraham, director of air transport for the French Ministry of Transport, stated repeatedly at the hearing and at a press briefing preceding it that they were confident of Concorde receiving "fair and equitable treat ment". But they indicated that many of their compatriots remain convinced that the US aviation industry is trying to stifle Concorde operations because the aircraft is npl "made in the USA". Chauvinism not a factor It was obvious at the hearing that there was no real foundation for that contention. The only segment of the US industry opposed to Concorde was the Airport Operators' Council International, a body whose views are consistent with its earlier stand on the US SST. AOCI argued that no new aircraft, whether subsonic or super sonic, should be allowed to operate unless it can meet FAR 36 standards. All other industrial testimony was in favour of Concorde, ft included comments from McDonnell Douglas, a former FAA Administrator and Mr William Magruder, who was co-ordinator of the US SST programme and who is now executive vice-president of Piedmont Airlines. Also obvious was the fact that all of the Concorde opponents, except those from England and France, would have been stating the same view if the aircraft in question had been American-made. As Magruder commented after hours of anti-Concorde arguments: "I've been here before". Members of the Concorde team agree that opposition was not based on chauvinism or protectionism, but they predicted that "the man in the street in France and Great Britain would not understand a rejection of Concorde landing rights in the US and might even demand retaliatory action." Asked about such action at one of the press briefings, Kaufman said: "I cannot commit the British Government, but I would regard it as beyond contempt that we should indulge in petty reprisals." Mr Abraham expressed a similar view but the French aerospace staff union, CGC, has reacted strongly to the hearings. If Concorde is refused, CGC will demand that the Government should boycott American products in France and will invite French airport personnel to stop servicing the aircraft of American airlines. Talk of possible reprisals may well be academic, because it seems unlikely that Secretary Coleman's decision will be a flat negative. During the hearing Coleman pointed out that Concorde complied with all of the regulations in force at the time it was designed and that it would be un reasonable to expect any manufacturer to do more. He also alluded to US obligations to allow landing rights as long as the aircraft complied with existing regulations, and to the fact that there are no noise standards for SSTs. He also mentioned that the US was developing such standards, and said that the Environmental Protection Agency had recom mended to him that the first 16 Concordes should be exempted from those noise standards. Conceding that "noise is the main issue," Kaufman reiterated that evidence is on record showing Concorde noise characteristics to be comparable to those of the narrow-bodied long-range jets. British Aircraft Corporation Concorde project director Mr Michael Wilde amplified Mr Kaufman's remarks, explained the "noise-exposure forecast" concept (which produces contours of equal cumulative noise-exposure around the airport), and showed charts (taken directly from the EIS) of NEF 30 and NEF 40 contours at New York Kennedy and Washington Dulles airports, with and without Concorde operations. With four daily Concorde services into New York (eight additional movements in an average total of over 1,000 per day) "the area change is negligible and we are told that the affected population increases by 2,000—about four-tenths of one per cent." Similar charts for Washington Dulles show less than 1,000 people affected within the NEF 30 contour and the inclusion of Concorde operations produces little increase in area and none in affected population. Discussing single-event footprints, he said that these contours "do not and cannot present a proper perspective of the noise effect of the proposed services. People react to the frequency of hearing a noise and the time of day at which they hear it, much more than to the loudness of one single noise. "The simplifying assumptions (suggested by BAC to the FAA) in the Concorde data lead to much greater misrepresentations of the single-event footprint areas— they lead to an exaggeration by more than 40 per cent at the lOOEPNdB level in some cases and by even greater percentages at the HOEPNdB level." M Roger Chevalier, a senior vice-president of Aero spatiale, emphasised that pollution problems were by no means unique to supersonic aircraft. He observed that the ozone layer in the northern hemisphere increased in thick ness during the decade up to 1970 and cast doubt on the theories which suggest that a decrease should have occurred. "In truth, the current models have not been confirmed experimentally, and it is almost certain that the most pessimistic models are wrong." Although the US Environmental Protection Agency has officially recommended that Mr Coleman deny Concorde landing rights at both Kennedy and Dulles airports, it might be satisfied with the decision which most observers expect. That would allow operations to Washington to begin in 1976, while forbidding or postponing operations at Kennedy. But Secretary Coleman might go one step further and grant permission for both operations as far as the Federal Administration is concerned, recognising that permission for operations into Kennedy must be obtained from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. This would effectively prevent any operation at Kennedy because Governor Carey has an absolute veto over Port Authority action and has stated that Concorde is too noisy and should not be allowed into New York.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
