Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "16972779",
    "label": "Aircraft Noise (13)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16972779"
}

{
    "id": "16972779",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16972779",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Aircraft Noise (13)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16972779",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Issues Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Aeronautics, Commercial",
        "Aircraft",
        "Noise",
        "Regulatory reform",
        "Speeches, addresses, etc."
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16972779.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16972779.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16972779.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16972779",
    "naId": 16972779,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "day": 18,
        "logicalDate": "1976-11-18",
        "month": 11,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "day": 9,
        "logicalDate": "1976-09-09",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16972779.pdf",
    "mediaId": "4d4fb8e81d8f00d1",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 2, folder \"Aircraft Noise (13)\" of the James M.\nCannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 2 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\n[ca.oct.1976]\nCONGRESSIONAL\nSTATE\nAIRPORT USE\nLETTERS TO\nSUPPORT OF\nLEGAL\nLAND ACQUISITION\nOTHER\nAIRPORT\nRESTRICTIONS\nCONGRESS\nRETROFIT\nACTIONS\nPROGRAMS\nLEGAL Fl\nALABAMA\nBirmingham\nYes\nYes\nALASKA\nAnchorage\nYes\nYes\nARIZONA\nYes\nPhoenix\nYes\nCALIFORNIA\nYes\nSacramento\nYes\nHollywood Burbank\nYes\nSanta Monica\nYes\nLindbergh Field\nYes\nYes\nYes\nSan Jose\nYes\nYes\nYes\nLong Beach\nYes\nLos Angeles International\nYes\nYes\nYes\nYes\nOrange County\nYes\nYes\nYes\nSan Francisco\nYes\nOakland\nYes\nYes\nSanta Maria\nYes\nVan Nuys\nYes\nFresno\nYes\nYes\nStockton\nYes\nCOLORADO\nGERALD\nYes\nStapleton International\nColorado Springs\nR. FORD\nYes\nYes\nCONNECTICUT\nHariford\nLIBRARY\nYes\nBradley International\nYes\nDanbury\nYes\nPage 2\nCONGRESSIONAL\nSTATE\nAIRPORT USE\nLETTERS TO\nSUPPORT OF\nLEGAL\nLAND ACQUISITION\nOTHER\nAIRPORT\nRESTRICTIONS\nCONGRESS\nRETROFIT\nACTIONS\nPROGRAMS\nLEGAL F\nFLORIDA\nYes\nMiami International\nYes\nYes\nNorth Perry\nYes\nWest Palm Beach\nYes\nYes\nJacksonville\nYes\nYes\nPompono Airpark\nYes\nGEORGIA\nAtlanta\nYes\nYes\nHAWAII\nYes\nMaui\nYes\nPearl Harbor\nYes\nGeneral Lyman\nYes\nIDAHO\nHaily\nYes\nILLINOIS\nYes\nChicago O'llare\nYes\nHowell\nYes\nINDIANA\nYes\nWeir Cook\nYes\nIndianapolis\nYes\nSt. Joseph County\nYes\nIOWA\nYes\nKANSAS\nPaolo\nTHE\nYes\nWichita\nYes\nPage 3\nCONGRESSIONAL\nSTATE\nAIRPORT USE\nLETTERS TO\nSUPPORT OF\nLEGAL\nLAND ACQUISITION\nOTHER\nAIRPORT\nRESTRICTIONS\nCONGRESS\nRETROFIT\nACTIONS\nPROGRAMS\nLEGAL\nKENTUCKY\nYes\nBowman Field\nYes\nYes\nStandaford Field\nYes\nLOUISIANA\nYes\nShreveport\nYes\nNew Orleans\nYes\nYes\nYes\nMouroe\nYes\nMAINE\nPortland International\nYes\nYes\nBangor\nYes\nMARYLAND\nYes\nBaltimore\nPending\nYes\nMASSACHUSETTS\nYes\nNorwood\nYes\nYes\nBarnes Field\nYes\nLogan International\nYes\nYes\nYes\nYes\nBeverly Airport\nYes\nMICHIGAN\nYes\nFlint\nYes\nWillow Run\nYes\nDetroit Metro\nYes\nYes\nYes\nYes\nMINNESOTA\nYes\nMinneapolis-St. Paul\nYes\nYes\nYes\nYes\nYes\nPage 4.\nCONGRESSIONAL\nSTATE\nAIRPORT USE\nLETTERS TO\nSUPPORT OF\nLEGAL\nLAND ACQUISITION\nOTHER\nAIRPORT\nRESTRICTIONS\nCONGRESS\nRETROFIT\nACTIONS\nPROGRAMS\nLEGAL FE\nMISSOURI\nYes\nSt. Louis International\nYes\nYes\nYes\nYes\nSpringfield Municipal\nYes\nMONTANA\nYes\nNEBRASKA\nLincoln\nYes\nEpply Airport\nYes\nNEVADA\nYes\nReno\nYes\nYes\nYes\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\nYes\nNEW JERSEY\nYes\nNewark\nYes\nNEW MEXICO\nAlbuquerque\nYes\nNEW YORK\nYes\nKennedy\nYes\nLaGuardia\nYes\nMcArthur Field\nYes\nStewart\nYes\nAlbany County\nYes\nBuffalo International\nYes\nYes\nChemung County\nYes\nWestchester County\nYes\nNORTH CAROLINA\nLISTE FORD\nYes\nDouglas Municipal\nYes\nYes\nYes\nPage 5\nCONGRESSIONAL\nSTATE\nAIRPORT USE\nLETTERS TO\nSUPPORT OF\nLEGAL\nLAND ACQUISITION\nOTHER\nAIRPORT\nRESTRICTIONS\nCONGRESS\nRETROFIT\nACTIONS\nPROGRAMS\nLEGAL\nOIIIO\nYes\nAkron\nYes\nYes\nYes\nCleveland\nYes\nYes\nCincinnati\nYes\nYes\nOKLAHOMA\nTulsa International\nYes\nRiverside\nYes\nArdmore Downtown\nYes\nWiley Post\nYes\nOREGON\nPortland\nYes\nYes\nPENNSYLVANIA\nYes\nPhiladelphia International\nYes\nEire International\nYes\nAllentown\nYes\nNorth Philadelphia\nYes\nWings Field\nYes\nRHODE ISLAND\nYes\nSOUTH CAROLINA\nCharleston\nYes\nSOUTH DAKOTA\nJoe Foss Field\nYes\nTENNESSEE\nYes\nMemphis International\nYes\nShelby\nYes\nYes\nPage 6\nCONGRESSIONAL\nSTATE\nAIRPORT USE\nLETTERS TO\nSUPPORT OF\nLEGAL\nLAND ACQUISITION\nOTH\nAIRPORT\nRESTRICTIONS\nCONGRESS\nRETROFIT\nACTIONS\nPROGRAMS\nLEG\nTEXAS\nYes\nDallas-Ft. Worth\nYes\nTradewind\nYes\nHouston\nYes\nY\nWEST VIRGINIA\nYes\nWASHINGTON\nScattle-Tacoma\nYes\nYes\nYes\nY\nPasco\nYes\nVERMONT\nYes\nVIRGINIA\nYes\nDulles\nYes\nWashington National\nYes\nYes\nYes\nPatrick llenry\nYes\nWISCONSIN\nYes\nRock County\nYes\nLaCrosse Municipal\nYes\nWatertown Municipal\nYes\nTimmerman Field\nYes\nGeneral Mitchell Field\nYes\n70\n[oct.\nPage 9\nI think it was in the late\nspring of 1975. It was quoted in the paper. It was\nreaffirmed by the reporter that talked to him. I happen\nto believe that newspaper account of what he said rather\nthan a denial, which I don't believe was the fact. So,\neven when you pin him down he varies, I think, from an\naccurate answer. I could have used stronger language, but --\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I am Commissioner of\nAirports of LAX and several others. In August of this\nyear, Secretary Coleman made a recommendation to OMB\nrelative to noise abatement programs as it affects retrofit\nand the phasing out of the aircraft.\nAre you going to be prepared to give us an answer\nprior to November 2 as to what we can expect on noise\nabatement in LAX?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I have spent a great deal of\ntime with Secretary Coleman in the last month on just that\nquestion, and I have also spent a good bit of time with\nothers within the Administration. And let me give you some\nidea of what the problem is as well as what the solution\nmight be.\nI don't want to preempt precisely what we are\ngoing to do. But the problem is that there are about 25\nairports in this country where there is a noise problem. It\ninvolves roughly 6 million people who live adjacent to or\nwithin the area of those airports. The noise standards\nthat were established by FAA, as I recall about two years\nago, required that all new aircraft that are going to use\nthose, or any airports in this country, must meet those\nstandards.\nUnder that kind of a program, as I recall, it will\ntake 8 to 10 years to go through the whole cycle of abandoning\nthose present planes that don't meet the standards and\nreplacing them with planes that do meet the standards. I\nam very concerned that we have not been tougher in this regard.\nNow when you say that, in effect you are saying\nthat today we are going to impose on all aircraft who use\nour many, many airports in this country the same standards,\nthe new ones as well as those that are unable to meet the\nproblem, which, if you did it today, would force the aircraft\nindustry to replace, as I recall, roughly two-thirds of their\npresent fleet.\nNow the commercial airliners say that under their\nrestrictions imposed on their ticket cost they cannot go into\na program that permits them immediately to buy the aircraft\nthat would meet this problem. They say that the CAB won't\ngive them enough price relief.\nSo the answer is one of two approaches -- either\nwe get the regulatory reform that I recommended to the Congress\nwhich would force the CAB to permit certain price adjustments\nin their fares without going through a lengthy process\nbefore the CAB and, if they got that relief, if Congress\nstood up and passed the regulatory reform that I recommended,\nthen the CAB and the industry itself, would have the capability\nof meeting the problems that they face in financing the\nprocurement of the two-thirds of the planes that don't\nmeet the noise standards.\nMORE\nPage 10\nNow, the other option. At the present time,\nthere is an 8 percent Federal tax on commercial plane\ntickets. That money goes into an aircraft, into an airport\ntrust fund. That trust fund presently has a surplus.\nThere is a suggestion that that be reduced\nfrom 8 percent to 6 percent, and that a financing plan\nbe worked out that would take that 2 percent and permit\nthe airlines to immediately be a beneficiary of that so\nthat they could buy more modern aircraft more quickly. It\nis very complicated but it is a solution.\nSo, when you come down to it we are in the\nprocess of making a final decision as to whether we should\n-- well, the alternatives are Congress must pass the\nregulatory reform that gives the industry itself an\nopportunity to meet the problem or, if Congress will sit\non its hands, as it has in other regulatory reform\nproposals, if they won't take the one option, then I think\nthe other option is a necessity because I am not going to\ntolerate an 8-to 10-year program of trying to solve the noise\nproblem at airports, the 26 -- Los Angeles, La Guardia,\nKennedy, O'Hare, and the others.\nIt is not right to the 6 million people when\nwe have a better answer, either regulatory reform on the\none hand or a financing program as I have suggested on the\nother.\nQUESTION: Mr. President, I am a reservist\nwith the Strategic Air Command. I can tell the B-52s\nwill not go another ten years. When are we going to get\nthe B-1?\nTHE PRESIDENT: I made a speech on that point\nyesterday out at the Rockwell plant, and I made precisely\nthe point you are talking about. The B-52s today are\nan integral part of our three-pronged strategic programs\nfor the defense of this country.\nWe need high-performance, long-range aircraft.\nWe need our land-based ballistic missile systems. We need\nour submarine-launched ballistic missile systems.\nWe are improving our land-based programs with\nthe MARK-III, and we are moving into the MX missile\ndevelopment. We are building the Trident submarine to\nreplace the present nuclear-powered ballistic missile\nsubmarine. But, we cannot permit the 25-year-cld B-52g to\ncontinue for another 10 or 15 years.\nAs I said yesterday, I am not going to permit\npilots to fly in aircraft which is older than the pilots\nthemselves. And that is what you do if you go on with the\nB-52. The B-1 has met every test, not only as to performance\nbut as to cost. And I am very much opposed to those who want\nto cancel it or delay it and, unfortunately, Mr. Carter, in\nthe form that he espouses, either wants to delay it or cancel\nit.\nI think we owe something to the young people who\nare called upon to fly those aircraft to give them the best\nequipment that this country can buy.\nMORE\n[ca.oct.1976]\n26 NOISY AIRPORTS\nMemphis, Tennessee\nTampa, Florida\nFt. Lauderdale, Florida\nBoston, Massachusetts\nChicago, Ill. (O'Hare)\nNew York City (JFK)\nLos Angeles, California\nMinneapolis-St. Paul\nPhoenix, Arizona\nSan Francisco, California\nWashington, D.C. (National)\nAnchorage, Alaska\nWest Palm Beach, Florida\nHonolulu, Hawaii\nLas Vegas, Nevada\nSan Juan, Puerto Rico\nOakland, California\nSan Jose, California\nAtlanta, Georgia\nBuffalo, New York\nDenver, Colorado\nNew York City (LaGuardia)\nMiami, Florida\nNewark, New Jersey\nSan Diego, California\nSeattle, Washington\nWorst Six Airports\nKennedy\nLa Guardia\nNewark\nChicago - O'Hare\nBoston\nLos Angeles\nFORD\nLIBRARY\n[oct.1976]\nQUIET SKIES\n(Appropriate Salutation)\nWe have assembled here at\nAirport\ntoday so that I could speak with you about two important\nand related national problems.\nAnd in the process I am going to discuss a real-\nlife case study of what is wrong with Washington --- and\nwhat must be done about it.\nThe first of these two national problems is aircraft\nand airport noise -- and I will today announce a plan to\nreduce the noise pollution around this and other major\nairports in the Nation.\nThe second problem is the need to ensure that the\ncontinue\nto\n200 million Americans who fly every year have the finest\npossible airline service. I will today describe the\nmeasures necessary to make certain that the American\nconsumer will be served by a healthy and competitive\nFORD\nsystem of commercial airlines.\nLIBRARY\n-2-\nBoth of these problems and their resolution affect\nyour lives, your jobs, your environment, your property,\nyour future and your children's future, and the well-being\nand progress of the Nation.\nFor some 6 million Americans who live and work\naround 100 major airports in the U.S., the noise of jet\nplanes is a very real and personal environmental problem.\nI know, because I used to live near Washington National AiRport,\nand sometimes the noise was so bad you could not read a\nnewspaper, hear the T.V., or finish a conversation with\nthe children.\nFor these 6 million Americans the problem of noise\nis getting worse as air travel increases -- and we want\nair travel to increase.\nBut we must also end the noise problem.\nFORD & LIBRARY\nSince the 1960's, when the airlines introduced new\njet airplanes into the fleet, noise has been recognized\nas a major constraint to commercial aviation. Through\nresearch and development, by the government and by private\nindustry, we have learned how to make jet engines quieter,\nand more efficient in fuel use. The technology is ready.\n-3-\nWe have taken the first steps to reduce\nthe noise around airports. In 1969 the Federal Aviation\nAdministration, one of the two Federal agencies that\nregulate the commercial airlines -- I know you are\naware that Congress feels the airlines are so important\nthat you need two Federal regulatory agencies to tell\nyou what to do -- in 1969 the FAA issued standards that\nreal\nwould cut in half the ( perceived noise of new jet aircrafts,\neffective at the start of 1975.\nrearly\nFor the last two years, all commercial planes\ncoming off the assembly lines in the United States have\nmet these standards.\nBut the FAA did not act to correct the biggest\npart of the airport noise problem --- some 1600 older jet\nairplanes, or about 77 percent of the U.S. commercial\nairlines fleet.\nThese planes are still flying; and if you live near\nthis or any other major airport in the United States,\nyou are still listening to them.\nFORD is GERALD LIBRARY\n-4-\nWhy, seven years after the FAA set aircraft noise\nstandards, are these noisy planes still flying?\nThe answer, very simply, is that FAA knew that\nsome of the airlines could not afford to pay for modifying\nor replacing their older planes to meet the new noise\nstandards.\nWhy not? One reason, frankly, is that some of the\nairlines have not been well-managed.\nBut another important reason airlines could not\nafford to pay for noise reduction is that the Civil\nAeronautics Board, the other Federal agency that regulates\nthe airlines, could not look ahead and provide the\nrevenues the airlines would need to pay for noise reduction.\nThe CAB is like that mythical bird which flew back-\nward and knew where it had been, but not where it was going.\nUnder their own regulations for setting airline fares,\nsepresent\nCAB looks backward at \"historic, costs,\" but not ahead to\nrealistic future costs.\n-5-\nThe CAB was created almost 40 years ago to promote\nand assist a young and hopeful airline industry. There\nwere reasons then to allocate routes, set fares, and limit\ncompetition; at the beginning, the public need for good\nservice required extensive government involvement to assure\norderly growth of the airlines.\nIt is different now.\nWhen the CAB began in 1938, domestic airlines carried\na total of 1.3 million passengers, for 476 million passenger\nmiles.\nFORD LISBANY\nThis year, U.S. airlines will carry more than 200\nmillion passengers, for 128 billion passengers miles -- a\ngrowth of 26,800 percent. Airlines now carry more people\nbetween cities than any other form of public transportation.\nThe airline industry is no longer an infant; it is\nmature, big and fully capable of prospering in a free,\nopen and competitive market.\nIt was for this reason that on October 8, 1975, I\nproposed to the Congress the Aviation Act of 1975, which\n-6-\nwould have reduced economic controls, opened markets,\nreduced fares and made it possible for all airlines\nto better serve the American consumer.\nMy objective was to work with the Congress to continue to\nensure that the U.S. will have the most efficient airline\nsystem in the world, providing the American public with\nthe best possible service at the lowest possible cost.\nThat was 11 months ago; but neither the House nor\nthe Senate has acted on this important legislation, which\nis the first comprehensive updating of airline regulation\npassed\nin almost forty years. Nor has Congress proposed any\nalternative.\nFORD & GERALD LIBRARY\nHowever, the blame does not all rest on Congress.\nSome airline executives, and their Washington lobbyists,\nhave short-sightedly opposed this change. While they say\npublicly they are for free enterprise and open competition,\nthey have privately lobbied against open competition, against\nthe American consumer, and in fact against greater opportunity\nfor the growth and prosperity of their airlines.\n-7-\nConsequently, we have this situation:\nToo Much Noise:\nThe FAA, by not moving on noise standards, has\nshown a lack of decisiveness that must be changed.\nOutdated Regulations:\nThe CAB, by following policies and procedures\nthat are impractical and out of date, is clearly\nunable to assist the airlines in providing the best\nand cheapest service to the public.\nCongressional Inaction:\nThe Congress, by its failure to act on aviation\nregulatory reform, is continuing a critical economic\nproblem for the airlines and all the people who work\nfor airlines and depend on them.\nFORD LIBRANT\nAs President, I cannot tolerate inaction any longer.\nWe must end the noise pollution around American airports\nand bring quiet skies back to America again.\nWe must free aviation from arbitrary and unnecessary\nrestrictions and regulations so that the airlines themselves\ncan pay the cost of noise abatement.\n-8-\nTo do this, I am taking the following actions:\nFirst, I am today directing the Secretary of Trans-\nportation to instruct the Administrator of FAA to extend\nits noise regulations to all U.S. commercial aircraft, to\nbe phased in over an 8-year period.\nSecond, I am putting the Congress on notice that I\nwill not accept its inaction. Congress must adopt the\nairline regulatory reform measure I proposed in 1975.\nCongress must act on this reform in the interest of the\nAmerican public.\nI want the members to know now that aviation regu-\nlatory reform will be on their doorstep when they come\nback in January.\nThird, I propose that the present Federal tax on\ndomestic passenger fares be reduced from 8 percent to\n6 percent, and on domestic freight, be reduced from 5 percent\nto 3 percent. This tax on the consumer is now going to\nthe Airport and Airway Trust Fund to provide Federal\nassistance to airport construction and improvement. There\nis now a surplus of $1.4 billion in this fund. Passengers\nhave a right to this tax reduction.\n-9-\nHowever, if the Congress does not act on regulatory\nreform for the airlines within 60 days after the new session\nopens, I shall have no choice but to propose the reimposition\nof that 2 percent as an environmental surcharge on passenger\nfares and freight bills. The funds from the surcharge\nwould be directed into a special trust fund, administered\nby the Secretary of Transportation, to assist the airlines\nin financing the new and quieter planes that are necessary\nfor the abatement of aircraft noise around our major airports.\nI do not want to call for this environmenal surcharge\non passengers. Regulatory reform is a far better solution.\nBut if Congress does not act on the aviation regulatory\nreform I proposed last October, there has to be another\nalternative.\nEven then, an environmental surcharge would be a\ntemporary expedient -- not a permanent solution to the\nreal problem facing the airlines and other over-regulated\nindustries in this country.\nSuch a surcharge would help end the noise problem. But\nit will not change the CAB's outdated methods of setting fares\nand controlling markets. It will not improve an airline's\nability to compete and provide better service.\n-10-\nThe lasting solution is to give the free enterprise\nsystem its best chance to operate.\nThe genius of the American economic system throughout\nour history has been a partnership between government\nand free enterprise. The right role of the government\nin the American economic system is to help private enter-\nprise accomplish needed objectives for the American people -\nand not to hinder private enterprise.\nOur national growth in 200 years has been phenomenal,\nand in no area of our lives has the partnership between\ngovernment and private enterprise worked better than in\ntransportation.\nIn the National Transportation Policy Statement of\nmy Administration of September 17, 197 we said:\n\"Transportation has substantially shaped the\ngrowth and development of the United States.\nWaterways led our ancestors to new frontiers.\nToday, our energy-efficient inland waterways and\nmerchant marine seek out new markets. Railroads\n-11-\nfed the hearths of an industrial revolution and\nnow have renewed significance in the era of environ-\nmental and energy consciousness. Highways made\nus the most mobile population on earth, profoundly\naltered our land use patterns, and established the\nautomobile, truck and bus as an important part of\nthe Nation's mobility and economic activity. Mass\ntransit provided the lifeline to city centers and\nnow offers hope for their revival. Civil aviation\nextended its reach around the globe and helped\ndesign the interdependent world in which we now\nlive. General aviation has greatly increased\nbusiness and pleasure mobility and opened up formerly\nunreachable territories. Pipelines are vital to\nenergy independence.\n\"To sustain and enhance our economic vitality\nand growth, the productivity of our commerce and\nthe quality of our leisure, we need a healthy and\nresponsive transportation system. National trans-\nportation policy must serve these broad goals of\nour society by helping to guide the development,\nfinancing and maintenance of a safe, efficient,\naccessible and diverse transportation system. Such\n-12-\na system should meet the needs of all Americans --\nas passengers, consumers, employees, shippers and\ninvestors -- in a way that is consistent with\nother national objectives. The values and priorities\nof our society are changing as the land on which\nwe live is changing, and transportation must blend\nwith other national goals in seeking heightened\nquality in the American way of life.\" \"\nWe have set our national goals for what is and what\nmust continue to be the best airline system in the world.\nBy working together we can reach those goals.\nThank you.\n[oct. 1976]\nQUIET SKIES\n(Appropriate Salutation)\nWe have assembled here at\nAirport\ntoday so that I could speak with you about two important\nand related national problems.\nAnd in the process I am going to discuss a real-\nlife case study of what is wrong with Washington -- and\nwhat must be done about it.\nThe first of these two national problems is aircraft\nand airport noise --- and I will today announce a plan to\nreduce the noise pollution around this and other major\nairports in the Nation.\nThe second problem is the need to ensure that the\n200 million Americans who fly every year have the finest\npossible airline service. I will today describe the\nmeasures necessary to make certain that the American\nconsumer will be served by a healthy and competitive\nFORD\nsystem of commercial airlines.\nLIBRARY\n-2-\nBoth of these problems and their resolution affect\nyour lives, your jobs, your environment, your property,\nyour future and your children's future, and the well-being\nand progress of the Nation.\nFor some 6 million Americans who live and work\naround 100 major airports in the U.S., the noise of jet\nplanes is a very real and personal environmental problem.\nI know, because I used to live near Washington National AIRPORT,\nand sometimes the noise was so bad you could not read a\nnewspaper, hear the T.V., or finish a conversation with\nthe children.\nFor these 6 million Americans the problem of noise\nis getting worse as air travel increases -- and we want\nair travel to increase.\nBut we must also end the noise problem.\nSince the 1960's, when the airlines introduced new\njet airplanes into the fleet, noise has been recognized\nas a major constraint to commercial aviation. Through\nresearch and development, by the government and by private\nindustry, we have learned how to make jet engines quieter,\nand more efficient in fuel use. The technology is ready.\n-3-\nWe have taken the first steps to reduce\nthe noise around airports. In 1969 the Federal Aviation\nAdministration, one of the two Federal agencies that\nregulate the commercial airlines -- I know you are\naware that Congress feels the airlines are so important\nthat you need two Federal regulatory agencies to tell\nyou what to do - in 1969 the FAA issued standards that\nwould cut in half the perceived noise of new jet aircrafts,\nif\neffective at the start of 1975.\nFor the last two years, all commercial planes\ncoming off the assembly lines in the United States have\nmet these standards.\nBut the FAA did not act to correct the biggest\npart of the airport noise problem -- some 1600 older jet\nairplanes, or about 77 percent of the U.S. commercial\nairlines fleet.\nThese planes are still flying; and if you live near\nthis or any other major airport in the United States,\nyou are still listening to them.\n-4-\nWhy, seven years after the FAA set aircraft noise\nstandards, are these noisy planes still flying?\nThe answer, very simply, is that FAA knew that\nsome of the airlines could not afford to pay for modifying\nor replacing their older planes to meet the new noise\nstandards.\nWhy not? One reason, frankly, is that some of the\nairlines have not been well-managed.\nBut another important reason airlines could not\nafford to pay for noise reduction is that the Civil\nAeronautics Board, the other Federal agency that regulates\nthe airlines, could not look ahead and provide the\nrevenues the airlines would need to pay for noise reduction.\nThe CAB is like that mythical bird which flew back-\nward and knew where it had been, but not where it was going.\nUnder their own regulations for setting airline fares,\nCAB looks backward at \"historic costs,\" but not ahead to\nrealistic future costs.\nGERALD FORD LIGRARY\n-5-\nThe CAB was created almost 40 years ago to promote\nand assist a young and hopeful airline industry. There\nwere reasons then to allocate routes, set fares, and limit\ncompetition; at the beginning, the public need for good\nservice required extensive government involvement to assure\norderly growth of the airlines.\nIt is different now.\nWhen the CAB began in 1938, domestic airlines carried\na total of 1.3 million passengers, for 476 million passenger\nmiles.\nThis year, U.S. airlines will carry more than 200\nmillion passengers, for 128 billion passengers miles -- a\ngrowth of 26,800 percent. Airlines now carry more people\nbetween cities than any other form of public transportation.\nThe airline industry is no longer an infant; it is\nmature, big and fully capable of prospering in a free,\nopen and competitive market.\nIt was for this reason that on October 8, 1975, I\nproposed to the Congress the Aviation Act of 1975, which\n-6-\nwould have reduced economic controls, opened markets,\nreduced fares and made it possible for all airlines\nto better serve the American consumer.\nMy objective was to work with the Congress to\nensure that the U.S. will have the most efficient airline\nsystem in the world, providing the American public with\nthe best possible service at the lowest possible cost.\nThat was 11 months ago; but neither the House nor\nthe Senate has acted on this important legislation, which\nis the first comprehensive updating of airline regulation\nin almost forty years. Nor has Congress proposed any\nalternative.\nHowever, the blame does not all rest on Congress.\nSome airline executives, and their Washington lobbyists,\nhave short-sightedly opposed this change. While they say\npublicly they are for free enterprise and open competition,\nthey have privately lobbied against open competition, against\nthe American consumer, and in fact against greater opportunity\nfor the growth and prosperity of their airlines.\n-7-\nConsequently, we have this situation:\nToo Much Noise:\nThe FAA, by not moving on noise standards, has\nshown a lack of decisiveness that must be changed.\nOutdated Regulations:\nThe CAB, by following policies and procedures\nthat are impractical and out of date, is clearly\nunable to assist the airlines in providing the best\nand cheapest service to the public.\nCongressional Inaction:\nThe Congress, by its failure to act on aviation\nregulatory reform, is continuing a critical economic\nproblem for the airlines and all the people who work\nfor airlines and depend on them.\nAs President, I cannot tolerate inaction any longer.\nWe must end the noise pollution around American airports\nand bring quiet skies back to America again.\nWe must free aviation from arbitrary and unnecessary\nrestrictions and regulations so that the airlines themselves\ncan pay the cost of noise abatement.\n-8-\nTo do this, I am taking the following actions:\nFirst, I am today directing the Secretary of Trans-\nportation to instruct the Administrator of FAA to extend\nits noise regulations to all U.S. commercial aircraft, to\nbe phased in over an 8-year period.\nSecond, I am putting the Congress on notice that I\nwill not accept its inaction. Congress must adopt the\nairline regulatory reform measure I proposed in 1975.\nCongress must act on this reform in the interest of the\nAmerican public.\nI want the members to know now that aviation regu-\nlatory reform will be on their doorstep when they come\nback in January.\nThird, I propose that the present Federal tax on\ndomestic passenger fares be reduced from 8 percent to\n6 percent, and on domestic freight, be reduced from 5 percent\nto 3 percent. This tax on the consumer is now going to\nthe Airport and Airway Trust Fund to provide Federal\nassistance to airport construction and improvement. There\nis now a surplus of $1.4 billion in this fund. Passengers\nhave a right to this tax reduction.\n-9-\nHowever, if the Congress does not act on regulatory\nreform for the airlines within 60 days after the new session\ncontinuation\nopens, I shall have no choice but to propose the reimposition\nof that 2 percent as an environmental surcharge on passenger\nfares and freight bills. The funds from the surcharge\nwould be directed into a special trust fund, administered\nby the Secretary of Transportation, to assist the airlines\nin financing the new and quieter planes that are necessary\nfor the abatement of aircraft noise around our major airports.\nI do not want to call for this environmenal surcharge\non passengers. Regulatory reform is a far better solution.\nBut if Congress does not act on the aviation regulatory\nreform I proposed last October, there has to be another\nalternative.\nEven then, an environmental surcharge would be a\ntemporary expedient -- not a permanent solution to the\nreal problem facing the airlines and other over-regulated\nindustries in this country.\nSuch a surcharge would help end the noise problem. But\nit will not change the CAB's outdated methods of setting fares\nand controlling markets. It will not improve an airline's\nability to compete and provide better service.\n-10-\nThe lasting solution is to give the free enterprise\nsystem its best chance to operate.\nThe genius of the American economic system throughout\nour history has been a partnership between government\nand free enterprise. The right role of the government\nin the American economic system is to help private enter-\nprise accomplish needed objectives for the American people --\nand not to hinder private enterprise.\nOur national growth in 200 years has been phenomenal,\nand in no area of our lives has the partnership between\ngovernment and private enterprise worked better than in\ntransportation.\nIn the National Transportation Policy Statement of\nmy Administration of September 17, 1976 we said:\n\"Transportation has substantially shaped the\ngrowth and development of the United States.\nWaterways led our ancestors to new frontiers.\nToday, our energy-efficient inland waterways and\nmerchant marine seek out new markets. Railroads\nFORD LIBRARY\n-11-\nfed the hearths of an industrial revolution and\nnow have renewed significance in the era of environ-\nmental and energy consciousness. Highways made\nus the most mobile population on earth, profoundly\naltered our land use patterns, and established the\nautomobile, truck and bus as an important part of\nthe Nation's mobility and economic activity. Mass\ntransit provided the lifeline to city centers and\nnow offers hope for their revival. Civil aviation\nextended its reach around the globe and helped\ndesign the interdependent world in which we now\nlive. General aviation has greatly increased\nbusiness and pleasure mobility and opened up formerly\nunreachable territories. Pipelines are vital to\nenergy independence.\n\"To sustain and enhance our economic vitality\nand growth, the productivity of our commerce and\nthe quality of our leisure, we need a healthy and\nresponsive transportation system. National trans-\nportation policy must serve these broad goals of\nour society by helping to guide the development,\nfinancing and maintenance of a safe, efficient,\naccessible and diverse transportation system. Such\n-12-\na system should meet the needs of all Americans --\nas passengers, consumers, employees, shippers and\ninvestors --- in a way that is consistent with\nother national objectives. The values and priorities\nof our society are changing as the land on which\nwe live is changing, and transportation must blend\nwith other national goals in seeking heightened\nquality in the American way of life.' #\nWe have set our national goals for what is and what\nmust continue to be the best airline system in the world.\nBy working together we can reach those goals.\nThank you.\n[oct. 1976\non wour of funes\nw w r\napon -\nmoned upot to\nP 60 days\noften layne\nReturn 70\nHe mi party\nto fund\nLIBRACY GERALD ? FORD\nJOBS in California\nor writington\n[oct.1976]\nNoisy U.S. Airports (ranked in order of number of people\naffected by severe or serious aircraft noise).\n1.\nLaGuardia, New York\n2.\nChicago (O'Hare), Illinois\n3.\nJ. F. Kennedy, New York\n4.\nNewark, New Jersey\n5.\nBoston, Massachusetts\n6.\nLos Angeles, California\n7.\nMiami, Florida\n8.\nDenver, Colorado\n9.\nCleveland, Ohio\n10.\nSan Francisco, California\n11. Seattle, Washington\n12. Buffalo, New York\n13. St. Louis, Missouri\nAdditional Noisy Airports (not ranked, numbered for con-\nvenience only, are) :\n14. Atlanta, Georgia\n15. San Diego, California\n16. Oakland, California\n17. Washington, D.C. (National)\n18. San Jose, California\n19. Tampa, Florida\n20. Memphis, Tennessee\n21. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida\n22. Honolulu, Hawaii\n23. Phoenix, Arizona\n24. West Palm Beach, Florida\n25. Las Vegas, Nevada\n26. Anchorage, Alaska\n27. San Juan, Puerto Rico\n28. Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota\n29. Baltimore, Maryland\n30. Detroit, Michigan\n31. Salt Lake City, Utah\n32. Louisville, Kentucky\n33. Albuquerque, New Mexico\n34. Ontario, California\n35. Palm Springs, California\nFORD is LIBRARY\n[oct.1976]\nSTATEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT\nON AIRCRAFT NOISE\nAircraft noise around airports is a substantial annoyance for\nsix to seven million Americans. The problem is particularly serious\nat some of the major airports, such as those in New York, Los\nAngeles, Boston, Atlanta and Chicago. In fact, it represents a\nsignificant or potential problem for residents living near many other\nairports across the nation, and as air travel increases, noise will\nbecome a serious problem at some of these other airports as well.\nCities like San Jose, San Francisco, Miami, Denver, San Diego, Seattle\nand Phoenix are under increasing public pressure to take steps to\nreduce aircraft noise. In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration\nhas identified 100 airports where noise is a problem.\nCitizen complaints, law suits for noise damages and proposed\nrestrictions on airport use have begun to threaten the efficiency and\nviability of the interstate air transportation system.\nDuring the past six weeks I have reviewed extensively the aircraft\nnoise problem. I have considered the recommendations of Secretary\nof Transportation William T. Coleman, Jr., Federal Aviation\nAdministrator John L. McLucas, EPA Administrator Russell E. Train\nand many other federal, state and local officials concerned with the\neffect of aircraft noise on people in areas surrounding our major airports.\nFORD LIBRARY\n2\nI have become acutely aware of the seriousness of this problem\nand have reached the following conclusions:\n1. The aggravation and annoyance of aircraft noise are a\nnationwide problem that can be addressed only by the joint efforts\nof government, airport operators and industry, working together\ncooperatively. If each of us performs the responsibilities\nfor which we are uniquely suited under a comprehensive policy to\nreduce aircraft noise, we can and will achieve measured progress\nin improving the quality of life for airport neighbors.\n2. We have the technological capability to bring about\nsignificant reductions in aircraft noise emissions. Our major\nconstraint has been the economic condition of the carriers which\nhas prevented the rapid introduction of quieter technology and\nthe development of new airplanes that will provide even greater\nnoise reduction benefits. Because of this economic problem,\n77 percent of the civil aviation fleet operating today does not\nmeet the present federal noise standard for new subsonic\naircraft. This is intolerable. We must take action not only to\nquiet or retire the noisy aircraft but also to accelerate their\nreplacement with new quieter technologies that will bring\n3\nadditional benefits in noise reduction, fuel efficiency and new\ntechnology. To be effective, this action requires that we also\naddress the issue of how the results which are now possible\ntechnologically may be financed.\n3. In considering the serious and complex problem of aircraft\nnoise, I am aware of many interrelated problems that must be\naddressed simultaneously. These problems include:\n- - the financial and regulatory constraints on the ability of our\nair carriers to purchase new, quieter airplanes;\n- - the inadequate utilization of technological and employment\ncapability in the aeronautical manufacturing industry;\n- - the lost potential for substantial energy conservation improve-\nments by the delayed introduction of new more fuel efficient\naircraft;\n- - the importance to the national interest of maintaining U.S.\nleadership in providing aeronautical products for the rest\nof the world in light of increasing European competition;\nand\n- - the need to reduce aircraft noise levels so as to minimize\nthe necessity for airport operators to impose curfews and\n4\nother restrictions on the use of airports that interfere\nwith the efficiency of interstate travel.\nIn reviewing these problems, I have considered the recommendations\nof members of my Cabinet and staff, and I have directed that the\nfollowing action be taken:\n1. Within ten days the Secretary of Transportation will publish\na comprehensive aviation noise policy. That policy will set\nforth why the solution to the noise problem in this country must\nbe a joint effort by federal, state and local governments, airport\noperators, air carriers and aircraft manufacturers. It will\ninclude a statement of the responsibilities of each and a specific\nplan and timetable for federal action that will ensure that the\nfederal government meets its statutory obligations to reduce noise\nby promulgating regulations that have been delayed too long.\n2. I am directing the Federal Aviation Administrator, in\nconsultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to promulgate\nwithin two weeks a regulation that will require domestic commercial\naircraft to meet present federal noise standards in accordance\nwith a phased-in time schedule, not to exceed eight years. I am\n5\nfurther directing the Federal Aviation Administrator, in\nconsultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to promulgate\nby the end of this year a new federal noise regulation that will\nestablish new, tougher standards for new subsonic technology\naircraft.\n3. I have directed the Secretary of State to initiate negotiations\nwith the International Civil Aviation Organization and the European\nCivil Aviation Conference to bring about international agreement\non noise standards for all international aircraft operations into\nthe U.S. If agreement is not reached within four years, we will\nbegin to apply U.S. standards to foreign aircraft unilaterally.\n4. I have directed the Secretary of Transportation to provide\nspecial financial and technical assistance to airport operators\nto help them develop comprehensive noise abatement plans, to\nassist them in the acquisition of buffer land and purchase of\nnoise suppressant equipment, and to assure that the land around\nairports is zoned and developed in ways that are compatible\nwith airport operations.\n5. I will ask the Congress to reduce by 2 percentage points\nthe domestic ticket and freight waybill taxes, thereby releasing\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n6\nthe excess tax revenues that are presently unused by the Airport\nDevelopment Aid Program and enabling the air carriers to pay\nthe costs of meeting these new environmental standards without\nincreasing the cost of air travel to the consumer. My tax\nreduction proposal will be included in a revised Aviation Reform\nAct that I will submit to Congress before the start of the next\nsession. Thus, the Administration's continued support for this\ntax reduction will be conditioned on Congressional acceptance\nof aviation regulatory reform.\n6. I have directed the Secretary of Transportation to consider\nin an open public hearing what financing provisions are necessary\nto ensure that the air carriers can meet the noise requirements.\nThe Secretary will consider what sort of special financing provisions\nshould be established in addition to the reduction of the ticket tax\nI have proposed (whether, for example, a special surcharge of 2%\nshould be imposed to provide revenues that could be used to help\nsecure necessary financing for the replacement of the noisy\naircraft and, if so, how such revenues should be dispersed).\nIn formulating a financing proposal, the Secretary shall consult\nwith consumers, representatives of industry and other concerned\n7\nparties, and shape his proposal to meet the following criteria:\n- - financing measures should be available to assure that noise\nregulations meet the statutory test of \"economic reasonable-\nness;\"\n- - financing should be consistent with and help advance the\ncause of aviation regulatory reform;\n- - the cost of environmental improvements should be met by\nthe user, not the general public;\n- - any special financing provisions should involve minimum\ngovernment interference with investment decisions in the\nprivate sector and should be equitable among the carriers;\n- - the cost of air travel to the consumer should not be increased\nas a result of the program.\n7. This proposal will make possible the replacement of most of\nthe 500 oldest, noisiest four-engine jets still in commercial\noperation. It will enable further the quieting, and in some cases\nreplacement, of most of the approximately 1,000 newer, less\nnoisy jets that do meet federal standards.\n8. Before the next session of Congress begins, I will submit\nto the Congress a revised Aviation Reform Act that will provide--\n8\nin addition to the removal of unnecessary regulatory constraints\non pricing, entry and routes a provision that will make possible\nthe generation of sufficient private sector financing to meet the\nfederal noise requirements and achieve other important national\nbenefits, including:\n- - reduction of the number of Americans exposed to serious\naircraft noise impacts by about 1 million;\n- - reduction of the annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, and\nmental distress caused by aircraft noise for all who live or\nwork near airports;\n- - the creation of 240 thousand new jobs in the aerospace industry;\n- - the production of new generation of U.S. manufactured\nairplanes--presently stalled at the design stage--offering\nthe advantages of new design and safety technology, and\nenabling U.S. manufacturers to respond to the projected\nworldwide demand for a new generation of airplanes in\n1978-84;\n- - substantial energy savings by improvements up to 30% in\nfuel efficiency, the more rapid introduction of the quietest\nengines now technologically possible--engines less than\nhalf as loud as the noisy jets they would replace;\nGERALD 3\n9\n- - better air service to the American traveler with lower\noperating costs and prices in airplanes designed to service\nmany markets more economically.\nA nationwide effort to reduce aircraft noise represents a commit-\nment to a better quality of life for millions of Americans. We will\nreplace the chaos, confusion and conflict that has all too often\ncharacterized the noise reduction effort thus far with firm federal\nleadership and close cooperation with the airport operators, the carriers\nand the people adversely affected by aircraft noise. Through our\ncontinuing efforts to develop quieter aircraft, by our requirement that\nnoisier aircraft be quieted or replaced, and with our financial and\ntechnical assistance to airport operators, we will bring about a sub-\nstantial reduction in the impact of aircraft noise on our fellow citizens,\nand at the same time create new jobs and improve the efficiency and\ncompetitive position of our air carriers and aerospace manufacturers.\n[oct. 1976]\nCamon\nPossible Presidential Actions\n1977\nP\nDirect Secretary Coleman to instruct FAA to extend\nJan\n1,1976\nnoise standards to all domestic commercial aircraft.\nW18\ngo\nPI\nPut Congress on notice that it must adopt airline\nyrs\nregulatory reform early in the next session.\nIII. If Congress does not act on regulatory reform, then\nthe President will send legislation to:\n-- reduce federal tax by 2%\nJry\n-- impose a 2% environmental surcharge, with the\n90 days\nmoney going into a trust fund to assist the\nairlines in financing the new planes that meet\nnoise standards.\nLOBS in speech\n1130\n77% rockots\nMitur\ndate - effecture Inguing 8yrs\nfleit\nJan 1917. Thereft\nFORD i GERALD LIBRARY\nhaved In wourd on the made a to an\nmeantin rea economic Min\nt.\nInsert on page 8\nIf the Congress does not act on regulatory reform for\nthe airlines within 60 days after the new session opens,\nthen I must act to make certain that the airlines can meet\nnoise standards and at the same time continue to be a\nPROVIDING V.\nhealthy and competitive industry serving 200 million Amer-\nicans.\nTherefore, if Congress fails to act on Aviation Regu-\nlatory Reform by March 5, 1976, I shall send Congress legis-\nlation that would to -\n-- Reduce the present Federal tax on domestic passenger\nfares from 8 percent to 6 percent;\nDOMESTIC\n-- Reduce the present Federal tax on freight from 5 per-\ncent to 3 percent; and\n-- Impose a 2 percent environmental surcharge on all\npassenger fares and freight bills.\n-\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nInsert on page 8\nIf the Congress does not act on regulatory reform for\nthe airlines within 60 days after the new session opens,\nthen I must act to make certain that the airlines can meet\nnoise standards and at the same time continue to be a\nhealthy and competitive industry serving 200 million Amer-\nicans.\nTherefore, if Congress fails to act on Aviation Regu-\nlatory Reform by March 5, 1976, I shall send Congress legis-\nlation that would --\n-- reduce the present Federal tax on domestic passenger\nfares from 8 percent to 6 percent;\n-- reduce the present Federal tax on freight from 5 per-\ncent to 3 percent; and\n-- impose a 2 percent environmental surcharge on all\npassenger fares and freight bills.\nFORD is LIBRARY\navitation\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nINFORMATION\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 2, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON\nSUBJECT:\nCalifornia Jun Trip/Aircraft Noise\nTwo of the airports you will be using on your forth-\ncoming trip (Los Angeles International on October 7,\nand Hollywood-Burbank on October 8) have serious\naircraft noise problems.\nSpecific information will be included in your briefing\nbook, but I wanted you to know that these two airports\nhave serious noise problems; and Hollywood-Burbank has\nobtained a court order temporarily suspending the\napplication of these noise standards in order to permit\nthe airport to remain open.\nMeanwhile there has been a modest boom in aircraft buying.\nThe attached article from Business Week points out that\nBoeing's orders are up, at least temporarily. Sales at\nMcDonnell Douglas and Lockheed are still lagging.\nAttachment\nFOCD LIBHART\nAirlines give Boeing\na one-shot boom\nAfter years of struggling with excess\ncapacity, U.S. domestic airlines are\nsuddenly buying airplanes again. So far\nthis year, American, Braniff, Delta,\nNorthwest, Western, Southwest, and\neven ailing Eastern have ordered 77 new\njetliners-compared with only 29 planes\npurchased by domestic carriers in all of\n1975. This week, directors of United\nAirlines are expected to approve the\nyear's biggest buy: as many as 25 Boeing\n727s, worth nearly $300 million. That\nwill be the first time United has ordered\nnew airplanes since 1968.\nThe jump in orders stems largely from\na healthy rise in air traffic-up 10.7% so\nfar this year-that has boosted profits\nfor many airlines, helping to pay for new\nBoeing's Boullioun: Glad to have orders\nplanes as well as increasing confidence\nbut still worried about future business.\nin their ability to fill them.\nNew orders. The order flurry is spreading\nplanes. The fact that airlines are now\nthe greatest joy in Seattle, home of\nbuying planes indicates they do not need\nBoeing Co., which has won all but 15 of\ngovernment help, he argues.\nthis year's domestic orders. On the home\nUnited Airlines points out that its new\nfront at least, 1976 is shaping up as\n727s are strictly to replace old planes,\nBoeing's best new-order year of the\nnot to anticipate growth. As air traffic\n1970s-topping the 1972 peak of 85\ngrows, United expects to hit a major\nplanes sold to domestic carriers. Boeing's\ncapital problem in expanding its fleet by\nrising domestic backlog will bolster its\nthe early 1980s, says President Richard\nsales and profits in 1977 and 1978, when\nJ. Ferris. Moreover, the U.S. airlines are\nmost of this year's orders will be\nstill far from able to help manufacturers\ndelivered.\nlaunch their proposed next-generation\nHowever, Boeing executives are not as\nairplanes (BW-Apr.12).\njoyful as outsiders might expect. E. H.\nNonetheless, this year's order bulge is\nBoullioun, president of Boeing Commer-\na welcome sight to the airplane makers,\ncial Airplane Co., sees this year's orders\nwho have limped along for several years\nas \"a one-shot, short-term kind of thing\"\nprimarily on foreign business. \"Our\nthat is not enough to sustain either his\nsalesmen are beginning to be optimis-\ncompany or the airline industry. U.S.\ntic,\" says an official at McDonnell\ncarriers should be replacing around 10%\nDouglas Corp. \"People are starting to\nof their fleets each year, he says-5% to\nlook at planes who weren't looking at\nretire old planes and 5% to cover\nthem before.\" McDonnell Douglas has\nexpected traffic growth-\"and we're not\nnot enjoyed Boeing's boom but has\nanywhere near that.\"\nmanaged to sell 12 planes to domestic\nBoullioun is particularly fearful that\ncarriers this year vs. two last year. One\nthis year's spate of orders may jeopar-\npotential customer is United, which is\ndize future business by persuading\nconsidering buying some more DC-10\nWashington regulators that the airline\njumbo jets this year.\nindustry is healthy again. That could\nThe 727 sells. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. is\nease pressures for fare increases and\nstill the industry laggard. But it has sold\nroute rationalizations that would in turn\nthree L-1011 TriStars to a domestic\nhelp pay for future airplanes, he argues.\ncarrier this year-Delta. Last year, it\n\"I'm really worried that a flurry of\nsold none.\norders now may take our eyes off the\nNearly all the domestic orders Boeing\nball,\" he says.\nis winning are for its workhorse 727, a\nTraffic up. Indeed, Washington attitudes\nmedium-range, medium-size trijet that\nmay be changing. One Administration\nfits the frugal budgets and modest\nsource sees the current bulge in domestic\ngrowth outlook of the airlines. Boeing\nairplane orders as a \"potent argument\"\nhas sold 1,317 of the $11 million\nagainst a proposed $3.6 billion escrow\nairplanes, making it the top-selling\nfund to help the airlines meet tighter\nairliner of all time. Only 313 of Boeing's\nnoise regulations by retrofitting quiet\njumbo 747s have sold (at a present $30\nengines on old planes or buying new\nmillion price).\nCLEARANCE SHEET\nDATE: 10-1-76\n1976 OCT 2 AM 9 10\nJMC ACTION\nRequired by:\nSTAFF RESPONSIBILITY HOPE\nSUBJECT: Briefing (Information) Memorandum for the President\nAircraft Noise\nRECEIVED FROM:\nDATE RECEIVED:\nSTAFF COMMENTS:\nyour\nQUERN / MOORE RECOMMENDATION:\nAPPROVE\nJim,\nAs me discussed\nREVIEW & COMMENT\nDISCUSS\nArder\nCANNON ACTION:\nDATE:\nMaterial Has Been:\nSigned and forwarded\nChanged and signed\nFORD is LIBRARY 07V839\nReturned per conversation\nNoted\nJIM CANNON\nComment:\n100115\nINFORMATION\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 1, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nJUDITH RICHARDS HOPE JRH\nSUBJECT:\nPresident's Forthcoming\nTrip to California\nThe attached memorandum to the President on aircraft noise\nis pursuant to your request.\nGENATE FORD\nAircraft Noise\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 4, 1976\n1976 UCT 5 M 8 28\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nJIM CONNOR JEE\nSUBJECT:\nAviation Noise Proposal\nby Secretary Coleman\nThe President reviewed your memorandum of September 29\non the above subject and made the following notations:\n\"Very good except it doesn't include the\nColeman plans as an alternative if Congress\ndoesn't act.\nIt should be spelled out. Talk with Bill\nColeman and add to the text so I can have\nsomething on my return. 11\nPlease follow-up with appropriate action.\nFORD\ncc: Dick Cheney\nINFORMATION\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nREQUEST\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 5, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nJUDITH RICHARDS HOPE JRH-\nSUBJECT:\nAircraft Noise Proposal\nI attach for your consideration a draft paragraph which\nwould expand on the Coleman plan as an alternative if Congress\ndoes not act.\nAttachment\nFORD is LIBRARY\nDRAFT\nMy plan will ensure that, within the next decade, there will\nbe a significant reduction of aircraft noise levels around\nthe nation's airports. It will also stimulate the development\nof a new generation of U.S. -manufactured aircraft, helping\nus to maintain our number one place in the international\naviation marketplace. It will promote and increase the\nnumber of permanent jobs in our vital aerospace industry.\nThis proposal also promotes the critical fuel conservation\ngoals my Administration has set for this country because the\nnew, quieter planes are 25 percent to 40 percent more fuel\nefficient.\nFORD LIZBARY\nREQUESTED\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nOctober 6, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nJUDITH RICHARDS HOPE\nSUBJECT:\nAviation Noise Proposal by\nSecretary Coleman: Additional\nConsiderations\n1. The proposed plan currently presents this option: either\nenact regulatory reform with a 2% cut in the airline ticket\ntax, or the President will be forced to impose a 2% en-\nvironmental surcharge to fund a DOT-administered aircraft\nreplacement program. This \"don't throw me in the briar\npatch\" alternative may only serve to intensify the aviation\nindustry's opposition to regulatory reform: they oppose it\nnow and, with an added incentive of a $3 billion plus\nreplacement fund if it's defeated, they may be expected to\nintensify their opposition.\nWe should consider having the incentives run in favor of our\nAviation Act: Amend the Aviation Act itself to make the\nnoise proposal part of it, and create an omnibus air bill,\nmuch like the rail bill signed in February. Then, the\nlonger Congress delays enactment, the longer people will\nhave to suffer aviation noise and the longer the airlines\nwill have to delay major investments for new equipment.\nThis approach is consistent with the assumptions on which\nour regulatory reform effort is based: our Act is phased\nover an 8-year period to take account of the dislocations\nwhich would occur with a precipitous change in the reg-\nulatory climate. The need for the Act rests on several\npremises including the expectation that fares would be\nlowered, and the realization that the CAB fare structure has\nbeen partly responsible for the carriers' poor financial\ncondition--hence their severe capital shortage. Providing a\ntemporary noise fund would help redress the damage from four\ndecades of Federal regulation of prices and routes.\n2. As noted earlier, I feel the 56,000 FAA employees should\nnot be criticized for delay in setting noise standards. They\nhave done so because of their awareness of the burden the\nstandards would impose on the industry as well as DOT's\nrequests that the matter be subject to careful study and\ncost-benefit analyses.\nGERRCO FORD LIBBARY"
}