Concorde and conflict

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34046, 9 January 1976, Page 8

Concorde and conflict

Since the inception of the project in 1962, the development and construction of the British-French supersonic aircraft, Concorde, has been beset by controversy. At the outset, critics asked whether an aircraft which gave so few such a modest benefit was a desirable technological development. As costs escalated, critics asked whether the project’s expense could be justified. As more information about the aircraft became available, it became apparent that the aircraft in operation might cause serious environmental problems. The sonic boom the aircraft causes while cruising at supersonic speeds and the noise and vibration it causes at airports are expected to be at least a nuisance and oossibly hazardous to large numbers of people. The depletion of the ozone laver in the upper atmosphere by the aircraft’s exhaust may lead to a serious risk to the health of an even larger number of people. Some of the questions asked about supersonic commercial airliners may equally well be asked about supersonic military aircraft, though the military aircraft do not usually flv in and out of densely copulated areas adjacent to large cities. Indeed, military users have had to compensate for damage to property. Russian supersonic airliners are flying over their own territory. much of it open countryside: but they, too, may be damaging the ozone layer.

The latest round of the debate over Concorde has focused, narrowly, on the question of landing and take-off noise. This was the main topic discussed at the open hearings called by the United States Secretary of Transportation (Mr William Coleman) before . his deciding whether Concorde will be allowed to use United States airports on regular flights. If the noise and ribration that the nine planes which will be flown by Air France and British Airways was all that was at stake even the opponents of the aircraft might be inclined to think that Mr Coleman should rule in its favour—although the people living near Heathrow and Kennedy airports might dispute this.

Although authorities differ in their opinions on the possible dangers, the cumulative effects on the upper atmosphere of regular flights by even this small number of Concordes cannot safely be ignored. Even more important, however, a decision by Mr Coleman favourable to Concorde will probably lead, eventual!) to orders being placed by other airlines for more Concordes and to a much larger number of supersonic flights Access to Kennedy airport in particular is considered the key to Concorde’s acceptance at other airports, and further sales of the aircraft depend on Mr Coleman’s decision. This is, indeed, the reason why the British and French Governments are putting such pressure on the Americans to admit the Concorde. Whatever Mr Coleman’s verdict, it will not end the battle If he decides not to allow Concorde to land at American airports. Britain and France will retaliate against United States aircraft manufacturers and air carriers The two countries mav also be exnected to nursue their case in the various bodies concerned with regulating international air traffic, because existing agreements give Britain the right to designate whatever aircraft it chooses for its passen”<»r services tn the United States If Mr Coleman annrnves Concorde, environmentalists in the United S*ate< ma’ be exnected to challenge the decision in the American courts. Mr Coleman’s decision will not affect th e inauguration of regular Concorde services between Paris and Rio de Janeiro and between London and Bahrain on Januarv 21 These flights mav r - fannation to settle many of the out■hmd - ns on which two sides to the ConcoMo arm»me»»f stiff disagree The aircraft may not nrove tn be quite as serious an environmental fl*-aster as it has already proved to be a financial one.