« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
STATEMENT ON THE SST
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION
spent on projects which are needed and will benefit all the people of our nation. We think that the stratosphere should be loft undisturbed. We are greatly concerned about the possibility of water vapor from the SST
affecting the ozones which could result in thousands of skin cancer cases 7 7
a year. We are also concerned about the exhaust emissions from the SST that could potentially change the world clinate. I!ore research is needed before poisonous fumes are emitted into the stratosphere which could affect the lives of millions of people throughout the world.
Proponents of the SST have based their public plea for fund pon two shaky arguments:
1. They claim that continued subsidy is necessary to produce prototypes. Supposedly, if the prototypes proved unworkable, the program could then be scratched. 2. They claim that national interest requires continued subsidy for if the U.S. fails to produce an SsT some other country will.
The skies and the stratosphere cannot be owned by any nation. Each nation has a responsibility for keeping them clear of any kind of pollution and to refrain from activities which cause damage to properties, distress and injuries to people. The SST would greatly increase the number of sonic bangs one estimate being that 4,000 people would be affected by each flight across the Atlantic ocean. We know that sonic bangs have already caused injuries and loss of life, great property damage and much suffering.
We believe that every able bodied citizen has a right to a job. Federal funds which are now being used to employ 14,000 people working on the SST could be put to better use on projects that would benefit more people. If the money which has been spent on the SST had been spent for improved mass transportation, at least 100,000 jobs could have been created in this field.
Our organization favors world trade. We support the opinion of fifteen of the nation's leading econonists who believe that the balance of trade is irrevelent to the SST and should not be used to justify the project.
Economists and other experts have devastated these conten so often that every member of Congress is probably aware that SST is a weak investment. Among academic advocates of the fre sarket the sst program has become infamous as an example of a project with no possible justification. It does not contribut to the national defense. It does not eradicate poverty. It
not of | bas truly said, " the sm is the frivolous toy of the jet set.
Not only are a few international travelers to be subsid by the sweat of the taxpayer, everyone living in the vicinit the SST landing sites faces the prospect of an unwelcomed vi of property rights. Many experts have testified that the pl would wreck havoc with sonic booms and pollute the air to ti distress of the average man.
And for what? So that a few ) active travelers will not have to spend so much time watchi in-flight movies,
Those who are familiar with Washington and the working Congress recognize that the real reason for support of the nost often unstated. It is pure greed.
It is greed on th the contractors and union officials who would seek to have foot the bill for any project, no matter how worthless, wt public gullibility will allow. These elements have no que soever about spending thousands or even millions of dolla inundate the media with propaganda. They can easily affo so, for they can dip into the public till to pay for thei out of the loot they receive. Meanwhile, advocates of th and protection of the environment must scrimp along tryir to rest in the public mind every fallacious smokescreen by those who would benefit from the subsidy.
Members of Congress should recognize that subsidizi is a very inefficient method of providing welfare paymer unproductive. It would be far less damaging both to the the environment, to simply hand over the money to those enough to squeeze it out of Congress, without any prete
We believe that it is incumbent on the Congress to represent the interests of all the people and not the fe!!; to guard the health and welfare of our citizens against any and all projects that pollute our atmosphere; to tals the leadership in preventing special interests from getting advantages at the expense of the taxpayers. The Senate demonstrated independence and great courage in the last session of Congress when originally it voted to appropriate no funds for the SST.
We hope that this committee will refuse to recommend the appropriation of additional funds for this project.
HOWARD FRAZIER National Director
STATEMENT ON THE SST
Proponents of the SST have based their public plea for funds upon two shaky arguments:
1. They claim that continued subsidy is necessary to
Economists and other experts have devastated these contentions so often that every member of Congress is probably aware that the SST is a weak investment. Among academic advocates of the free market the SST program has become infamous as an example of a project with no possible justification. It does not contribute to the national defense. It does not eradicate poverty. It does not alleviate the distress of the masses. As Senator Proxmire has truly said, "the SST is the frivolous toy of the jet set."
Not only are a few international travelers to be subsidized by the sweat of the taxpayer, everyone living in the vicinity of the SST landing sites faces the prospect of an unwelcomed violation of property rights. Many experts have testified that the planes would wreck havoc with sonic booms and pollute the air to the distress of the average man.
And for what? So that a few hyperactive travelers will not have to spend so much time watching in-flight movies.
Those who are familiar with Washington and the workings of Congress recognize that the real reason for support of the SsT is most often unstated. It is pure greed. It is greed on the part of the contractors and union officials who would seek to have taxpayers foot the bill for any project, no matter how worthless, which public gullibility will allow. These elements have no qualms whatsoever about spending thousands or even millions of dollars to inundate the media with propaganda. They can easily afford to do so, for they can dip into the public till to pay for their advertising out of the loot they receive. Meanwhile, advocates of the taxpayers and protection of the environment must scrimp along trying to lay to rest in the public mind every fallacious smokescreen thrown up by those who would benefit from the subsidy.
Members of Congress should recognize that subsidizing an SST is a very inefficient method of providing welfare payments to the unproductive. It would be far less damaging both to the economy and the environment, to simply hand over the money to those powerful enough to squeeze it out of Congress, without any pretense of its
being applied for some good purpose. In this way, fewer resources would be shifted out of productive use, and less risk of external diseconomy would exist. The environment would remain unsullied. And more beneficiaries would be happier, for they would have all the money they wanted plus plenty of leisure time to spend it in. The Congress would do better simply to give the money away rather than subsidize an SST.
It is melancholy that this argument must be made. For it is clear that the people would never tolerate an Sst if the true stakes of the issue were understood. Congress would never simply give the money to the contractors, for how could it be explained during the next election? One can understand, if not agree with the roles being played by members of Congress from the five states which would benefit from increased SST subsidy. But what of those members from the other 45 states whose populations are being disadvantaged to provide jobs to a handful of engineers and machinists
? How can representatives of the people ask for re-election when they pay so little heed of the interests of the taxpayers?
It is to be hoped that the Senate will repeat its action of last winter and deny all funds for the sst. Any member who previous opposed the project and later shifts his position will be opposed for re-election by the National Taxpayers Union. Every Senator or Representative who is instrumental in passing a worthless project stands in danger of being retired when the taxpayers, at long last, awake to the true nature of the puddingheaded boondoggles which too many of our "national leaders" are all too ready to support.
He of 30 by pr He
$ 864,000,000 for an SST is already too much for a project which did not merit the expenditure of one penny.
House of Commons ,
March 12, 1971.
The Honorable Allen J. Ellender,
Dear Senator Ellender,
Many misleading statements concerning the AngloFrench Concorde SST were made by Richard Wiggs in testimony given before the recent House Sub-Committee Hearings concerning your proposed SST. As a Member of Parliament I feel that I must endeavour to correct some of the false impressions that may have been left by the barrage of rather mischevious information presented. As you have just Chaired the Senate SST Hearings may I be allowed to offer some comments to you in the hope that they will be helpful to your deliberations.
The allegations made generally concern the aircraft's airline potential, its environmental impact and the British Government's attitude towards it.
if any ,
Will the airlines buy Concorde?
The short answer is 'Yes'. Waldo Emmerson, the American philosopher, believed that "if you build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door". In Concorde I believe we have that better product. who, after all, is going to spend seven hours flying the Atlantic if he can get there in 342? When the time saved is added to the boredom and discomfort avoided the attraction becomes obvious.
In the airline business speed sells and this is the dominant factor in any discussion on Concorde's commercial viability. Whether Concorde is offered to the travelling
public at subsonic fare levels - in which case the high passenger loads generated would more than offset the higher operating costs - or whether it is offered with a surcharge to protect the subsonic jets the result is expected to be the same. The airline with Concorde will be more profitable than the airline without.
Much has been made of an article headlined "BOAC boobshell for the Government We can't afford to fly Concorde" which appeared simultaneously in the London Observer and the Washington Post on February 21st. The story's implications were hotly denied by BOAC. It is interesting to note that other headlines on February 22nd ranged from "BOAC has £60 million plan ready to buy Concorde" in the Daily Telegraph, to "BOAC reviewing way of operating Concorde" in the Times, and *BOAC: We Do Want Concorde" in the Daily Mirror.
Nearly 400 hours of flight testing by two prototypes has demonstrated that
Concorde comfortably meets its speed, payload, range and other performance targets.
Britain is proud of Concorde.
Many Members on both sides of the House of Commons and Lords believe that Concorde and programmes like it are beneficial to our
Concorde is precise and pleasant to fly. It handles well and is extremely stable throughout the speed range.
Handling at low speeds and during approach and landing is outstandingly good. The aircraft is compatible with existing international airports and air traffic procedures.
Our major national
esource is the brains and skill our people. Much of our food and most of our raw baterials come from overseas;
we have to export to live By 1980 Concorde can have a beneficial impact on our balance of payments worth an estimated $4.8 billion.
We have developed the aircraft to the point where comercial success is in sight and its future will and indeed should be decided in the aviation market place.
Reliability has been good and Concorde's maintenance programmes fit in with contemporary airline practices. The prototypes' response and handling following deliberately induced failures has been impressive. Concorde continues the trend towards ever greater safety in the air.
The question which controls Concorde's future is "Can an airline make a better profit with Concorde than it can without it?' I support the manufacturer's view that "Given moderate average load factors, a balanced mix of Concordes and subsonic aircraft will earn a better net annual return on investment than an all subsonic fleet". be backed by many firm airline orders before the year is out.
Besides employing some 25,000 of our most skilled people on a peaceful programme which could have a lavourable impact on our economy out of all proportion the numbers employed, the challenge of Concorde has ac Ban's knowledge on many technical fronts to the ultima benefit of Britain and the whole world.
A telling ex is the interest your own space shuttle teams are show in various areas of Concorde technology.
Much of the argument on Concorde has centred on
not it will have a significant environmental impac May I be allowed to comment on some aspects of this
I expect it to
This week Keith Granville, BOAC'S Deputy Chairman and Managing Director, stated that "BOAC's objective is to go supersonic as as possible and we are working in a very positive way with BAC and the Government on the best way of doing so."
Concorde is not expected to have any noticeable on the noise patterns currently existing around majo airports; it will certainly be no noisier than exis engined jets and it may well be quieter.