Изображения страниц

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Will you yield for a question?
Mr. WATSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Is your problem getting a commercial carrier to do this job?

Mr. SAUNDERS. No, sir. As Mr. Pickle brought out, the Civil Aeronautics Board has ruled in this case, and has handed down a decision favorable to Washington Airlines, a consortium of the scheduled airlines in this area. They are prepared and have set aside financing. They are prepared to begin a helicopter service to and from the three airports of the area. The problem is the heliport or helipad. As Mr. Pickle brought out, that is the stumbling block with which the airlines are now struggling. They have been forced to write back to the Civil Aeronautics Board and say that they are not able to begin the scheduled helicopter service. We are pursuing it vigorously and will let you

know as soon as we can resolve this problem. Mr. KUYKENDALL. Is the District Committee involved in this? Mr. SAUNDERS. No sir; not directly, I do not believe.

Mr. Adams. The answer to the gentleman's question is no, unless there is some specific authorization required for a particular piece of property, because ordinarily it is just a matter of zoning and arrangement made with the landowner, whoever he might be, for the port. No part of this has come before the District Committee as a specific project to my knowledge this year.

Nr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Saunders, you will agree that it is possible to get from Dulles and Friendship to Washington D.C. within an hour.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Do I agree? Yes, sir, I think that is reasonable.

Vir. FRIEDEL. How does this compare with major airports like Kennedy, Chicago, and Los Angeles?

Mr. SAUNDERS. I think favorably. I have often said that I think that Dulles and Friendship as well have acquired a sort of distorted image of remoteness in the minds of many people, whereas they are really accessible airports.

There are many airports in this country that are only 10, 12, or 15 miles out instead of the greater distance involved to Dulles and Friendship. But the travel time involved to those airports is greater than the travel time to Dulles and Friendship.

Mr. FRIEDEL. You know with the 747's and these other jets, you are still going to have a noise factor. The airports will have to be further away from the densely-populated areas. What has been done about rapid ground transportation to both Dulles and Friendship?

Vr. SAUNDERS. A great deal of study has gone into it, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated, the master plan does show a rapid transit link probably along the access road median to Dulles, in the future.

Similar studies on Friendship have been made, I understand.

Mr. FRIEDEL. At Friendship right now as I understand it there is a right-of-way right to the airport on the old railroad track. That could be used almost immediately. This should be started as a project, and a monorail or something planned to Dulles. I think a study should be made along those lines rather than expanding Washington National.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to dwell unduly on a word. But, we have emphasized to Mr. Kling, and to others in talking about his study, that we are interested in modernizing Washington National Airport, not in expanding it. And there is a difference. In the instructions to Mr. Kling, we have clearly pointed out that we did not want to expand the field capacity of the airport. We wanted to


have all the present restrictions at National remain-the 40 schedules an hour, the 650-mile perimeter, the two and three-engine jets only, et cetera. We stressed that we are interested in improvement and modernization of the people handling side of Washington National Airport, and not the airplane or field side.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Would the chairman yield for a question?

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Are there any plans or even any plans to plan the possibility of a 747 ever landing at National?

Mr. SAUNDERS. No, sir, absolutely not. The present restriction is very clear. We have made it eminently clear to the airlines in writing on a number of occasions that the jets permitted at Washington National are the smaller variety of jets, the two- and three-engine jets. These include, for example, the Boeing 727, 100 series, but not the Boeing 727, 200 series, or stretch version.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Another quick question. Is it not true that exactly the same noise restrictions on engines that apply to the smallest of jet aircraft engines are applying to the engines on the 747?

Mr. SAUNDERS. The FAA has published a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," on noise certification, in accordance with congressional action at the last session, I believe. It is in the proposal stage at the present time, as best I remember it. But again, this is not in the area where I would normally be able to answer.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. The Boeing people tell me, and I was in the 747 last November, that their quietness of engine meets all the restrictions and all the regulations that have come out from this committee as the chairman welĩ knows. I did want to make this point to alleviate some fears that even at Dulles and Friendship the 747 will be as quiet as any other plane.

Mr. FRIEDEL. This is comparing the 747, to what other planes?

Mr. KUYKENDALL. I am comparing it to the 727. Would you check that out, sir?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Yes, sir. I will be glad to attempt to get the answer to that question. Your question is the

Mr. KUYKENDALL. How would the noise restrictions on the 747 compare to, for instance, the 727 or the DC-8, the Convair, any of the noise levels. I believe the noise level restrictions, are they not, sir, do not have anything to do with the airplanes. They are there.

Mr. SAUNDERS. I think that is right.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. In other words, an aircraft engine can just make so much noise, isn't that true?

Mr. SAUNDERS. I think that is the plan in the "Notice of Proposed Rule Making,” but again, I am not really prepared to answer that in detail. We will submit the information for you.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. I understand that the Anglo-French Concorde yesterday made a noise that you could hear for 20 miles.

(The following information was received for the record:)


On January 3, 1969, the FAA issued Notice No. 69–1 (34 F.R. 453; January 3, 1969), propo sing noise standards to implement Public Law 90-411. No final regulations have been issued. Based on estimates using the noise standards proposed in Notice No. 69–1, at the proposed approach certification reference point, the Boeing 747 would be approximately 5 Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) units quieter than the Boeing 727, and approximately 12 EPNL units quieter than the Douglas DC-8-55. At the proposed sideline certification reference point, the Boeing 747 would be approximately 3 EPNL units quieter than the Boeing 727, and approximately 7 EPNL units quieter than the Douglas DC-8-55. At the proposed takeoff certification reference point, the Boeing 747 would be approximately 6 EPNL units noisier than the Boeing 727, and approximately 9 EPNL units quieter than the Douglas DC-8-55.

When we compare the noise exposure at a specific airport for aircraft that have different maximum certificated takeoff weights, we should consider several factors. First, the aircraft will produce different relative noise levels. Second, using a larger aircraft having greater passenger or cargo capacity may result in fewer landings and takeoffs at the airport, and fewer noise exposures. Third, the range of the aircraft affects its actual operating (as opposed to its maximum certificated) takeoff weight, so that when an operation is for the same distance and the aircraft used is operating at its maximum range, it might takeoff at its maximum weight, while a longer-range aircraft might not. In turn, the longer-range aircraft might produce noise at less than its maximum noise level. Thus, if the Boeing 747 were used for operations up to 2800 nautical miles (the approximate maximum range of the Boeing 727), then the Boeing 747 would be slightly quieter than the Boeing 727 at the proposed takeoff certification reference point.

Mr. FRIEDEL. I have one other question. Washington National is one of the five high density airports which may have to have limitations on the aircraft operations. Do you intend to hold down or cut back on the arrivals and departures at Washington National?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Yes, sir. We plan to continue present restrictions, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to give you these figures if I may.

On the basis of fiscal year 1967 figures, Washington National Airport ranked sixth in the country, no longer fourth, in air carrier operations. In 1968, it dropped to seventh ranking in the country. At the same time Friendship Airport increased its standing from 24th to 22d. In the monthly and yearly figures

Mr. FRIEDEL. What did you say Dulles was?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Dulles is now 44th. The previous year it had been 50th in ranking on the basis of air carrier operations alone.

You will be interested in these figures, Mr. Chairman. On the basis of our year-end traffic figures for the calendar year 1968, Washington National Airport showed a decrease for the year in air carrier operations of 1.5 percent. Passengers at Washington National Airport during the calendar year 1968 increased only 6 percent, far less than the increase at either Friendship or Dulles.

For January of this year, the only month that I have available in 1969 to date, total operations at Washington National by the scheduled airlines declined 6.9 percent, so the restrictions

Mr. FRIEDEL. What was the basis for the decline?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Because of the restrictions, Mr. Chairman. I have outlined the number of flights per hour and the other restrictions. In the same period, I might add, Vr. Chairman, Friendship Airport has shown great growth. According to our information, again calendar year 1968, while passengers at National increased only 6.2 percent, passengers at Friendship International Airport increased 17.8 percent.

Mr. FRIEDEL. How about Dulles?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Dulles increased at a lesser rate, about 15 percent, as I recall.

Mr. Watson. Will the gentleman yield at that point?

Mr. Watson. While I would agree with you, Mr. Saunders, on your percentages, an increase of 6 percent on the volume at National is much much greater than an increase of even 10 or 20 percent of the volume at Dulles and Friendship. You would agree with that?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WATSON. Although the percentage is not quite so impressive, when you have got one airport already overloaded and there are so many passengers, a smaller increase exerts a lot more pressure than a greater increase in other areas. Would that not be a correct statement?

Mr. SAUNDERS. The point I would emphasize still is the rate of growth at National appears to be half, or less, than the other two airports over a period of time, the last year and a half or so.

Mr. Watson. Yes, 6 percent at National
Mr. SAUNDERS. It is still substantial.

Mr. Watson. It is still far greater than a 17 percent growth increase at Dulles?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Right.
Mr. Watson. That is the point we are trying to make.
Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Kuykendall.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Is it not true, in line with this, that you as the FAA in running these airports, your regulations control airplanes, not the number of passengers. You control the number of airplanes and the number of wheels and engines and wings, but not the number of people, so the number of airplanes that come in, I believe you said you showed a slight decrease, that is your area. That is your bailiwick, right? Vr. SAUNDERS. Yes, sir. Mr. KUYKENDALL. Passengers, you have no control over at all. Mr. SAUNDERS. That is right. Mr. KUYKENDALL. Thank you, sir.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Watson, one further point is that as the airlines convert more and more to all jet equipment (and we now have seven airlines at Washington National all jet), the percentage of jets will increase at National, Dulles, and Friendship, all over the country.

For example, 3 years ago, the percentage of jets at National was 16.2 percent. Now, the percentage of jets is about 72.5 percent. This trend will continue because of the great efficiency, economy, and attractiveness of jet aircraft.

Mr. FRIEDEL. On that thought, Mr. Saunders, Lockheed and others are planning air buses that will hold anywhere from 250 to 300 passengers. Will this type of plane be allowed to land at Washington National?

Mr. SAUNDERS. No, sir, not according to the present policy. They would come within the two and three-engine restriction. But we have added to the restriction banning four-engine jets, the additional proviso that the smaller jets (which opened up jet service at National) would be the only ones permitted.

Mr. FRIEDEL. I am asking particularly about the 250 and 300passenger jets.

Mr. SAUNDERS. The present policy-
Mr. FRIEDEL. As to those jets?
Mr. SAUNDERS. The present policy would prevent them.
Mr. FRIEDEL. The present policy. I am hoping they live up to that.

Mr. Watson. Will the able chairman yield at that point? Mr. Saunders, as a safety matter, this new jet does not require as much runway, although it has as great capacity as the present jet as I understand it, is that not correct?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. Watson. And if we want to eliminate the congestion at Washington National, it would appear to me that we would be at least looking at the possibility of bringing in a plane which has a greater load capacity but operating on shorter runways. In other words, we can reduce the number of flights. That is where the problem that we have now is. We have got 100 planes around in the air, as these control tower people tell us.

Does that not make sense? Mr. SAUNDERS. No, sir, I would not see it quite that way, Mr. Watson. The problem in the air involves no issue of safety. It does involve delays, of course, but it does not involve any issue of safety.

The part that we worry about is the congestion on the ground, and the capacity of the parking lot, of the roadways and of the baggage and passenger handling facilities.

Mr. WATSON. And Mr. Saunders, if you have a larger load capacity, you reduce the congestion on the ground?

Mr. SAUNDERS. No. Mr. WATSON. Would that not follow? Mr. SAUNDERS. No, sir, because the ability of Washington National Airport now to handle 10 million passengers is based on an even flow, at the present rate of deplaning passengers. To have a larger number of deplaning passengers at various times would tend to stop the flow, and to congest the whole operation. This would slow things down.

With the present mix and, I might add, with some $13 million worth of improvements which the airlines have put in at their own expense at National, you are able to keep the flow of passengers going without interruption generally, except for very high passenger days. But we feel this would not be so if larger aircraft were involved and you had the people going in and out in larger bunches.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Pickle? Mr. PICKLE. May I ask a question at this point? How many other witnesses do we have this morning?

Mr. FRIEDEL. None.

Mr. Pickel. Well then, Mr. Chairman, may I proceed for additional questions of Mr. Saunders?


Mr. Pickle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to appear to be out of order by referring back to the bill, Mr. Chairman, but if I may I would like to ask Mr. Saunders for some general information. As I understand it, when the FAA wants to spend funds on a particular project that is primarily of an emergency nature, one, if you can, you put it in the appropriation bill for that year, and you list it as line items of work to be done at X places.

Second, you cannot anticipate always on an annual appropriation basis what is going to be needed, particularly of an emergency nature. You have a contingency fund or a general fund from which you can either reprogram or reshuffle your funds and use it for these emergencies that you have reference to here.

Now if that is generally the procedure you use, I assume that at no point do you come before this committee to ask for authorization for the expenditure of those funds but rather to the Appropriations Committee to say “We need to do this.”

If that is correct, at any point do you notify this committee of the expenditures that are made and for what purpose, other than the general review, congressional review procedure that we have?

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »