FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1977
1977 - 2259.PDF
FLIGHT International, 23 July 1977 253 •,:;••,:.-. ™, . •• ••;• • Air hqnspprt New York Concorde: light at the end of the tunnel AFTER an all-day hearing in Judge Milton Pollack's Federal District Court on July 12, the continuing struggle for Concorde landing rights at Kennedy Airport seemed at long last to be reaching a denouement, re ports Warren Goodman from New York. The light at the end of the tunnel appeared when Judge Pollack persuaded the general counsel and director of aviation of the Port Auth ority of New York and New Jersey to admit for the first time that Con corde probably could meet the 112PNdB noise limit on take-off. The Port Authority representative followed this admission with argu ments that the noise standard in effect for subsonic aircraft was not an adequate test of Concorde's accept ability because of the aircraft's "unique noise characteristics, includ ing a high level of 1-f energy." C. P. Pattarini, the Authority's director of aviation, testified that more time was needed to develop "a vibra tion-rattle index to quantify this noise factor." Under questioning by Judge Pollack, he and the Authority's con sultant on Concorde's acceptability, Dr Karl Kryer of the Stanford Re search Institute, told the court that development of such an index would cost $0-5-1 million and take six to 12 months. Judge Pollack, who has made it plain since the case first came before him that he believes the only fair test for Concorde is to let it land at Kennedy, seemed annoyed by the prospect of further delay. He com mented: "Any scientific project is sub ject to more and more study, but there comes a time when satisfactory data are available." July 12's "evidentiary hearing" be fore Judge Pollack was ordered by the Court of Appeals to determine the unreasonableness of the Port Authority's temporary ban on Con corde and its failure to make a final decision. Before the hearing opened, Judge Pollack rejected the Port Auth ority's argument that the matter had become moot by virtue of its July 7 vote to continue the ban. Lawyers for British Airways and Air France refer red scornfully to the Authority's "so-called action of July 7," and the court seemed to agree with this assess ment (Flight, July 16, page 189). Legal skirmishing during the hear ing included arguments over some papers which the airline lawyers had subpoenaed and which the Port Auth ority had refused to turn over, claim ing attorney /client privilege and executive privilege. Judge Pollack backed the Port Authority on some of these documents, but ordered others to be delivered. One of the latter was the report on community response to Concorde noise at London Heathrow by the Port Authority's consultant, McKennell Associates of London. The report was delivered to the airline attorneys during the lunch recess, and one of them brought out in his sub sequent cross-examination of Dr Kryer that the McKennell report's conclu sion on whether Concorde added to the total noise annoyance at the air port was: "We have not been able to arrive at an unequivocal answer to that question." At the end of the hearing Judge Pollack gave lawyers for both sides until 3 p.m. on July 15 to submit re- briefs, indicating that he would hand down a decision this week. It seems obvious that he would rule against the Port Authority, either by ordering it to make a final decision by a speci fic date or by declaring its ban on Concorde unreasonable and therefore illegal. Such a decision on a question of fact seems unlikely to be reversed by the Court of Appeals, as Judge Pollack's earlier decision was on a question of law. Many observers familiar with the case and with the Port Authority were convinced that such a result was exactly what the Authority wanted. Port Authority chairman Alan Sagner denied this, saying: "We will fight to the extent possible to preserve the Port Authority's right as the operator to make this decision." One of the Authority attorneys, asked whether the Port Authority really wanted to win the case, told Flight: "You know we always fight to win." But despite these denials it seems apparent that a Port Authority loss in this case might in fact be a great long-term victory, enabling the Auth ority to claim that it had done its best to protect the people of New York from Concorde. It would also relieve the Governor of New York of the need to take action in the case. Even more important, liability for noise- damage suits has always been based on court findings that the airport operators have control over which aircraft use their facilities. Loss of that control might relieve the Port Authority and other airport operators of noise-nuisance liability. Brazilian carrier VASP has taken delivery of two Boeing Advanced 727-200s and is using them on services linking Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Brasilia
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
