admittance to an airliner from America loaded with tourists, with Yankee dollars.

Senator COTTON. That goes double. We probably wouldn't refuse admittance to a supersonic aircraft loaded with European tourists. Mr. GODFREY. They don't have many.

Senator COTTON. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Chairman ELLENDER, Senator Allott.

SST SPEED INCREASE

Senator ALLOTT. I thought I missed the first part of your statement, Mr. Godfrey, but one or two things in your statement challenges me. One is that faster airplanes are not needed by the traveling public today.

I would like to suggest to you very respectfully that there is nothing as irresistible as an idea whose time has come. Going back to the era that you spoke of, in 1959, you will recall as well as I-and I have spent a little time in cockpits, too-that we were flying, at that time, DC-6's and DC-7's, connies and super connies.

As I recall it, the DC-7 was rated at about 350 miles an hour, although it never really cruised at that. Is that about right?

Mr. GODFREY. That is right, sir.

Senator ALLOTT. At that time, we came out with the 707 which was then selling for almost $6 million per copy. Is that correct?

Mr. GODFREY. I think that is about right, yes, sir.

Senator ALLOTT. I was thinking then like you are thinking now, and I am not going to make the same mistake again, and that was that there was no need and you couldn't possibly justify any need for a plane that would simply travel another 150 miles or another 175 miles per hour faster.

How can you justify the fact that faster airplanes are not needed as long as they are available, as long as the science, as long as the technology, as long as the capability is here?

They are going to be built and the public will just use them as they moved into the jets. In fact, they moved into the jets so fast that they had to drop the surcharge.

Do you recall that?

Mr. GODFREY. Yes, sir, I do, very well.

Senator ALLOTT. What makes you say that the same thing will not happen here?

Mr. GODFREY. I am sure if the airplane were available, certainly, the public would go to it quickly. But my question is why do we need to get wherever it is going so fast? What have they in Paris that I would like to see that quickly?

Senator MAGNUSON. Why do you fly?

Mr. GODFREY. I fly because I love to, because it is the safest way in

the world to travel.

Senator ALLOTT. But you also fly. Using your argument that you don't need to get there that fast, you might as well go out and buy yourself an old mule and wagon.

It is using the comparison in the extreme, but you used automobiles when they came along. You used all the various classifications of aircraft. You have been a pilot now for at least 30 years, I am sure.

Mr. GODFREY. Forty-two, sir.

Chairman ELLENDER. He was a teenager then.

Senator ALLOTT. I know he has been a pilot a long time. And you have used each new vehicle as it came along.

Mr. GODFREY. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLOTT. You will recall that the first 707's that came out-I am not sure whether that was the designation were so shortlegged that they had to stop in Gander up in Newfoundland to refuel before they could go across the Atlantic.

You recall that. And yet people still used them in preference to the DC-7's and the Connies and planes of that type that were crossing the ocean.

NET SAVINGS OF TIME

Mr. Godfrey. It is true, sir, that the SST would cross the ocean, which is the only place we hope it would be flown, so that the sonic boom wouldn't bother anybody, very fast, three times as fast as a 707 can go, or a 747.

But over land it would have to slow down. So, actually, from block to block-as we speak of from the time the airplane doors are closed and it starts to taxi until it taxis up and stops and the doors open and they let people out-the difference in that time, sir, works out to be a very slight advantage.

For example, the small business jets that are available today, we have some for $3 million that can get you there at mach .92. We have some for $1 million and under that can get you there at mach .82. The difference across the country is 12 minutes. You lose that trying to find your bag.

Senator ALLOTT. There is a difference of 9 hours in the longest flight across the Pacific between an SST and the present jets.

Mr. GODFREY. Yes, sir; that is true. But if you use the 3 hours usually required to get yourself in the airplane from Broadway and off in Tokyo, you have lost the time anyway. That is my only point.

POLLUTION

Senator ALLOTT. You say if we should put a huge fleet of SST's on hourly schedules over the same routes day after day-you don't think it is possible at all that a fleet of SST's, as has been testified to here today, would, to some extent, supplant the lower speed subsonic jets?

Mr. GODFREY. No, sir; I don't. May I please, Senator, cite an example of what I mean by that?

I have hunted in the Rockies in Colorado, a most beautiful part of our country, and at daybreak sat on a crag watching for game. Shortly after that the first eastbound jet would cross overhead coming from Los Angeles and leave a nice big vapor trail in a very clear sky.

Within 15 to 20 minutes there would be another one-very high, didn't bother us on the ground at all, but you see the trails being laid down one on top of the other. On three or four different occasions when the sky was clear to begin with, by 9:30 in the morning we were overcast with vapor trails.

Those particulates that are left up there at that altitude, 35 and 39 and 41,000-the big jets don't go any higher than that—are very slowly moving but not very fast. It is possible, sir, to fly, as I stated before you came, in the cockpit of an airplane and climb to 45,000 feet and still see layers of what we call smog.

With the SST we would only be putting it 20,000 feet higher. What the environmental consequences would be, of course, I don't know. Senator ALLOTT. I only want to say one thing: I have lived in Colorado all my life and I have never seen this kind of contrails in the sky where you would have a layer of them over you, never in my life have I seen it.

Mr. GODFREY. I wish the Senator would go with me and some day we will sit together. Instead of looking for game we will look for trails.

Senator ALLOTT. I never felt I should damage the environment by shooting our wildlife.

Senator COTTON. As a point of personal privilege, both of you are dead wrong. The most beautiful spot isn't in the Rockies. It is in the White Mountains of New Hampshire.

ECONOMIC TRAVEL AND POLLUTION EMISSION PER PASSENGER MILE

Chairman ELLENDER. Any further questions?

Senator ALLOTT. If you have a number of people, we will say, on the Atlantic route or any other route that you want to name, who are going to travel that route, and if the testimony of all of these experts is correct and it has been studied and many of the rest of us have studied it for years-actually upon a passenger mile basis it will cost less. If it is the most economical means of transportation available, then actually your emissions per passenger mile are going to be less on the SST than on a subsonic jet.

Otherwise, the SST cannot possibly be justified on an economic basis. The overwhelming evidence is that it is the most economical basis, and these projections don't fall apart when you get companies like Lockheed and Boeing and others who have been studying it for

years.

I cannot understand contridictions to argument that since you are going to have a number of people crossing at a given time, the most efficient means is going to provide the least noxious pollutants in the air.

People don't talk about wind sheers. You know about wind sheers, too, don't you?

Mr. GODFREY. If the Senator please, there will be, this afternoon, some very expert economists to discuss this with you. I am not an economist.

Senator ALLOTT. That is all I have.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ELLENDER. Senator Percy.

POSSIBLE MILITARY USE FOR AIRCRAFT

Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say that I think it was a very wise decision for the Appropriations Committee

to sit as a whole to consider this matter rather than just those of us who are on the Transportation Subcommittee.

In the spirit of the hearings, I have tried to approach open hearings not with a closed mind.. Since our vote I have sought to open myself to every new argument that I could hear, and I am sure we are going to hear some additional good arguments in these hearings.

I have gone to see Secretary Volpe. I have talked with members of the airline industry. I have talked to the banks to see what new evidence they might offer. I think the testimony of these witnesses is very valuable.

I would like to ask Mr. Godfrey this question: You indicated in your statements that you have in the past supported the B-36, the B-37 and the B-42.

Mr. GODFREY. Yes, sir.

Senator PERCY. From your own experience, why do you suppose there is no apparent military requirement of any kind for an SST?

Mr. GODFREY. To my best knowledge, Senator, the Air Force is no longer depending on supersonic bombers for either the retaliatory or defensive posture. They are thinking only in terms of the rockets. The SST perhaps could be used to haul troops, arms, or something of that kind, or command personnel.

Maybe that would be necessary. But apparently they are not thinking in terms any more of manned supersonic transports for this

purpose.

Senator PERCY. I have talked with the Department of Defense and they simply say it is not worth it to them to pay this cost to move people or equipment. I really urged them to try to put money into this project.

If you can find a military justification, we can justify a lot of things, and have in the past. But they simply say it is not worth it. Then I come back to the fact that if it is not worth it to the Pentagon, which has more money than anyone, why is it worth it, then, to the commercial market?

When we consider that of international passenger traffic 80 percent are tourists, and by FAA surveys tourists say they will not pay anything as a premium to get there this much faster as against the standard jet.

Twenty percent are business. As you pointed out, probably the same businessmen are tied up in traffic jams in Manhattan and getting out on failing railroads could be saved more time per year by fixing up mass transits and moving surface transportation in the few hours that we would pick up here.

I would like, though, to get into the characteristics of the airplane because our distinguished Senator from Washington who knows a great deal about it is here.

SUBSONIC JET AND SST RANGES

I would like to put these questions to Mr. Soucie.

Just to get on the record what the comparative advantages or disadvantages of the SST against the most advanced passenger plane we have, the 747, let's talk about range.

57-918 0-71-7

What is the range, the expected range, of the SST as against the range of the 747?

Mr. SOUCIE. The 747 range, I think, is roughly in the neighborhood of 6,000 miles. The best information we can get about any SST range, and that goes for the TU-144 and the Concorde as well, is that everybody is predicting 4,000 miles.

It is very difficult to find their assumptions, though I think in the case of Boeing's SST it is possible to come up with the engineering assumptions to justify 4,000 miles.

Translated into commercial terms, it is New York-Paris with a full payload and the proper amount of fuel reserve.

Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, I would like very much to be absolutely certain this record is complete and accurate. If the distinguished Senator from Washint gon disagrees with any of the figures given by the witness, I think he should respond.

Senator MAGNUSON. I think the best evidence would be to call the experts in this field. There have been published many, many times the comparison of the American SST, the Russian, and British, with size, wingspan, passenger capacity, range, ceiling, cost per plane, airline orders to date, and when the service starts.

It is all here. I will put it into the record.

Senator PERCY. As I understand the witness' position, the range is considerably shorter for the SST.

Mr. SOUCIE. Yes, sir.

Senator PERCY. So on long flights, if picking up time is what we are trying to do, and if getting people to their destinations faster is the problem we are trying to solve, and there is a limited number of people who want to get there that much faster or who would be willing to pay extra for it, the supposed advantages of the SST would be limited by its shorter range. In other words, on a long flight of, say, 6,000 miles, the SST will have to land at least once.

It has to find an airport, it has to refuel, and it has to take off again. The 2 or 3 hours to be gained will be lost.

If there is fog or congestion at the airport, any flight that has to land in between times on these long flights may take longer.

SUPERSONIC JET AND SST PASSENGER CAPACITIES

Let's talk about passenger capacity. What is the known passenger capacity for the 747 against the SST developed by Boeing?

Mr. SOUCIE. The maximum capacity of the 747 as advertised by Boeing, I think, is 490 or 494 passengers, though no airline today is flying jampacked. I think the tightest configuration is Irish Airlines at about 450 passengers but most airlines are ordering at around 360

seats.

On the Boeing SST I don't know what the maximum capacity is. But I would assume the figures used by Mr. Magruder are optimummaximum.

He uses 298 passengers.

Senator PERCY. So that the range is shorter and the number of passengers is fewer.