The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Concorde Plane Landing Rights

ROBERT MacNEIL: The fight is not yet over, but the score now reads Concorde-2, Opponents-1.Yesterday a New York judge awarded round three in the battle over the plane`s landing rights to the controversial Anvlo- French supersonic airliner. Tonight, a look at round four.

Good evening. Probably the best-loved man in France and Britain for the moment -- and the most hated in New York -- is U.S. District Court Judge Milton Pollack. Yesterday he ruled that the bosses of New York`s Kennedy Airport had no right to ban test landings by the supersonic Concorde airliner, and the Judge said the federal government did have the right to order such flights, as the Ford administration did a year ago. While the British and French celebrated this tactical victory, a storm broke in New York. The New York Port Authority announced exhaustive appeals; both Houses of the New York State Legislature in Albany rushed through a resolution against Concorde; residents of the Kennedy area vowed to block the airport with their cars next Sunday; Congressmen fumed and city politicians raged. Hidden in the political turmoil are many questions beyond the right of one new airplane to a fair test. Tonight we look at those questions as they affect the next stage of this curious battle. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, first a brief recap. Last year former Transportation Secretary William Coleman decided that the controversial plane should be given a sixteen-month trial at New York and Washington air ports. The purpose to determine just how much noise it makes on takeoff and landings. Opponents say the plane exceeds established noise levels at American airports and represents a health and sanity threat to the people who live nearby. Last May tests began at Washington`s Dulles Airport, which is operated by the federal government. But the Port Authority of New York issued a temporary ban on the plane`s landing at Kennedy; the Authority said it wanted to first evaluate the test data from Washington as well as London and Paris. That`s the ban that Judge Pollack overturned yesterday. He said Coleman`s decision constituted a federal mandate to give the plane a fair test. Under the federal supremacy clause of the Constitution, the Judge said, the Port Authority`s action was illegal. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yesterday`s decision caps a massive campaign, estimated to have cost four million dollars, to overcome American opposition to Concorde. The lobbying effort, unprecedentedly for a commercial product, reached to the highest levels of government. Both British Prime Minister James Callaghan and French President Valery Giscard d`Estaing appealed personally to President Carter. In their wake, some of the most influential U.S. law firms and public relations companies joined the armtwisting. The campaign was designed to appeal to American sense of fair play. Here`s one of the commercials the effort produced:

NARRATOR: In the interests of fair play, the people who make the Concorde present both sides of the question of a trial period for Concorde service at Kennedy Airport.

JOHN EHRENTREU, Forest Hills: I`m against the Concorde because I think it`s not necessary. I think the airport has too many problems as it is, and I don`t think overburdening them with a bigger and faster plane is going to make matters any better. I don`t think the people of Queens need any more noise than they already have, and those are my reasons why I`m against it.

Mrs. JOHN EHRENTREU: I`m in favor of having testing done because I can think only that it would enhance bringing more people to the city and speed up travel, and help us economically in bringing people to the city. In tests that are done in Washington there haven`t been any proven reasons that it`s been detrimental to any community.

EHRENTREU: Oh, yeah?

MacNEIL: The fair hearing now seems more likely as a result of yesterday`s court decision. That`s good news for British Airways and Air France, who have all along maintained they needed access to the New York market in order to have any hope of recovering their investment in Concorde. So far, only nine Concords have been sold: five to British Airways, four to Air France. Alfred de Cabrol is Assistant Vice President for North America for Air France and director in this country of the Concorde project. M. Cabrol, you and the British have announced flights into Kennedy starting June twentieth, after this decision. Does that mean you regard the decision as a green light, the end of your troubles?

ALFRED de CABROL: We have a green light, and we have a green light and an obligation, I think, for a first message, which is our concern and being aware of the anxieties of the communities. We want in this trial which will begin to be good neighbors and we know -- because Concorde has been operated now over a year on five continents -- many airports, many people have heard it; some of them have been under the flight path and many have found that its noise is better, if different of quality, which is preferable to the high whine of some other airplanes.

MacNEIL: Can you start flying into New York on the twentieth of June if this is still tied up in appeals by the New York Port Authority?

CABROL: We have said that we`re contemplating and hoping for the twentieth of June to start commercial services. Only if a stay was granted which would reverse the decision of the Judge we would be not able to meet that date.

MacNEIL: In other words, if the Port Authority or someone else went into another court and got that judge or that court to stay the execution of yesterday`s ruling.

CABROL: Yes. But we have now a green light, and this is the reason why we are going ahead.

MacNEIL: I see. Why is the New York landing so important to this aircraft?

CABROL: Well, on the Concorde program, New York service represents forty- five percent just for Air France; I would imagine for British Airways practically as much -- forty-five percent of our supersonic activity, of the actual activity. Forty-five percent is a great deal. Beside the importance of the service in New York and for the carriers is mainly the business traffic, the decision maker which is really between the two capitals and this great city of New York. It is there, not that Washington service has not been favored by all people converging in almost equal parts from all parts of the United States to take Concorde at Dulles.

MacNEIL: So in other words, the service to New York would be half of your total supersonic flying everywhere in the world.

CABROL: Yes

MacNEIL: So to get landing permission here would double your capability, or double your market, in other words.

CABROL: Exactly.

MacNEIL: How do you interpret the federal mandate for a sixteen month test? The mandate started at Dulles a year ago. Do you now figure that you have sixteen months from now, or sixteen months from a year ago?

CABROL: It has been reaffirmed by the federal authorities that there is a sixteen-month test at Dulles and a sixteen-month test at J.F. Kennedy. The sixteen-month test would start as with the start of the commercial services into Kennedy.

MacNEIL: I see. Thank you. We`ll come back. The official loser yesterday was the New York Port Authority. They declined our invitation to appear this evening. But some would argue that the real losers were the people who live near Kennedy Airport in New York`s Borough of Queens. Donald Manes, the Borough President of Queens, probably subscribes to that idea. Mr. Manes, was yesterday`s ruling a crippling blow to opponents of Concorde?

DONALD MANES: No, I don`t believe it was a crippling blow. Of course, it was a matter of some concern to many people. But you have to realize that this is the United States of America, we are still a democracy, and that means that we do have the right of appeal. And I have formally asked the Port Authority to appeal this decision. By the way, it`s very interesting to me that the federal government was not the one that brought this lawsuit against the Port Authority, but it was the manufacturers of the plane. The federal government, as a matter of fact, has been the people that have assured the Port Authority that they had the power to let the plane land or not let the plane land, to set standards for noise, et cetera.

MacNEIL: You mean the Department of Transportation has been telling the Port Authority that they could have control over it?

MANES: It is my understanding that the Department of Transportation or their attorneys advised our State Environmental Commissioner, Ogden Reid, that in fact it was the Port Authority that had this power, so that I think there`s a very serious issue here. I know it`s very unusual for a northern politician to be talking about states` rights, but nevertheless that is the situation here. There`s a very serious factor Judge Pollack didn`t even enter into his decision, and that was whether or not the states of New York and New Jersey had the right and the power to form a Port Authority, and whether or not the authority that those states gave the Port Authority and the jurisdiction that they gave the Port Authority was legal. We think it was legal.

MacNEIL: You`re very close to the Port Authority, as you`ve indicated. These appeals that you`ve recommended -- will they take them all the way up to the Supreme Court?

MANES: As I said, when you start talking about federal rights as opposed to states` rights and whether or not the states had the right and the power to do what they did and make the decision that they made, the decision really goes way beyond whether or not we should let one plane land at Kennedy Airport.

MacNEIL: Why are you, as the Borough President of Queens, personally opposed to giving the Concorde a fair test?

MANES: First of all, we talk about whether or not the Concorde has been given a fair test. That plane has been tested ad nauseumby I don`t know how many concerns and how many different corporations. The plane is, despite my dear friend`s protestations, a fuel guzzler; the plane would be the noisiest plane to land at Kennedy Airport -- and not noisy by a small amount; all you have to do is stand underneath the planes and listen to them coming over, and that Concorde is higher...

MacNEIL: Have you done that?

MANES: Absolutely. I have heard the Concorde. To me it`s louder, to many people it`s louder. And by the way, the manufacturers of the plane are not saying it`s quieter; they agree that the plane is louder than the planes that are presently taking off at Kennedy Airport. We`re not talking about landing, we`re talking about takeoff, and that thrust that you need at takeoff. So we know that the plane is louder. And very frankly, to allow that plane to land would be setting back the clock ten years or so ecologically.

MacNEIL: Can I ask you one question as a politician? This is an election year in New York for mayors and borough presidents and governors. When you come down to it, could any politician here in New York this year be in favor publicly of Concorde, whatever he believed privately?

MANES: Oh, I think he could be in favor of it. Whether or not he would ever get re-elected again is another story. There`s no question that this airport is a very unusual airport in that it`s the only inter national airport, probably, in the world that`s surrounded by a half a million people.

MacNEIL: And surrounded by a lot of congressmen.

MANES: Well, it`s surrounded by a lot of congressmen, but those half a million people are also voters. There are probably 150,000 votes just surrounding the airport, I can`t deny that. The fact is, 150,000 votes can put mayors out of office, governors out of office; 150,000 votes, properly distributed in this country, would have changed the national elections recently, so it is a considerable amount of votes; there`s no question about that. But nevertheless, that doesn`t change the fact that the Concorde is the noisiest plane that probably is flying in the world today.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: The long delay in getting the Concorde even trial landing rights in New York has provoked confusion and anger in Britain and France, both within government circles and at the man-in-the-street level. The United States has been accused of breaching its obligations in international law, and there have been accusations in the European press and elsewhere that the U.S. is discriminating against a foreign plane in order to protect its own aircraft industry. Alexander Gordon-Cumming, Counselor for Civil Aviation and Shipping for the British Embassy here in Washington, has had a front-row seat during this whole flap. Sir, do you see a light at the tunnel, to go back to the question that Robin asked the gentleman from Air France to begin with -- do you see the light at the victory tunnel at this point, for the Concorde?

ALEXANDER GORDON-CUMMING: Like my friend, M. de Cabrol, I see a green light. I don`t think this is the end of our troubles.

LEHRER: All right. As an official of the British government, do you understand why President Carter could not, on his own, order the Port Authority of New York to let the Concorde land there?

GORDON-CUMMING: I don`t think I find it at all strange that a Southerner should feel pretty strongly on the question of states` rights, given that about a hundred years ago so many of them died in defense of them, and I don`t think my government does, either. There certainly are people in Europe, I would agree -- perhaps more in France than in Britain - - who do find some difficulty in understanding the federal system. But it`s not a simple question like that. What I understood your President to be saying was, "I can`t take a telephone call from my good friends Mr. Callaghan and M. Giscard d`Estaing and discuss the matter cozily with them and then say, `Jim and Valery, that`s all right, I`ll ring up Governor Carey and tell him to do it.`" But as I understand Judge Pollack`s ruling, the federal government, provided the people are given due process and provided decisions are taken in the proper way, they do in fact have authority; in that particular field Judge Pollack held that the federal government`s authority was pervasive. That, in fact, was one of the issues that the court argument was about. And in fact, our view prevailed. It is not just a simple question of state versus federal rights.

LEHRER: But do the people in Europe understand what`s going on over here and what the problem`s all about for the Concorde?

GORDON-CUMMING: No, I don`t believe they do. It`s difficult in Europe, because most of us don`t live under a federal system, fully to comprehend the federal system. There are misconceptions in Europe, and I think it`s fair to say that, quite mistakenly, it is generally perceived in Europe that there is a strong element of chauvinism and protectionism in the United States` handling of the matter. I know this to be untrue. Bob, I think, mentioned from New York suggestions that this was done in defense of the U.S. aircraft industry. It`s significant, I think, that all three of the U.S. major aircraft manufacturers have spoken up in favor of the Concorde trial. I`ve been close to this. If the U.S. airlines were lobbying against us, I really believe I would know about it.

LEHRER: You would have picked that up.

GORDON-CUMMING: And I have never picked up any such thing. But it is understandable in Europe, I think, that you get these misconceptions. Let me give you one example for why: I read in the Washington Post the other day that there was a little ozone problem with the 747-SP, an entirely simple problem...

LEHRER: It started with a stewardess.

GORDON-CUMMING: It started with a stewardess getting bronchitis symptoms, probably a temporary problem caused by the aircraft flying higher at temporary high concentration of ozone in latitudes in which it was flying. Now, I didn`t see my good friend Mr. Hellegers, on my left, making any statements on behalf of the EDF; I didn`t see any scare headlines; I didn`t see anything terrible being read into the Congressional Record. But just imagine if we`d had a technical problem of that kind in Concorde: you`d have seen all of those. Now, people in Europe notice that, and that helps them, I think, in their mistaken belief, or reinforces their entirely mistaken belief that there`s a strong element of chauvinism in this. And that contributes, I think, to the feeling of unfairness and disappointment -- perhaps disappointment even more than resentment -- that the Concorde matter has been handled this way in the United States. I want to emphasize the word "resentment." It`s more, I think, shock that the United States should have behaved in this way, and a great degree of disappointment that such an essentially fair-minded nation as the United States should be perceived in Europe to be behaving in this way.

LEHRER: All right. The man you mentioned, John Hellegers of the EDF, is sitting, in fact, on your left. He is a staff attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, which is what EDF stands for; and you are, Mr. Hellegers, considered one of the leaders of the anti-Concorde movement. You`ve been against it from the very beginning. How do you read yesterday`s decision? Do you think your movement has now had it, or do you see this as a minor stumbling block, or what do you see at the end of the tunnel that I asked Mr. Gordon-Cumming to look down?

JOHN HELLEGERS: I think that the cheering on the Concorde side is perhaps a bit premature. I think there`s an excellent chance that Judge Pollack`s ruling is going to be overturned on appeal. President Carter has said repeatedly that he and the federal government have no power whatsoever to force the Concorde into JFK Airport, even for a trial. Secretary of Transportation Adams has said the same thing, and his predecessor, Secretary Coleman, said the same thing.

LEHRER: But Judge Pollack says they did, right?

HELLEGERS: Well, Judge Pollack disregarded all of these statements and said that even though the federal government disclaimed any power to do this, the federal government not only has the power but specifically wanted to exercise it; and I think that that`s wrong. I think the second circuit court of appeals is going to take a different view of the case from what Judge Pollack did.

LEHRER: All right. Secretary Coleman`s basic decision last year was that the Concorde deserved a fair trial. Are you still opposed to that?

HELLEGERS: Secretary Coleman`s decision last year was that he would give all requisite federal approvals for a sixteen-month trial period at JFK; he did not, in my judgment, order the Port Authority

to take it. But I think that the Concorde has had a trial. Secretary Coleman in the impact statements said this thing is twice as loud on takeoff as the worst plane that we now have; it`s four times louder than a 747. It`s been tested around the world. I don`t think that you have to bring this thing in where you`ve got half a million people living around JFK Airport to see how those test animals, so to speak, are going to behave when you expose them to this extraordinary noise.

LEHRER: What do you think the effect would be of sixteen months of testing of the Concorde at JFK?

HELLEGERS: I think, for one thing, it would very quickly confirmed that the plane is as noisy as its detractors and the Secretary of Transportation say.

LEHRER: What`s the problem, then, with doing the test if you feel that you would win the test in the long run -- if you feel that the noise level...

HELLEGERS: I don`t see this as really a test; I see the word "test" as really being a rationalization for a foot in the door. I mean, what concerns the British and the French is not a fair trial, as they call it, it`s the commercial viability of the plane, which I think is impossible. But their theory of commercial viability is that they need at least unrestricted access to New York. They certainly can`t sell any more of those planes until the buyers are assured that they have unlimited access. I certainly wouldn`t buy one if I couldn`t get the thing into New York, even if I had $60 or $70 million, whatever it is that they are asking.

LEHRER: Mr. Hellegers, Robin raised the question of politics to Mr. Manes, and let me raise it to you in a different context: if this was an American- made SST with the same noise problems that you say the Concorde has, do you think the local politicians in New York, from Governor Carey on down, including Mr. Manes and others, would be as against the Concorde as they are?

HELLEGERS: Oh, sure. The problem up in New York is that the people there have just had it with jet aircraft.

LEHRER: I`m talking about the politicians now.

HELLEGERS: Well, the politicians reflect what the people who vote for them believe themselves. And the people around the airport were led to believe in 1958 that the 707`s were going to come in just on a test. Their view of the whole situation is that they`ve been lied to and deluded for almost twenty years, and the Concorde for them is really a last straw; and it doesn`t matter that it`s a British last straw or a French last straw...

LEHRER: You really don`t believe that`s a factor at all?

HELLEGERS: Certainly not for them. I think the whole business that the opposition comes from the U.S. aircraft industry is an utter red herring. I think that`s a rationalization that the French and the British have concocted for domestic consumption to get themselves off the hook.

LEHRER: All right; thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Let`s pick up on the foot-in-the-door argument with you, Mr. Gordon-Cumming. Is Mr. Helleger not right that what you`re really hoping is that if you could get this test established you could attract enough people using the airliner that it would be very hard to get rid of you, whatever people felt a year from now?

GORDON-CUMMING: Well, I was disappointed by what John Hellegers said. What he in effect was saying, that he didn`t believe what his President was telling him and he didn`t believe what either the previous or the present Secretary of Transportation were telling him, and that was that it was going to be a trial. And not a trial for sixteen months, a trial which would be terminated at four months` notice if it was demonstrably obvious that the trial should be terminated, or at an hour`s notice if any of the hideous things which John Hellegers has been promising us for a year and a half were going to happen if Concorde came in. I really do believe what Secretary Coleman said, and I do believe that when Brock Adams says that he endorses the trial on the Coleman terms I believe that he means exactly what he is saying. If I believed the trial was a charade and once having got my foot in the door I could count on keeping Concorde both in Dulles and New York, I should sleep a great deal easier in my bed than I do now. (Laughing.)

MacNEIL: Do you agree with that, Mr. Cabrol? It`s awfully hard to believe that your commercial interest isn`t that well, look, if we could get them landing and people would see that they didn`t explode on landing or make the airport fall apart, that....

CABROL: This is exactly what the airplane has been proving all around the world where it`s been operating with the communities and with the business communities who are using the advantages of supersonic flight.

On both rounds, Concorde has been the winner. And if we could only succeed in reducing the anxieties in the communities of New York -- if they would only believe us; and we know there is fairness in many people who will believe not only in the necessity of a fair trial to have their own mind picked up but also who will believe that we have really gone into a lot of trouble and a lot of concern studying the geography -- our technicians, our pilots have made a lot of progress. Mr. Manes couldn`t have said a few months ago that Concorde was no problem on landing. I remember being in several meetings on Long Island where I met people in the communities, and they said, "But you`re talking of procedures for takeoff. We`re interested in landing because we`re in the landing path." And now there is no more discussion of the landing because the procedures have greatly been improved; and the takeoff is a problem, but also there are the use of runways in Kennedy, and the takeoff weights that are being considered and approved will greatly reduce the noise impact in Kennedy.

MacNEIL: Can I ask you, Mr. Manes, on this point of the foot in the door, is part of the reason you don`t want to give them a test that you`re afraid that it won`t be quite as horrendous on landing or take off as the publicity has suggested and that once here and running and popular for the business traveler and so on, it would be very hard to get rid of? Is that your fear?

MANES: There is no question about the foot in the door or the camel`s nose under the tent -- there`s that theory. But the fact is that people have drawn the line on the noise of the plane - and that`s something that we could talk about from today till tomorrow; no test is going to change the engine of that plane. I`ve been saying that if you can cure certain defects, if you can retrofit the plane, if you could change that motor -- you`ve spent, I don`t know what it is, three billion dollars on that plane? -- I don`t know why some more money can`t be spent; if it`s so important, the economics of making that plane successful for the manufacturer, why can`t they change that plane to accommodate it to the largest international airport in the world? People have drawn the line.

MacNEIL: Let`s just get an answer to that.

CABROL: This is precisely why most probably no more than sixteen of the first generation supersonic are going to be made, because it`s the same way with the first 707 that we`ve bought and used were certain ly more noisy than they are now. And there have been, since the beginning of the Concorde program fifteen years ago, gradually some technical advances, and we cannot say the day yet when another supersonic will be needed and will be then environmentally -- both of you mentioned the fuel guzzler -- will be more acceptable on those grounds.

MacNEIL: We have one minute, and I just want to get from each of you a very quick prediction on how this is going to turn out. Mr. Hellegers, how do you think it`s going to turn out? Is the Concorde even tually going to land in Kennedy Airport or not? What do you think?

HELLEGERS: I`ll bet a small sum, around a dollar, that it is not. I think that Judge Pollack is going to be reversed, and I think rightly so.

MacNEIL: Mr. Gordon-Cumming?

GORDON-CUNNING: I`ll take John on that dollar. (Laughing.)

HELLEGERS: You`re on.

MacNEIL: Mr. Cabrol, what do you think is going to happen end in this?

CABROL: We are very confident. We have a green light, and we are confident that we can continue planning on that in the days to come. We are on a different race track, we have some hurdles -- Sandy mentioned it.

MacNEIL: Here`s a man with good political instincts on the ground. Let`s ask him -- in a few seconds, what`s going to happen?

MANES: If the President meant what he said, the Governor meant what he said, the Port Authority meant what they said, the plane will not land.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Thank you all in Washington; good night, Jim. Thank you both here. That`s all for tonight. Jim Lehrer and I will be back tomorrow night, and other breaking news permitting, we`ll examine the Carter administration`s planned new deal for illegal aliens. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.