Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

STATEMENT ON THE SST

BY

JAMES D. DAVIDSON

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION

Proponents of the SST have based their public plea for funds upon 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.

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 previously 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.

$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,

London, S.W.1.

The Honorable Allen J. Ellender,

United States Senate,
Washington, D.C. 20510.

March 12, 1971.

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 if any, and the British Government's attitude towards it.

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 321⁄2? 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

57-918 O 71 35

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.

Nearly 400 hours of flight testing by two prototypes has demonstrated that

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

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 is outstandingly good. The aircraft is compatible with existing international airports and air traffic procedures.

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 "BO AC 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.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »