area, and all other operations such as onsite construction, concessions, leases, assignment of counter space, office space, offices, gates, service operations, cargo, freight handling facilities, security, ground transportation, advertising, promotion, publicity, public relations, expansions and/or adjustment of services of support nature, engineering design, architecture, utilities, future planning, financing, congressional liaison, community relation, carrier relations, community and State relations, employee relations, personnel procurement, maintenance, and all of the subjects relating to a perfect airport complex for our National Capital's "Gateway to the World."

3. During the period between now and the time when this would be effected we suggest that a more enlightened procedure be adopted for planning, especially in the finance area. I believe Congress should consider authorizing and appropriating funds for the National Capital airports on a 4- or 5-year basis. This would allow both airport and airline management to coordinate their plans over a longer span of time.

4. There is nothing to be gained by rationalizing the many mistakes and projections and the lack of use at the anticipated rates. There are no blameless ones involved, nor are there any who can be singled out for exceptional criticism. The inability of the FAA to prevail in many decisions moves it has made during the past 5 years is an important factor in the situation at Dulles.

5. There are reports circulating that the FAA cannot plan efficiently without the commitment of the carriers to a 5- or 10-year program. It seems prudent to ask on whose side lays the blame for the credibility gap in this situation. The FAA wants the airlines to commit themselves to the use of certain equipment through the scheduling of additional flights and service requirements. How can this be achieved when there already is insufficient ticket counter space; there are two airlines now operating at Dulles that cannot acquire ticket counter space of their own or administrative offices. These two airlines are Southern and Ozark. They are subleasing from other carriers here at Dulles. Administrative offices are nonexistent; the mobile lounges cannot service the upcoming 747, and no one knows what the management is doing to accommodate this problem. Even the Government inspection agencies at Dulles do not have interpreters available to assist those who enter this country from foreign lands. How can one be greeted at Dulles when coming from one of our faraway countries, if he cannot communicate?

I have a copy of a letter from Judge Albert Bryan from the 16th judicial circuit of Virginia on this situation, which is directed to Mr. H. Hammond Snyder, a member of the governing committee of the Committee for Dulles. I will not read this letter, but it is available for your information.

Gentlemen, Congress should take immediate action to meet such deficiencies, as apparently no one else is.

Urgent needs at the airport are at the mercy of antiquated practices which require a minimum of more than 50 months to process through the Congress funds for alterations or construction of either a major or minor facility at this airport, a facility immediately sub

27-254-70-pt. 1- -16

jected to the burdens of a fast progressing industry. The conversion of this operation into one more responsive to demonstrated needs is the motivating reason for the creation of a corporate entity that could move swiftly, without the delaying process of our governmental bodies.

6. The reduction of traffic at National is essential. There is no conceivable reason to attempt to crowd 10 or 15 million people through National, when surface transportation can't possibly handle the lead at this location. Traffic, which otherwise would be distributed to Dulles and Friendship would garner a far greater share of the business, if commonsense were applied to the scheduling. To cite just one example:

It is possible to board of flight to Omaha, Nebr., but the scorecard says you can't come back. Here are other examples of crazy scheduling:

There are no morning flights to St. Louis, despite the fact that a full day could be spent without any undue burdens on the average businessman, because of the hour's difference in time. You can get from Salt Lake City to Dulles, but you can't get there from here in a reasonably direct manner. What the CAB was thinking of when they approved such a mess, we'll never understand. So, ponder if you will, the frustrations of a man departing Dulles and being eturned to Friendship or National, when his car is parked at Dulles. As dedicated as is the committee membership for Dulles, there are few who want to suffer the inconveniences of the damned.

7. There seemingly is a negative approach to the problem solving situation, and this is an attitude we find reprehensible. Although the carriers are not entirely blameless, and admittedly they have fought redistribution of the schedules out of National, it seems pathetically weak for the governmental agencies charged with administering the traffic flow to and from airports to ascribe the cause to any other than themselves. In the face of a vastly changing situation, can this be used as sound reasoning for defaulting on the job ahead? We think not.

3. The carriers' common complaint that the airport is noncooperative needs to be more thoroughly examined. It is no within the province of this committee to enter into this dialog, but it is prudent to recommend that these complaints be aired before the proper agencies to insure fair treatment.

9. There is nothing at this great airport complex of Washington that cannot be worked out to the satisfaction of the entire community. More time spent in cooperative effort, devoid of suspicion and selfish interest. We are strongly opposed to extensive expenditures at National where there is only so much space for people and limited surface transportation. And, we see no need to crowd Friendship when Dulles has space to handle the National long trips with ease.

Gentlemen, I would like to point out here that surface movement of people is really your severest problem. Mr. Crooker recognizes this, as the CAB in December stated that ground transportation to and from airports would be a strong factor in awarding new operating flights. So, why not relieve the terrible ground problems at National by sending 25 percent or more of the flights to Dulles where they can be easily

absorbed? This movement must be primed by desire to create a fully compatible situation and this is all that is needed.

We have in Dulles the safest, most convenient facility in the world. Let us enter into a joint program designed to achieve the high standards envisioned by those who designed it.

Let us work on the premise that we have much to do, and time will permit no dereliction of duty on anyone's part. The Congress, the CAB, the FAA, our friends at Friendship, and those of us in the northern Virginia area, should work for a common cause.

Gentlemen, and you, Mr. Chairman, we thank you very much for hearing us, and we will be happy to answer any questions you might have in regard to our statements, as time permits.

Senator SPONG. Thank you Mr. Waddell. I just have one or two questions I would like to ask you, but I would say that we will refer this testimony in its entirety to the CAB and the FAA for whatever comments that they might feel inclined to make at this time.

Senator SPONG. Now, if I understand your testimony, you agree in part with some of what Mr. Foster said here this morning?

Mr. WADDELL. That is correct.

Senator SPONG. About the present need for certain improvements here at Dulles, despite the fact that you are not taking care of the full passenger load that could be accommodated here; is that correct? Mr. WADDELL. That is correct, sir. We are concerned about a number of things.

During the peak hours, already we have deficiencies in baggage handling, both inbound and outbound. We are quite concerned with the upcoming 747 and the mobile lounge not being able to meet to the passenger door.

Senator SPONG. You were here when we took some additional testimony with regard to that?

Mr. WADDELL. Yes. However, was this Mr. Saunders?
Senator SPONG. Yes.

Mr. WADDELL. Right. But I would like to elaborate on that a little

more.

He pointed out that there would be only four or five steps involved by using passenger loading ramps. I feel that this would not be entirely true, because the height of the doors on the 707 and the DC-8 is approximately 13 feet, and on the upcoming 747 about 18 feet.

Well, it seems to me-I am no engineer-but in order to be able to be made up to this passenger door, it is going to require more than four or five steps. The steps would not go straight up, they would be, I am sure, slanted somewhat, and this is going to pose a tremendous problem to the airlines in inclement weather, snow, ice, rain, and also incapacitated passengers, involving wheelchairs.

We are quite concerned about this and it is necessary-as Mr. Saunders pointed out, approximately 50 percent of the airlines do use passenger ramps at this time it is necessary to do this here at Dulles because the crews have to be able to get off the airplanes, and ground personnel able to get on and off the airplane. So this in my opinion is a problem, and it does not seem like a major engineering feat to adapt these mobile lounges to meet with the 747.

GROUND TRANSPORTATION

Senator SPONG. Thank you.

Now, you have quoted Mr. Cooper's statement in December with regard to the fact that ground transportation would be a factor in consideration of any removal of flights from one airport to another. When he talked about ground transportation was he talking about traffic congestion at the facilities, lack of parking, or do you think he was talking in terms of accessibility insofar as transportation to and from the airport was concerned?

Let me rephrase that question.

Mr. WADDELL. All right.

Senator SPONG. Let us assume that any decision made by the CAB will, as it most certainly will, have some consideration about the accessibility by way of public transportation to Dulles Airport.

Do you feel that the present transportation facilities out here could accommodate a transfer of 25 percent of National flights to Dulles at the present time?

Mr. WADDELL. I am going to refer this question to Mr. Gardner. But I believe with the completion of Route 66, this could be handled.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly not an expert on transportation, but the State of Virginia, and the Federal Government has dilly-dallied now for some years on the completion of 66. They are talking now in Greenway about a rapid transit.

The State of New York and the New York Authority has been debating the location of another airport for New York for over 10 years and have not located it. The experts say if they should locate it tomorrow, it will take over 10 years to complete it and get it in operation.

We have one here, and I think it is ridiculous to talk about building a rapid transportation system that would take probably 10 years to complete, when with less money than they are talking about for a terminal in town, we could complete 66 from the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge to the inner beltway.

I think this one thing alone, as testified this morning, would cut from 26 down to 17 minutes on transportation downtown.

I think this is the main reason that the businessmen do not particularly want to come in here if they are going downtown, and vice

versa.

I know there has been a lot of congressional objection to cutting flights out of National, because they go home, and I think this is the thing that FAA and the CAB have got to overcome. Not so much the reluctance of the businessmen and other passengers to come in here. but I think these gentlemen on the Hill like to get home and they like the 10-minute ride from the Hill. Maybe it would be better for all concerned if we just furnished free helicopter service from the Hill to Dulles Airport.

Senator SPONG. I do not believe I will comment on that.

Then if I understand you, gentlemen, you would say that the completion of Route 66—and I think it was Mrs. Pannino who went under the river as well as over it with her testimony, coupled with additional crossing on the Potomac-you think that is the most basic prerequisite?

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, sir; it appears so to me. I live out in Rappahannock County, as you know, and Route 66 is being completed from the west to the east, and it looks like a bigger engineering job from 81 to 522 than going downtown. It is almost the same distance. And going over the mountains, and I would venture to say there is not 1 percent of the traffic that will be generated on that section of 66 that would not be from the beltway into town. It is difficult for an average common citizen to understand this kind of thinking.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much.

As I stated, we are going to refer this testimony to the governmental agencies and will make the answers we receive available to you gentlemen.

Thank you.

Mr. WADDELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPONG. Mr. Toomey, and the next witness after Mr. Toomey will be Mr. Hechinger.

We are very pleased to have you gentlemen from the board of trade here with us.

STATEMENT OF T. MURRAY TOOMEY, CHAIRMAN, TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE; ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES COON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND GERALD COLLINS, CHAIRMAN, AVIATION COMMITTEE

Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you, Senator.

I am T. Murray Toomey, chairman of the transportation committee of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade. On my right, Mr. Charles Coon, the executive secretary of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade and on my left, Mr. Gerald Collins, chairman of the aviation committee of the board of trade.

The board of trade is composed of approximately 6,000 members in the Metropolitan Washington area, composed of various businesses, professions, and other allied fields.

NATIONAL AIRPORT

In the first part of this hearing regarding Washington air transportation facilities, we spelled out the importance of Washington National Airport to the National Capital area because of its air service function and its great economic contribution to the community. We indicated our approval of improvement of airport access and ground facilities for passengers and stated our view that National should increasingly concentrate on short-haul and shuttle operations. Finally, we testified that the question of the amount of and type of air service our airports should provide the public can largely be resolved by putting more comprehensive international schedules at Dulles International Airport.

UNDERUTILIZATION OF DULLES

The question, "Why is Dulles International underutilized?" has a simple answer. Passengers will go to the airport that has the most comprehensive flight schedules.