public at subsonic fare levels in which case the high Nearly 400 hours of flight testing by two prototypes has demonstrated that Concorde comfortably meets its speed, payload, range and other performance targets. 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 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". I expect it to be backed by many firm airline orders before the year is out. This week Keith Granville, BOAC's Deputy Chairman and Managing Director, stated that "BOAC's objective is to go supersonic as soon as possible and we are working in a very positive way with BAC and the Government on the best way of doing so." Much has been made of an article headlined "BOAC bombshell 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. 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 Nation. Our major national resource is the brains and skill of our people. Much of our food and most of our raw materials 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 commercial success is in sight and its future will and indeed should be decided in the aviation market place. Besides employing some 25,000 of our most skilled people on a peaceful programme which could have a favourable impact on our economy out of all proportion to the numbers employed, the challenge of Concorde has advanced man's knowledge on many technical fronts to the ultimate benefit of Britain and the whole world. A telling example is the interest your own space shuttle teams are showing in various areas of Concorde technology. Much of the argument on Concorde has centred on whether or not it will have a significant environmental impact. May I be allowed to comment on some aspects of this question. Airport Noise Concorde is not expected to have any noticeable impact on the noise patterns currently existing around major airports; it will certainly be no noisier than existing 4 engined jets and it may well be quieter. ). CEPA, INC. CONSUMERS EDUCATION AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, INC. March 10, 1971 Honorable Allen J. Ellender U. S. Senate Washington, D..C. Dear Senator Ellender: I am submitting a statement on the SST for consideration of the Senate Appropriation Committee from the Consumers Education and Protective Association International, Inc. in opposition to the appropriation of additional funds for the SST. This statement is being submitted in lieu of my testifying at the committee hearings. I understand that there is not sufficient time to permit me to testify in person. CEPA, INC. CONSUMERS EDUCATION AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, INC. March 10, 1971 Statement of Howard Frazier National Director Consumers Education and Protective Association International, Inc. I am submitting this statement in opposition to appropriating On February 14, 1971 our board of directors voted unanimously to oppose appropriating additional funds for the SST. We see no reason why tax payers should pay 90% of the cost for developing supersonic transport planes designed for commercial use and for the profits of the air carriers. If the project is sound economically and the air carriers desire such a plane, they should go to the lending institutions and obtain the necessary funds for it as was done in the development of the large commercial jet planes. The fact that approximately a billion dollars has already been spent on this project is no reason that additional funds should be appropriated. We think that a mistake was made when the first dollar was appropriated for it. Each dollar spent on the project, in our opinion, is an unjustifiable expenditure of Federal funds. We believe that to spend another 500 million dollars to develop the two prototypes would be a step toward committing the Federal government to participate in the production costs of the SST, which would cost the tax payers another two to four billion dollars. We object to the use of Federal funds for benefiting the small percentage, less than 15, who use air planes for overseas travel. Public opinion polls show that 90% believe that Federal funds should not be used to develop the SST. There is urgent need in our nation for a reordering of our national priorities. Vital domestic programs have been neglected and are insufficiently funded. With 74% of our population in our cities, there is great need for improved transportation, housing, health services, jobs, schools and related areas. Instead of spending Federal funds on projects that would affect less than 1% of our citizens, they should be spent on projects which are needed and will benefit all the people of our nation. We think that the stratosphere should be left 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 a year. We are also concerned about the exhaust emissions from the SST that could potentially change the world climate. More research is needed before poisonous fumes are emitted into the stratosphere which could affect the lives of millions of people throughout the world. Each nation The skies and the stratosphere cannot be owned by any 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 economists who believe that the balance of trade is irrevelent to the SST and should not be used to justify the project. We believe that it is incumbent on the Congress to represent the interests of all the people and not the few; to guard the health and welfare of our citizens against any and all projects that pollute our atmosphere; to take 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 HOWARD FRAZIER National Director |