The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Airport Noise

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Robert MacNeil is off tonight. There was a hearing in Washington today to help resolve the question of who is going to pay for reducing noise around airports. It`s the latest step in the carrying out of a campaign promise made during the Presidential election, not by Jimmy Carter in this case, but by President Ford. Back in October, in the heat of the campaign, Ford ordered the Federal Aviation Administration and its parent Department of Transportation to come up with a new regulation aimed at bringing all domestic aircraft into compliance with existing noise guidelines within eight years.

The President said he was acutely aware of the serious problem noise was for six to seven million Americans who live around airports. In the words of Mr. Ford`s environmental chief, Russell Train, "Many of these people are subjected to noise levels so high that according to the best scientific evidence now available they run a very real risk of actually having their hearing affected. Opening a window to enjoy a warm spring breeze, using the patio in comfort for a barbecue, relaxing in front of a TV set without being disturbed, or carrying on an uninterrupted conversation with a friend in the comfort of our homes -- these ordinary, everyday activities which the rest of us take for granted they cannot enjoy." Two weeks ago the FAA released its regulation. It called for a scheduled compliance within the eight years, either by replacing most of the existing aircraft now in service or by modifying them. The clock starts ticking on January 1.

Today`s hearing, presided over by Transportation Secretary William Coleman, dealt with how these new planes and possible modifications will be paid for, and this financial aspect is one of several pertinent questions involved in curbing airport noise that we want to explore tonight. Beginning with Dr. John McLucas, administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration; Dr. McLucas was Secretary of the Air Force before he took over the FAA. Doctor, if you`re able to completely implement these new regulations within those eight years, what will be achieved in terms of reducing noise?

Dr. JOHN McLUCAS: Well, as you know, only about one fourth of the existing air carrier aircraft -- that means the transports -meet the existing federal noise regulations; Part 36, we call it.

And the other three fourths would be brought into compliance, which means that the noise emitted by those airplanes would be reduced by a significant amount, somewhere between six and 15 decibels.

LEHRER: In a very noticeable way; you talk about nationwide -- there will be a uniformity in terms of noise levels, and all airplanes operating in domestic airports will abide by that?

McLUCAS: That`s essentially correct. All airplanes of above 75,000 pounds, and that includes all the transports, would have to meet the Part 36 noise regulations within eight years.

LEHRER: All right. What in addition to reducing the noise of the airplanes themselves is involved in your overall plan?

McLUCAS: We have several things that we`re implementing at the same time; first is this noise rule which all the aircraft will have to comply with, Part 36. In addition to that we`re implementing certain procedures: the way the airplanes arrive and depart from the airports. We would hold the airplanes at high altitude away from the airports, 20 or 25 miles out, and when they`re finally cleared into the airports they would come in on a constant descent, Saving fuel and making less noise than if they had to mill around at low altitudes.

LEHRER: I see. Well, Doctor, this Part 36, as you call it, which is the federal guideline for noise of airplanes, has been in existence since 1969. Why has it taken up till now to come up with even another eight-year plan to get it all squared away?

McLUCAS: As you know, it`s been the custom on things of this type to put an effective date, and every piece of equipment built after that date must meet these regulations; but it has not been the custom to go back and make people fix up old equipment. If you look at the regulations on emissions of automobiles, and so forth, we have never gone through the process of saying an old automobile had to be brought up to date; what we say is that all the automobiles built after a certain date must comply. The same reasoning was used in the case of the airplanes, that all the aircraft that are now being built have to meet our noise regulations; and you`re then left with the question, "What do you do about the old ones?" And we finally got around to saying that we think that the noise impact from these old aircraft is such that we`ve got to make them comply with this regulation. That leaves you with the question of who`s going to pay for it.

LEHRER: Right. And that`s one we want to get to in a moment. Thank you, Doctor. We want to take a look now at how these new FAA regulations will affect airports -- specifically, Logan Airport in Boston, which has the dubious distinction of being the third noisiest airport in the United States. The president of Allegheny Airlines told Secretary Coleman at those hearings today that maybe the only solution for Boston`s noise problems is to close that airport and move away. Well, reporter Steve Nevas of station WGBH in Boston has the story. Steve?

STEVE NEVAS: Jim, with me here in Boston are two people who perhaps have been considering what the FAA is proposing to do with some impatience, and we`ll be with them in just a moment. For a very long time here in Boston the people who live close to Logan Airport have been demanding a total curfew on late-night and early morning operations at the field. While the decision was being made some months ago, the New England business community warned very loudly that the region`s already limping economy might be damaged even further by curtailment of late-night and early-morning cargo and mail service. They pointed to hundreds of jobs that might be lost, and the economic argument defeated the curfew. But at the same time the Governor and the Massachusetts Port Authority, which operates the airport, promised new and tough anti-noise measures around the clock. John Vitagliano is a leader of the Massachusetts Air Pollution and Noise Abatement Committee, and I have the impression, Sir, that the proposals now under consideration by the FAA don`t go far enough or fast enough for you.

JOHN VITAGLIANO: That`s right. We`ve taken a very close look at the FAA proposals within the last few days, and we`re very concerned about a number of the aspects of the program. First of all, we feel that the eight-year time permit is far too long. For example, a lot of the aircraft that they`ve talked about -- the 707`s and the DC-8`s -- that would be phased out under the FAA program are probably going to have to be phased out anyhow by that time simply because they are so old now that regardless of the new federal regulations, eight years from now they will probably be phased out under any circumstance.

NEVAS: If you had your choice of any anti-noise rule -- one single anti- noise rule -- for Logan Airport, what would you choose?

VITAGLIANO: It`s clear that the most effective technique of overall noise abatement for Logan Airport is really effective noise abatement at the source, which is at the engine. This is why we are so concerned about this proposal that we`ve seen so far, is that it really is not an effective proposal. One, it is too long into the decline phase, and secondly, we`re very concerned that they`re simply accepting the Part 36 noise standards that were first implemented in 1969; and the FAA has told us that they`re not going to have any hearings on adequacy of the Part 36 standards themselves until next spring. So today they had a hearing on the potential financing of replacing the aircraft fleet to meet these standards themselves, which haven`t even been analyzed for their own adequacy yet. So they`ve really put the cart before the horse; so we`re really concerned at least with those two factors.

NEVAS: Many of your people have still been insisting on a complete nighttime curfew; is that now a dead issue?

VITAGLIANO: Not by any means. One of the reasons that the communities around Logan Airport have been pushing for a curfew and are still pushing for a curfew is because of the lack of effective action by the federal government over the course of the last decade or so; and until the federal government really gets serious about addressing the problem of aircraft noise -- and I don`t think that the proposals that we`re looking at right now are a really serious attempt at that -- the communities around not only airports like Logan Airport but other airports around the country are going to continue to pursue issues such as nighttime curfews.

NEVAS: Something else has been introduced, I understand; you`ve been asking for the towing of planes from the terminal to the lip of the runway.

VITAGLIANO: Not so much to the lip of the runway. There are some neighborhoods in East Boston, for example Jeffrey`s Point, with about 10,000 people in that neighborhood.

NEVAS: How close are they to the runway, by the way?

VITAGLIANO: We had about 500 feet, in some of the cases; other cases are about 1,000 feet. But severely impacted this way, the larger the aircraft is, they are now taxiing on the ground.We have proposed that the airline should at least be towing his aircraft with tugs that they now have in the fleet as one way of reducing the noise impact on that kind of a residential neighborhood.

NEVAS: Okay. The people of Massport who operate Boston`s airport may just be caught in the middle between angry residents who say they can`t take one more day of jet noise and the federal government, which may not be willing to go as far as the airport operator might move to deal with that problem. Massport`s director is David Davis, and he`s with me right now. Mr. Davis, as an airport operator, your organization has put forward a list of proposals for noise abatement that go way beyond anything that the FAA now contemplates; how do you justify doing that?

DAVID DAVIS: On several bases. First of all, we ought to discuss who the courts really find responsible in the matter of airport noise. They don`t go after the manufacturer of the engine; they certainly don`t go after the FAA; the airlines have not been the victims of any litigation; it`s the airport proprietor that inevitably is faced with litigation from the neighborhood, and where the litigation turns out to be unfavorable, pays the bill. Admittedly, the money that he pays is taken from the airlines in the form of fees.

NEVAS: Are you saying that Washington has left you in a trap?

DAVIS: I am very interested in this question of preemption that is so often raised by airlines and also discussed, but not as much, by the FAA. I think it`s fine if the federal government wants to pre-empt the field on airline regulation provided they also accept the responsibility for defending against damage suits for the environmental harm that airports may or may not cause. So far, the national administration has not chosen to do that, has left the airport operator holding that particular bag, defending those particular actions clearly responsible for the environment around the airport; and so stated, I very strongly believe that the airport operator has to be at least one of the hands on the throttle, so to speak -- we have to really have some say in the situation. It just makes sense in law.

NEVAS: But you`re proposing some rules which skate very close, perhaps, to the constitutional prohibition against an undue burden on interstate commerce, because you`re proposing things that have been heard, really, or insisted upon nowhere else in the country.

DAVIS: I don`t think I`m skating on that thin an ice, but there is one way to find that out if it`s necessary -- and I sincerely hope it`s necessary - - and the courts have been able to determine whether we`re in violation of the interstate commerce code. Let me say one thing, however, least my statements be misunderstood, particularly by the administrator in Washington. I personally am delighted that the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Coleman, has acted to promulgate this regulation. I think it`s a shame that it has taken so long, and I am sorry, in a sense, that the period -- the eight years for the oldest, noisiest jet -- is so long, but it is something in place of nothing, and that`s quite a bit, as far as I`m concerned. I`m delighted with that. I`m trying to counsel the national government on the things that they can do to help the really severely impacted airport operator.

NEVAS: Okay, let`s come back to that. Jim?

LEHRER: All right, there`s another group with a huge stake in this conflict, the airlines themselves. Clifton von Kann is Senior Vice President for Operations and Airports of the Air Transport Association of America, the trade association for the nation`s scheduled air carriers. Mr. von Kann, first, what do you think of the FAA regulations? Can the American airlines live with them and meet those guidelines?

CLIFTON von KANN: They can, indeed, provided there is some sort of a financing plan to take care of the expense involved. You see, to meet the FAA regulation will require at a minimum a billion dollars or more just to retrofit the older planes.

LEHRER: Retrofit means -- that`s you all`s word for modify?

von KANN: That means to put acoustical packing in the engine cells and all that. Now, we don`t think that`s the best solution because it doesn`t give as much relief as you could get by bringing in to the fleet new technology airplanes.

LEHRER: So you`re in favor of new planes rather than retrofitting the old?

von KANN: For the JT-3D fleet -- that is, the 707`s and the DC-8`s, which are the older and the noisier, the larger of the planes -- we certainly support the idea of replacement.

LEHRER: All right, but you say that the airlines themselves cannot pay for these new airplanes?

von KANN: No, I think you can look at the airline financial statements over the years; to bring new planes like that into the fleet would involve somewhere around five, seven million dollars - billion dollars, pardon me - - according to the government figures. We estimate it around six.

LEHRER: What about the point that Mr. Vitagliano made in Boston a moment ago, that these airplanes would have to be phased out anyway, even if there wasn`t a noise guideline?

von KANN: According to our fleet estimates which we have gathered from the different carriers, a certain number would be phased out over the next eight years -- perhaps a third of the total 707, DC-8 fleet; the rest would still be in service, given the economic situation that we have today. So what the fleet noise rule would do, as we understand it, would be to move up over a period of several years the purging out of, say, 240-odd aircraft.

LEHRER: Who do you think should pay for these new airplanes?

von KANN: Oh, it has to be raid for by the users of the system. Some people have said the general taxpayers should pay; the airlines have never taken that view. We have recommended that an additional surcharge be put on our tickets and our waybills in addition to, perhaps, some international charges, and that this be put into a fund and that the fund be used to support these purchases. We realize that this is something which has to be paid for by the users of the system.

LEHRER: All right. Steve, you want to pursue that?

NEVAS: Thank you, Jim. I`m very curious to know if you gentlemen here in Boston think that retrofitting, putting new engines in old planes, is really going to solve the problem.

VITAGLIANO: In my opinion, no. This is, again, one of the major problems that I`ve got with the proposals that the FAA has put forth here. Three out of four of the aircraft that are now flying out of Logan Airport, for example, are of the short and medium-hulled variety -- the DC-9`s and 727`s and so forth. But right now they could only be modified to meet the Part 36 noise standards with a retrofit rule, as Mr. von Kann has just suggested, and he`s absolutely right. But we`ve looked at the so-called noise benefits that retrofitting provides...

NEVAS: What are those benefits?

VITAGLIANO: In some cases, for example, guideline takeoff noise is about one decibel difference from the current aircraft; for example, the DC-9 goes from 100 decibels down to about 99.

NEVAS: There are other reports which say that it might be four to seven percent improvement; is that substantial enough for you?

VITAGLIANO: No, it isn`t, because for example, the four-to seven percent improvement is only one of the three types of categories that I use to measure noise, and that`s on approach; and there will be some noise relief for the approach noise, but it`s the takeoff noise, when the engines are at full power, that really creates most of the problems we have around Logan Airport. And it`s those two categories of takeoff noise that simply are not reduced by a retrofit program.

NEVAS: All right. I`d like to ask David Davis for a moment, now -- are you confident that if the airlines phase out the 707`s and the DC-8 `s, even over eight years, that they`re willing to re profit the remaining portions of their fleet?

DAVIS: I don`t think that the airlines are necessarily willing to do that; indeed, I believe there was testimony this morning where the airlines really asked to be exempted from the reprofitting some of the airlines, at least. -- of the 727`s and `9`s. But I personally believe that those airplanes are going to be in service for a long time; they`re going to have a long life, and that a few percentage points in the reduction of noise is well worth it. I personally believe that we ought to get about the business of replacing the 707-DC-8 type airplane, the old four-engine, narrow-body jet.

I don`t believe that retrofit is a good solution there for a number of reasons -- there`s no kit certified.

NEVAS: So you don`t think we should have to wait eight years, anyway.

DAVIS: No; that`s one reason I believe that in the part of the fleet that you`re not going to retrofit you may as well move aggressively as possible toward replacement. I don`t understand giving eight years for replacement; I want to see a schedule that begins to replace that DC-8/707 fleet that gets a long ways down the road in the first several years.

NEVAS: All right. The big question, though, may be, how much ought we be willing to spend to alleviate airport noise, and what`s going to be a tolerable noise level, because I guess we`ll always have some noise around airports. In Boston the neighborhoods were here before the airport was, but much of that housing is now old. So why not just buy it up and turn the area around Logan Airport into an industrial park?

VITAGLIANO: The last time we did a financial estimate as to how much it would cost to do that, it was around $2 billion to buy up all the homes that fall within those categories that have been categorized by the federal government as being unsuitable for residential homes. So when you really look at the overall cost-benefit analysis does it make more sense financially to quiet the planes -- go at the source, which is at the airport -- or to move the neighborhoods? Because there are so many homes around Boston, it even makes more sense to just quiet the planes, from a cost standpoint; it would just cost too much money, because there are so many homes that are involved.

NEVAS: For a long time Massport was rather aggressively buying up real estate all around the airport in an effort, I gather, to solve the problem. Is that still a viable solution, or is that a discredited one?

DAVIS: I think in some areas we must buy housing; we are in a very aggressive buy posture -- an area called Neptune Road in Boston...

NEVAS: How close is that to the taxiing?

DAVIS: That`s right at the end of the runway.

NEVAS: How close?

DAVIS: 1,000 feet. And that is on the center line of the largest runway that we have, and presents hazards that are worse, I guess, than the noise hazard. And we certainly must clear a neighborhood like that; but the truth is, if an airport operator goes out into other neighborhoods and just buys indiscriminately -- and I have some problems with eminent domain in Massachusetts; that is, I don`t have it around the airport -- there are very much worse problems to be faced in sort of blockbusting approaches to neighborhoods.

LEHRER: Steve, let`s throw all this back now to Mr. McLucas in the FAA: First of all, Doctor, the FAA position on retrofitting; the regulation calls for both, does it not -- replacement and reprofitting of the existing aircraft?

McLUCAS: It`s an either-or proposition, whichever the owner of the airplane chooses to do to bring himself into compliance with the federal noise rules.

LEHRER: Of course, the airline industry, Mr. von Kann and others, have said that they don`t want to do the retrofitting, that replacement is the way to go. How do you respond to that?

McLUCAS: I certainly agree that it`s much more desirable to replace than it is to retrofit; but it costs a lot more money, obviously. The total cost of the retrofit program for all the airplanes is about $1 billion; the cost of replacing all the airplanes is like $10 or $15 billion. I think the optimum is to do some of each.

LEHRER: Whatever it calls for. All right, let`s go to this broader question now of responsibility. Mr. Davis said, in effect, that he has the liability and you folks have the authority, that if the federal government is going to come up with some regulations, then they ought to be able to foot the bill and pay the price if and when they are challenged in court, et cetera. How do you respond, Sir?

McLUCAS: I think that the American system is for certain responsibilities to reside at the local level and certain others to be carried out at the national level. I`m afraid this falls in that category. There are things that the federal government ought to do, and we think we`re doing those, although belatedly, such as dealing with the noise source, the airplane engines. There are things that ought to be done at the local level...

LEHRER: What can an airport do?

McLUCAS: An airport proprietor has certain things he can do unilaterally, you might say, and others that he can do in combination with either the local government or with the federal government.

LEHRER: But aren`t those pretty much just buying up land, and that sort of thing? I mean, once he gets into restricting particular aircraft from coming into his airport, you all wouldn`t let him do that, would you?

McLUCAS: That`s right -- not unilaterally. He can institute various procedural activities; he can put in curfews, and at certain airports we wouldn`t object to that. Boston happens to be an air port where we think it`s a very serious problem, so we would object to the interference with air commerce at major airports; but there are many other airports where there`s a noise problem, and a few where they have put in curfews and we said, "Well, that`s okay." But let`s face it, the local area -- the proprietor and the local government -- working together can do many things, specifically in the area of zoning. They can gradually convert properties that lose their value as homes, and so on, into industrial parks and various things of this type. They can buy up land, they can put insulation in public buildings, they can do various things that have been done.

LEHRER: Mr. von Kann, let me ask you where do you see the role of local airports in combating; air pollution from the airline industry`s standpoint?

von KANN: Let me start from the other end, if I may. For a long time there`s been serious doubt -- there`s been a gray area -as to the federal authority, local authority; there`s been a great deal of litigation on it, and as a matter of fact some of the results are confused, as would be expected. Now, we feel that the federal government has gone a long way in the last couple of weeks -- November 18, to be specific -- on clarifying these responsibilities. You`ve got a system here -- you`ve got a national system, and fundamentally Dr. McLucas is the system manager. The federal authority over source noise is federally well established now. In other areas, it`s a matter of cooperation. Federal control can`t be monolithic; there are obviously many things that have to be, if not done, at least initiated at the local level, and in many cases subjected to federal oversight. I think we`ve moved a long way in that direction, that we`re fairly close to a point where the relative roles begin to come into focus.

LEHRER: Mr. Davis, do you agree with that? Do you feel that you know what your role is and what the federal government`s role is at this point?

DAVIS: I think we`ve made some progress recently, particularly with Secretary Coleman`s statement, and I`m determined to make some more progress in the very near future, as we in Boston develop other parts of a noise abatement program. I do believe that an airport as critically impacted as Boston is entitled to some consideration with respect to scheduling of the quieter aircraft that are already in the fleet. I believe that national policy ought to recognize that there are a half dozen airports in this category.

LEHRER: What about the airline industry? Are you all willing to schedule the quieter aircraft for the worst airports?

von KANN: That type of selective scheduling is a very difficult thing to do. A plane goes through, maybe, 15, 18 airports over a day, and there`s a very precise series of scheduling decisions which have to be made; in some case you need a certain size to cover a certain market. So that to pinpoint what is now only one sixth of our two and three-engine fleets to go into certain airports would be difficult. I`m not saying it`s impossible, but it would be an extremely difficult thing to do. And as far as these two and three-engine jets go, no one can really tell the difference.

LEHRER: Mr. von Kann, I`m going to stop you there. Thank you, Steve, gentlemen in Boston; thank you, gentlemen, here in Washington. I`m Jim Lehrer. I`ll see you tomorrow night. Thank you and good night.