JUDGMENT DAY FUTURE CONCORDE SERVICES DEPEND ON HEARING IN U.S.

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 34021, 9 December 1975, Page 20

JUDGMENT DAY FUTURE CONCORDE SERVICES DEPEND ON HEARING IN U.S.

(A report to the "Financial Times." from DAVID BELL in W ashington, and MICHAEL DONNE in London ) (Reprinted by arrangement I

During the next few weeks all those associated with Concorde, and all those opposed to it in the United States, will be busy preparing their submissions to the further public hearing in Washington on January that will determine whether or not that aeroplane is finally allowed to carry fare-paying passengers into and out of United States airports.

It will be a critical day; for Concorde — perhaps the, most critical among many in its 13 years’ development j life. For on what is said at' the hearing by both its! protagonists and opponents,! supported by the additional; documentary evidence which, both sides are entitled to submit, will be based the: final decision of the United, States Government, through! Mr William Coleman, Secre-j tary for Transportation. ; Mr Coleman has said that he will give his decision within 30 days of the public hearing. Whatever decision he takes is bound to be challenged. If it is favourable, the anti-Concorde lobby may challenge him, and thus the United States Government, in the courts. If it is unfavourable, the United Kingdom and French Governments may also feel obliged to press their legal rights under existing bilateral air agreements on the grounds that treaties between the three countries do not give the United States the right to keep Concorde out.

In the last few months it has become clear that Concorde has fewer and fewer friends in Washington. Opposition to granting it landing rights has increased sharply since the publication of the Greater London Council’s noise figures on the aircraft’s performance at Heathrow this summer, and the coalition of Congressmen and environmental groups which want to ban the aircraft is now scenting victory. Critical lobby Ever since there was talk of an American supersonic transport (S.S.T.) there has been an anti-supersonic aircraft lobby in the United States, and it was sharply critical of the Federal Aviation Administration’s interim report on Concorde issued some months ago. The privately financed Environmental Defence Fund, for instance, planned to seek an injunction to order the F.A.A. to repeat all its tests if the final Environmental Impact Study (E. 1.5. had been accompanied by a decision to allow the aircraft to land in the United States. As it was, Mr William Coleman neatly sidestepped that problem by putting off a decision and fixing fresh hearings where both sides would have equal time to state their cases for the last time. Within 30 days of those hearings a decision

(whether or not to al low • [Concorde into the United States will be taken.

But if this has precluded the E.D.F. from litigation for the moment, Mr John Hellegers, its director, believes that the extra delay can only work to his advantage. The E.D.F. is now minutely studying the several hundred pages of maps and statistics contained in the final E.I.S. and looks forward with some relish to presenting its case in the full glare of publicity on January 5. The Congressmen who make up the other half of this coalition are also pleased that the decision has been put off. For the most part, they represent districts close to airports where there is already a severe problem from the noise of existing subsonic aircraft. Noise issue Mr Lester Wolff, for instance, represents a •constituency on the edge of (Kennedy Airport in New York. He believes that Con- • corde’s noise levels, which ! the E.I.S. said would be periceived to be considerably higher than those of the new generation of subsonic aircraft, would be the final straw for thousands of his constituents.

Mr Wolff and other Con-i gressmen will concentrate, on the noise issue, and they! believe that Mr Coleman has* deliberately supplied them with all the ammunition! they need in the hope that I the hearings will generate so! much anti-Concorde publicity that he will have no choice but to come out against the aircraft. For Mr Coleman, however, the issue is by no means as simple, and there is no indication that that is the way he is thinking and he is well aware of the diplomatic tight-rope that he is now being forced to walk. An American veto of Concorde could have serious diplomatic repercusions and result in British or French retaliation against United States airlines or aircraft manufacturers on top of any British or French challenge in the law courts. Lawyers in Washington are divided on this issue, but the Administration is clearly very conscious of it. "We have no obligation to admit any aircraft that doe? not meet standards or has a serious effect on our environment, but we have an absolute obligation not to discriminate against foreign airlines,” Mr Coleman said.

British pressure Britain has been exerting diplomtic pressure on the Administration at least to get permission for Concorde to land at Washington’s Dulles Airport. This is under Federal control, unlike Kennedy Airport, which is administered by the New York Port Authority whose distaste for Concorde is something of an open secret. But this diplomatic pressure seems to have had only a limited effect when ranged against a Congress which, in an election year, has no reason to be sympathetic to Concorde.

I All these factors are we’! recognised by the British and French Government', and by the Concordes manufacturers. British Aircraft Corporation and Ae« rospatiale. The final E.I.S. is now being studied in London and Paris, but the initial reaction appears to be that it is fair, setting out the proa and cons of Concorde and the questions needing further answer as clearly as could be expected. i There is some criticism of Mr Coleman’s own com. m'ents that Concorde’s noise lis “twice as loud" as that of present narrow-bodv sub- | sonic jets, and “roughly four times as loud” as the newer ‘generation of wide-bodies — j statements with which it intends to counter at the pub. jlie hearing. That hearing, and the sub. , sequent review period, are | now regarded as virtually Concorde’s last real chance of publicly convincing people in the United States that it is not the noisy, fearsome monster it has been described as being, but an environmentally acceptable aeroplane that can revolutionise the world air transport system. But it is recognised that proving the point may be difficult. The fact that the United States has thought it necessary to hold further public hearings appears to indicate that the proConcorde lobby on this side of the Atlantic failed to be convincing enough at the earlier hearings.

Long struggle Whatever happens at the public hearing, however, and in the review period, it seems clear that Concorde is still in for a long struggle before it will finally win 'any kind of United States I clearance. The situation i could drag on for some months, and it might not be 'until the late summer before anything is settled one way lor another. By then, however, Concorde might well have decided the issue for itself. For, when the proposed farepaying passenger service from Paris to Rio de Janeiro via Dakar and Heathrow to Bahrain begins as scheduled on January 21, the aircraft will start to build up a body of economic, environmental and technical operating experience that could answer many of the outstanding questions.

Already, for example, the passengers are flocking to the aircraft, with both British Airways and Air France reporting that flights for the first few weeks are full with bookings still flowing in. This is why, notwithstanding attitudes in the United ■States, the two airlines, British Airways and Air France, are steadily pressing ahead with their plans to start on that day, and why the two Governments are also pressing ahead quietly with their negotiations for further route rights elsewhere in the world such as to the Far East and Australia and New Zealand.