GOVER NMENT 'Vs

Storage

P A R T 2

Y4 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

. I n e h 

N 2l|l2 )PT.2-

H E A R I N G S

BE FO RE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON

INTE RS TA TE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF RE PR ES EN TA TIVE S

EIGH TY -SE VE NT H CONG RESS

SE CO ND SE SS IO N

KSU LIBRARIES

H.R. 7399

A BIL L TO CR EA TE T H E NA TION AL CAPI TA L AIR PO RTS CO RP OR AT ION. 

TO PR OVID E FO R T H E OP ER AT IO N OF T H E FE DERALLY OW NE D CIV IL 

AIR PO RT S IN T H E D IS TR IC T OF CO LU MBIA OR IT S VI CI NIT Y BY TH E 

CO RP OR AT IO N, AND FO R OTHER PU RPOSES

H.R. 7398

A B IL L TO AM EN D T H E ACT OF OC TO BE R 9, 1940 ( 50 STAT . 1030, 10 39 ), 

IN OR DE R TO IN CREASE THE PE RIO D S FO R W HIC H AG RE EM EN TS FO R 

THE OP ER ATI ON OF CE RT AIN CO NC ES SION S MAY BE GR AN TE D AT TH E 

WAS HI NG TO N NAT IO NAL AI RP ORT , AN D FO R OTHER PU RP OSE S

H.R. 10471

\ A BIL L TO TRA N SFER CE RT AI N ADM IN IS TR ATI VE RESPO N SIB IL IT Y

FO R TH E OPE RATI ON OF WAS HI NG TO N NA TION AL AIR PO RT AND 

L DU LL ES IN TE RNATIO NAL AIR PO RT FR OM TH E ADM IN IS TR AT OR OF T H E

FE DERAL AV IA TI ON AGENCY TO A W AS HI NG TO N AI RP ORT S BO AR D, 

* AN D FOR OTHER PU RPO SES

MAY 2, 3, AN D 4, 1962

P r in te d f o r th e u s e o f th e 

C o m m it te e o n I n t e r s t a t e a n d F o re ig n C o m m e rc e

84674

U.S. GOVERNMENT PR IN TING OF FIC E 

WASHINGT ON : 1962
•

•r V

Ma n r .

TO » •» 

J. 4

COMMITT EE ON INTE RS TA TE AND FORE IGN COMMERCE 

ORE N H ARR IS , Arkansas, Chairman

JOHN B E LL W IL LIA M S, Mississippi

P E T E R F. M A C K , Jr., Illinois

K E N N E TH A. R O BER TS, Alabama

M ORG AN M. M O U LD ER , Missouri

H A R L E Y O. ST A G G ER S, West Virginia

W A L TE R RO GERS, Texas

SAM U EL N. FR IE D E L, Maryland

T O R B E R T H. M ACD O N ALD , Massachusetts

GEORGE M. RH ODES , Pennsylvania

JO HN JA R M AN , Oklahoma

LE O W. O’ B R IE N , New York

JOHN E. MO SS , California

JOHN D. D IN G E LL , Michigan

JO E M. K IL G O R E, Texas

PA U L G. ROGERS, Florida

R O B E R T W. H EM PH IL L, South Carolina

DAN R O ST EN KO W SK I, Illinois

JA M ES C. H E A L E Y , New York

H O RACE R. K O R N E G A Y , North Carolina

JO HN B. B E N N E T T, Michigan 

W IL LI AM L. SPR IN GER, Illinois 

PA U L F. SCH EN CK , Ohio 

J. ARTH U R YO U N G ER , California 

H AROLD R. CO LLIE R , Illinois 

M IL TO N W. G LEN N , New Jersey 

SAM U EL L. D EVIN E, Ohio 

AN CH ER N ELS EN , Minnesota 

H AS TIN GS K EIT H , Massachusetts 

W IL LA R D S. CU R TIN , Pennsylvania 

A B N E R W. SI BAL , Connecticut 

VER N O N W. TH OM SO N, Wisconsin 

P E T E R II. DO M IN IC K , Colorado

W. E. Williams on, Clerk

K enneth J. Pai nt er , Assistant Clerk

Profe ssiona l Sta ff

A nd re w Stev enson Sam G. Spal

K urt B orchardt Martin W. C unnin gham

Subcommittee on Tran sportation and Aeronaut ics

JOH N B E LL W IL LIA M S, Mississippi, Chairman

H A R L E Y O. ST A G G ER S, West Virginia W IL LIA M L. SPR IN G ER , Illinois

SA M U EL N. FR IE D E L, Maryland H ARO LD R. CO LLIE R , Illinois

T O R B E R T H. M A CD O N A LD , Massachusetts SA M U E L L. D EVIN E, Ohio 

JO HN JA R M AN , Oklahoma

II J
C O N T E N T S

Hearings held on— P a<*

May 2, 1962________________________________________________ 69

« May 3, 1962_________________________________________________ 115

May 4, 1962_________ 157

Text of H.R . 10471______ 69

Report of—

Air Force, De partm ent of_____________________________________ 71

«• Commerce, Secretary of_______________________________________ 73

Justice, De partm ent of_______________________________________ 73

Additional reports on H.R. 7399—

Air Force, De partm ent of_____________________________________ 74

Comptroller Ge neral__________________________________________ 74

Statem ent of—

Baker, George, Jr., on behalf of th e Airport Board of the Department

Boucher, William II I, executive director, the Greater Baltimore Committee, Baltim ore, Md______________________________________ 150

Boyd, Hon. Alan S., Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board___________ 161

Brewster, Hon. Daniel B., a Representative in Congress from the

State of Ma ryland_________________________________________ 115

Broyhill, Hon. Joel T., a Representative in Congress from the Sta te

of Virginia-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87

Dean, Alan L., Deputy Adm inistrator for Administration, Federal

Aviation Agency___________________________________________ 95

Fallon, Hon. George H., a Rep rese ntative in Congress from the Sta te

of Mary lan d______________________________________________ 134

Friedel, Hon. Samuel N., a Represe ntative in Congress from the State

of Ma ryl and______________________________________________ 125

Garm atz, Hon. Edward A., a Rep rese ntative in Congress from the

State of Mary lan d_________________________________________ 157

Goodrich, Na tha nie l H., General Counsel, Federal Aviation Agency__ 95

Grimm, Karl, on beha lf of the Association of Commerce, Baltimore,

Md____________________________________ ____ ____ ______ 145

Halaby, Hon. N. E., Administrator, Federal Aviation Agency______ 95

Hobbs, G. Ward, Dire ctor, Bureau of National Capital Airports___ 95

Lankford, Hon. Ric hard E., a Representative in Congress from the

Sta te of Mary lan d--------------------------------------------------------------- 131

Massey, Carlton C., coun ty executive of Fairfax government, Fairfax,

Va_______________________________________________________ 158

State Aviation Commission of Ma ryland ------------------------------------ 147

Communications sub mitted to the comm ittee:

Beall, Hon. J. Glenn, a U.S. Senator from the St ate of Maryland, le tter

dated April 27, 1962------------------------------------------------------------- 86

Boyd, Hon. Alan S., Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board, letter dated

May 21, 1962______________________________________________ 175

Grimm, Karl J., transp ortation director, Baltimore Association of 

Commerce, Traffic & Tra nsportatio n Bureau, lette r dated May 4,

1962______________________________________________________ 174

Halaby, Hon. N. E., Administrator, FAA, letter date d May 7, 1962__ 85

Hobbs, G. Ward, Director, Bureau of N atio nal C apital Airports, letter

dated May 8, 1962--------------------------------------------------------------- 85

Howard, Dagge tt H., General Counsel, Federal Aviation Agency, le tte r

to Hon. Alan S. Boyd date d March 5, 1962____________________ 165

Pyle, James T., De puty Administrator, FAA, letters da ted August 10,

1961------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------7 9,81

in
IV C ON TENTS

Com m un ic at io ns s ub m itte d to th e c om m itte e— Con tin ue d Page

T ip to n, S. G., Air T ra nsp ort Assoc iatio n, le tt er dat ed M ay 2, 1962__ 176

Willi am s, H on . Jo hn Bell, ch ai rm an , Subc om m itte e on T ra nsp ort ati on

an d A er on au tics , le tter s to H on . N aj ee b E. H al ab y, A dm in is tr at or, 

Fed er al Aviatio n Ag ency, date d A ugus t 4, 1961_______________ 77 ,80, 81

A dd iti on al d a ta su bm itte d to th e co m m it te e:

“ Th is Is a T h re at, ” re pri nt from N a ti o n ’s Bu sin ess , F ebru ary 19 62 ._ 153

“Je ts Will Go to Cha nt illy , Age ncies Say — FA A, CA B H ea ds Te ll

M ar yla nder s Frien ds hi p Will Los e,” re pri nt from The Su n, F ebru ­

ar y 15, 19 62 _____________________________________________________ 153

E x tr ac t from re port on Frien ds hi p In te rn ati o n al A irpo rt by t he sp ec ial 

st udy co mmiss ion ap po in te d by G ov er no r Ta wes , a t th e re ques t of 

th e le gi slat iv e co un cil____________________________________________ 149

T ra vel ti m e to Frien ds hi p A irport and Cha nt illy , Va ., from var io us

po in ts in th e W ashing ton area , ta b le ____________________________ 141

W as hi ng to n N at io na l A irpo rt sta te m en t of inc om e, fisc al yea r 1961,

in fo rm at io n su bm itte d by FA A A dm in is tr at or N. E. H ala b y _____ 113

G en er al a via ti on serv icing fa cilit ies:

W as hi ng to n N at io nal A ir port __________________________________ 114

D ulles In te rn at io nal A ir port ___________________________________ 114

Se ctio na l an alys is of H .R . 73 99 _______________________________________ 75
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPOR TS

W ED N ESD A Y , M AY 2, 19 62

H ou se of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

S u b c o m m it tee on T r anspo rta tio n and A er o n a u tic s of

t ii e C o m m it t e e on I nterst ate and F oreig n C om m erce,

Washington, D.C.

The subcoinniittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:22 a.m., in room 1334, New House Office Building, Hon. John Bell Williams (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. W il l ia m s . The committee will be in order, please. This morning the Committee on Tran sportation and Aeronautics is meeting to receive additional information from the Federal Aviation Agency and others on H.R. 7399, a bill to establish a National Capital Airports Corporation, and also to begin hearings on H.R. 10471 by our colleague, Mr. Brewster, of Maryland, to set up an independent board, to operate the 'Washington National Airp ort and Dulles I nternational Airport. A copy of H.R. 10471 and agency reports will be inserted at ibis point in the record, along with a section-by-section analysis of H.R. 7399 and an exchange of correspondence between the committee and Mr. Halaby. (The bill, H.R. 10471 and the documents referred to are as follows :)

[H .R . 104 71, 87 th Cong., 2d se ss .J

A BIL L To tr an sfe r cert ain ad m in is tr ati ve re sp ons ib ility fo r th e op er at io n of W as hin gto n N at io nal A ir port an d D ul le s In te rn ati o n al A ir port f rom th e A dm in is tr at or of th e Federa l A vi at io n Ag ency to a W as hi ngt on A ir port s Boa rd , an d fo r oth er pu rp os es

Be it en ac ted by th e Senate an d H ou se o f R epre se nta tive s o f the U ni ted S ta te s

of Am er ic a in Co ng ress as semb led, T hat th is Ac t may he cite d as th e “W as hin gton A irport s A ct of 1962” .

Sec. 2. (a ) T here is he reby es ta blish ed an ag en cy of th e U ni ted S ta te s to be kn ow n as th e W as hin gt on A irpo rt s B oa rd (h e ra ft e r in th is Ac t re fe rr ed to as th e “B oar d” ) which sh al l be comp osed of five m em be rs who sh al l be ap poin te d by th e Pre si de nt , by and w ith th e ad vice an d co nse nt of th e Se na te, as so on as pr ac tica bl e a ft e r th e d ate of en ac tm en t of th is Ac t, fo r te rm s of six years e a c h ; ex ce pt th at, of th e m em be rs firs t ap po in te d under th is section, on e sh al l he ap ­ po in te d fo r a te rm of tw o ye ar s, one fo r a te rm of th re e ye ar s, one fo r a te rm of fo ur ye ar s, an d on e fo r a te rm of five ye ar s, as des ig na te d by th e P re si dent a t th e tim e of su ch ap po in tm en t. Thre e of th e m em be rs so ap po in te d sh al l co n­ st it u te a qu or um . An y pe rson ap po in te d to fill a va ca nc y oc cu rr in g p ri o r to th e ex pir ati on of th e te rm fo r which his pre dec es so r was ap po in te d sh all he ap po in te d on ly fo r th e re m ai nder of su ch te rm . The P re si den t sh al l des ig nate an nu al ly on e m em be r of th e Boa rd as ch ai rm an and on e mem be r of th e B oard as vic e ch ai rm an . T he vic e chai rm an sh al l a ct a s chai rm an duri ng th e ab se nc e or in ca pa ci ty of th e ch ai rm an . The mem be rs of th e B oa rd may be re m ov ed by th e P re si dent fo r ineffic iency, ne glec t of dut y, or m al fe as an ce in office. Not more th an th re e m em be rs o f t he Boa rd sh al l be ap poin te d from th e sa m e politica l par ty . Eac h m em be r of th e B oa rd sh al l rece iv e co mpe ns atio n a t th e ra te of
70 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

$20,000 pe r an nu m , ex ce pt th a t th e m em be r se rv in g as chai rm an sh all rece ive 

co m pe ns atio n a t th e r a te o f $20,500 p er an num .

(b ) The mem be rs of th e B oa rd sh all be ap po in te d w ith du e re g ard to th eir 

fit ne ss fo r th e eff icient di sp at ch of th e po w er s an d duti es ve sted in or im po sed 

upon th e B oa rd unde r th is Act. E ac h m em ber of th e B oa rd sh al l be a citize n of 

th e U ni ted S ta te s an d no mem be r of th e B oa rd sh al l ha ve an y st oc k in, or 

bo nd s of, any c ivil ae ro nau tics e nte rp ri se . No mem be r of th e B oa rd sh al l engage 

in any o th er bu sine ss, vo catio n, or em pl oy men t.

(c ) Th e B oa rd sh al l ha ve co nt ro l ov er, an d re sp on sibi lity fo r, th e ca re, 

op er at io n, m ai nt en an ce , an d pr ote ct io n of (1 ) th e air p o rt de sc ribe d in th e 

Act en ti tl ed “A n Ac t to pr ov ide fo r th e adm in is tr ati on of th e W as hi ng to n 

N at io na l A irpo rt , an d fo r oth er pur pose s” , as am en de d, ap pr ov ed .Tune 29. 

1940 ( 54 S ta t. 68 6) , an d (2 ) th e a ir p o rt co ns truc te d under th e Act en titled 

“An Act to au th ori ze th e co ns truc tion , pr ot ec tion , op er at io n, and m ai nte nan ce 

of a pu blic a ir p o rt i n or in th e vi ci ni ty of th e D is tr ic t of C olum bia” , as am en de d, 

ap pr ov ed Sep te m be r 7, 1950 ( 64 Sta t. 77 0) .

(d ) The B oa rd is au th or iz ed , su bje ct to th e civ il se rv ice an d cl as sifica tio n 

law s, to ap poi nt an d fix th e co m pe ns atio n of su ch officers an d em ploy ee s as 

m ay be ne ce ss ar y to carr y ou t th e duti es ve sted in an d impo sed up on th e Boa rd 

under th is Act.

(e ) Th e B oa rd is au th orize d to issu e su ch re gu la tions as it may deem necessa ry to e na bl e it to c arr y o ut its d uties u n d er th is Act.

(f ) The B oa rd sh al l mak e an annual re port to th e Co ng res s, on o r be fore 

Ja n u ary 15 of ea ch ye ar , which re port sh al l co nt ai n det ai le d in fo rm at io n with 

re sp ec t to th e wor k pe rfor med by th e B oa rd du ring the pr ec ed in g fis cal ye ar .

Sec. 3. The Act en titled “An Ac t to pr ov id e fo r th e adm in is tr ati on of th e 

W as hi ng to n N at io na l A irpo rt, an d fo r oth er pu rp os es ”, as am en de d, ap pr ov ed 

Ju n e 29. 1940 ( 54 Sta t. 68 6), is am en de d as follows :

(1 ) In th e first section of su ch Ac t, st ri ke ou t su bs ec tio n (a ) an d in se rt 

in lie u th ere of th e fo llow in g:

“ (a ) ‘Board ’ mea ns th e W as hi ng to n A ir port s Boa rd es ta blish ed by section 2 

of th e W ash in gt on A irpo rts Act of 1962.” .

(2 ) In se ctions 2, 3, an d 7 of su ch Act, st ri ke ou t “A dm in is tr ato r” an d 

“h e” ea ch plac e they appea r in su ch sections an d in se rt in lie u th er eo f 

“B oar d” and “i t”, resp ec tiv ely.

(3 ) In section 4 of such Ac t, str ik e out “A dm in is tr ato r” an d “F ed er al 

A vi at io n Agency” each plac e th ey appear an d in se rt in lie u th ere of "B oar d”.

(4 ) In se ction 6 of su ch Act, st ri k e ou t “A dm in is tr ato r” and in se rt in 

lie u th ere of “B oa rd ”.

Sec. 4. T he Act en titled “An Act to au th ori ze th e co ns truc tion , pr ot ec tio n, 

op er at io n, an d m ai nt en an ce of a pu bl ic a ir p o rt in or in th e vic in ity of th e 

D is tr ic t of Co lumbia, as am en de d, ap pr ov ed Se ptem be r 7, 1950 ( 64 Sta t. 770), 

is am en de d as fo ll ow s:

(1 ) In th e fir st section of su ch Ac t. st ri ke out “the A dm in is tr ato r of th e 

Fed er al Aviatio n Agency (h ere in aft er re fe rr ed to as th e ‘Ad m in is tr ato r’) ” 

an d in sert in lieu th er eo f “the W as hi ng to n A ir port s B oa rd (h ere aft er in 

th is Ac t re fe rr ed to as th e ‘Bo ard ’), es ta bl is he d by section 2 of th e W as hington A ir port s Act of 1962,”.

(2 ) S tr ik e ou t “A dm in is tr ato r” ea ch plac e it ap pea rs in su ch Ac t (o th er 

th an in th e firs t secti on th er eo f) and in sert in lie u th er eo f “B oard ”.

(3 ) In se ct ions 4 an d 8 (a ) of su ch Act, st ri k e out “F edera l Aviation 

Ag ency” w he re it ap pea rs in ea ch of such se ctions an d in se rt in lieu th er eo f 

“B oar d”.

(4 ) In se ctions 4, 5, an d 9 of su ch Act, st ri k e o ut “h e” w her e it ap pea rs in 

ea ch of s uc h sections a nd in sert i n lieu th er eo f “i t” .

(5 ) In se ction 7 of su ch Ac t, str ik e ou t “h is ” an d in sert in lieu th er eo f 

“i ts ”.

(6 ) In section 11 of such Ac t, str ik e out “C ivil A er on au tics Act of 1938” 

an d in sert in lie u th er eo f “F edera l Aviatio n Act of 1958” .

Sec. 5. (a ) All or de rs, det er m in at io ns, ru le s, re gu la tions, per m its, co nt ra ct s, 

an d pr iv ileg es which ha ve been issu ed , ma de, or gra nte d by th e A dm in is tr at or 

of th e F ed er al Aviati on Ag enc y in th e ex er ci se of du ties , po wers, or fu nc tion s 

wh ich , under th is Act, are tr a n sfe rr e d to th e W as hi ng to n A irport s Boa rd , an d 

which a re in eff ect a t th e tim e th is se ction ta kes eff ect, sh al l co ntinue in effect 

ac co rd in g to th eir te rm s unti l mo difie d, te rm in at ed , su pe rs ed ed , se t aside, or 

re pe al ed b y th e Boa rd, or by any court of c om pe te nt j uri sd ic tion, or by op er at io n
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 71

(b ) The pr ov isions of th is Act sh al l no t af fe ct an y pr oc ee di ng s pe nd ing be fo re 

th e A dm in is tr ato r of th e F edera l Aviation Agency a t th e tim e th is section ta kes 

eff ect, bu t an y su ch pr oc ee di ng s sh al l be co nt in ue d be fo re th e W as hi ng to n 

A ir port s Boa rd.

(c ) No ju dic ia l pr oc ee di ng s lawfu lly co mm en ced by or ag ain st an y agen cy or 

officer of th e U nited S ta te s, in re la tion to th e di sc har ge of po we rs, dut ie s, or 

fu nct io ns tr an sfe rr ed to th e W as hi ng ton A ir port s B oa rd und er th is Act, sh al l 

abate by reas on of su ch tr a n sfe r, hu t th e court ma y, on motion or su pp le m en ta l 

pet itio n filed a t an y tim e w it hin tw elv e m on th s aft e r su ch tr a n sfe r ta kes eff ect, 

sh ow ing a ne ce ss ity fo r a su rv iv al of such pr oc ee di ng s to obt ai n a se ttle m en t of 

th e q ue stio ns invo lved , al lo w th e s am e to be m ain ta in ed by o r again st th e B oa rd .

(d ) The officers, em ploy ee s, an d pro per ty (inc lu di ng office eq uipm en t an d 

offic ial re co rd s) of th e F ed era l Aviatio n Agency as th e Pre si dent, a ft e r co nsu lt ati on w ith th e A d m in is tr ato r of such ag en cy , sh al l de te rm in e to ha ve been 

em ploy ed in th e e xe rc is e a n d pe rf or m an ce of th os e po wers, du ties , an d fu nct io ns 

tr an sf err ed to t he W as hin gto n A irpo rt s B oa rd u nder th is Act, sh al l be tr an sf err ed 

to t he B oa rd up on s uc h d a te o r dat es as the P re si dent sh all spe cif y. The tr a n sfe r 

of pe rson ne l under th is se ct io n sh al l be w ithout re duc tion in clas sifica tion or 

co mpe ns atio n, ex ce pt th a t th is se nten ce sh al l no t pre ven t th e ad ju stm en t of 

clas sifica tion or co m pe ns at io n, aft e r th e en d of th e fis cal yea r duri ng which 

su ch tr a n sfe r is mad e, to co nf or m to th e duti es to w hi ch su ch tr an sf err ed perso nn el may be as sign ed . Al l official re co rd s tr a n sfe rr e d to th e Boa rd under th is 

se ction sh all be avai la ble fo r us e by it to th e sa m e exte nt as if such re co rd s w’ere 

ori gi na lly reco rd s of t he B oa rd .

(e ) Su ch of th e une xp en de d ba la nc es of ap pro pri ati ons av ai la ble fo r us e by 

th e F ed er al A vi at io n Ag ency in th e ex er ci se of th os e po wers, du tie s, an d fu nction s tr an sf err ed to th e W as hi ng to n A ir port s B oar d under th is Act, sh all be 

tr an sf err ed to th e B oar d up on such date or date s as th e P re si dent sh all sp ec ify, 

an d sh al l be av ai la ble fo r us e by th e B oa rd in th e ex er ci se of its po we rs, du ties , 

an d fu nc tion s under th is Act.

Sec. 6. (a ) The pro vi si on s of su bs ec tio n (c ) of se ct ion 2, of sections 3 and 4, 

an d of su bs ec tio ns (a ) , (b ), an d (c ) of section 5, of th is Act sh al l become eff ec ­

tive on th e si xti eth day follo wing th e d ate on whi ch th e la st of th e five m em be rs 

of th e Boa rd firs t ap poin te d un de r th is A ct qu alifie s an d ta kes office.

(b ) The re m ai nin g pr ov isio ns of th is Act sh al l become effecti ve on th e date of 

en ac tm en t o f t his Ac t.

D epar tm en t of tii e Air F orce.

Off ic e of th e Secretary.

W as hi ng to n, M ay 2 1962.

Ho n. Oren H ar ris.

Ch airm an , Com ni itte on In te rs ta te an d Fo erign Co mm erc e,

Ho use of R ep re se nta tive s.

Dear Mr. Ch a ir m a n : Ref er en ce is m ad e to your re qu es t to th e S ecre ta ry of 

Defen se fo r th e vi ew s of th e DejK irtme nt of Defen se w ith resp ec t to H .It. 10471. 

87 th Co ng res s, a bi ll to tr a n sfe r cert ain adm in is tr ati ve re sp on sibi lity fo r th e 

op er at io n of W ash in gto n N at io na l A irpor t an d D ul le s In te rn ati onal A irport fr om 

th e A dm in is tr ato r of th e Fed er al A vi at io n Ag ency to a W as hi ng to n A ir p o rt s 

Boa rd , and fo r o th er pu rpos es. The S ecre ta ry of Defen se h as del eg at ed to 

th e D epar tm en t of t h e A ir F or ce th e re sp ons ib ility fo r ex pr es sing l lie view s of t he 

D ep ar tm en t of Defen se .

The ge ne ra l purp ose of H.R. 10471 is as sta te d in th e title. Sp ec ifica lly , th e 

prop osed le gis la tion wou ld if e n a c te d :

(a ) E st ab lish a ne w ag en cy o f th e U ni te d S ta te s to be know n as th e W as hin gton A irpo rt s B o a rd ; here aft er re fe rr ed to as th e “B oar d” :

(b ) T ra n sf er to th e Boa rd th e co nt ro l ov er, and resp on sibi lity fo r, th e ca re , 

op er at io n, m ai nte nan ce , an d pr ot ec tion of W as hi ng to n N at io na l an d D ul le s In te rnat io na l A ir port s pre se ntly ve sted by law in th e Fed er al A viatio n A gen cy : an d

(c ) Amen d Public Law 674 (7 6t h Co ng.) en ti tl ed “An act to pr ov id e fo r th e 

adm in is tr ati on of th e W as hi ng to n N ational A ir port ,” an d fo r oth er purp os es , as 

am en de d, ap pr ov ed Ju ne 29, 1940 ( 54 Sta t. 68 6) , an d Pu bl ic L aw 762 (8 1st Co ng .) 

en titled , “A n A ct to auth ori ze th e co ns truc tion , pr ot ec tion , op er at io n, and m ain ­

tena nc e of a pu bl ic air p o rt in or in th e vi ci nity of th e D is tr ic t of C ol um bi a, ” as 

am en de d, ap pr ov ed Se ptem be r 7. 1950 ( 64 S ta t. 770) by st ri kin g out th e w or ds 

“A dm in is tr ato r” and “F ed er al A vi at io n Age nc y” ea ch plac e th ey ap p ear an d 

in se rtin g in lieu th ere of “B oar d”.
72 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

T he B oar d wo uld be co mpo sed of five mem be rs ap po in te d by th e Pre si den t, 

by an d w ith th e ad vice a nd co ns en t of th e Se na te. It wo uld ha ve auth ori ty su bje ct to civil serv ice an d cl as si fica tion laws, to appoin t ne ce ss ar y officers an d em ­

ploy ee s as ma y be ne ce ss ar y to carr y ou t th e duties ve ste d in an d imposed up on 

th e Boa rd . Th e officers, em ploy ee s, an d pro per ty o f th e F edera l Aviatio n Agency 

em ploy ed in th e tr ansf err ed po w er s, du ties an d fu nc tion s wou ld be tr an sf err ed 

to th e Boa rd as wou ld re la te d un ex pe nd ed bal an ce s of ap pro pri at io ns. Th e 

B oar d wo uld be au th or iz ed to issu e su ch re gula tions as it de em s ne ce ss ar y to 

carr y out th e prov isions of th e ac t. Ho we ve r, all or de rs , det er m in at io ns , ru le s, 

re gula tions, pe rm its, co ntr ac ts , an d pr iv ile ge s which ha ve be en iss ue d, mad e or 

gra n te d by the A dm in is tr ato r of th e Fed er al A vi at io n Ag ency in hi s ex ercise of 

th e du ties , po wers or fu nct io ns tr ansf err ed to th e Boa rd an d in effect at th e 

tim e of tr ansf er, wo uld co nt in ue in effect ac co rd in g to th eir te rm s unt il modifi ed, 

te rm in ate d, su pe rsed ed , se t as id e, or repe aled by th e Boa rd , or by an y co urt of 

co m pe te nt ju ri sd ic tion, or by oper at io n of law .

H.R. 10471 differs fro m H.R . 7399, 87tli Co ng res s, pr ev io us ly re po rted on by 

th e D ep ar tm en t of Defe nse. II .I t. 7399 wo uld cre at e a N at io nal C ap ital A irport s Cor po ra tio n, to pro vi de fo r th e ope ra tion of th e fe der al ly ow ned civ il 

a ir p o rt s on a se lf-s us ta in in g bu si ne ss ente rp ri se ba sis. The D ep ar tm en t of De ­

fe ns e su pp or ted H.R. 7399, su bje ct to th e under st an din g th a t (1 ) fa ci lities now 

in ex is te nc e wh ich w er e co nst ru ct ed w ith appro pri ate d fu nds an d wh ich are 

now occupie d by th e D epart m ent of Defen se w ithout ch arg e; an d (2 ) fa ci lities 

w hi ch may here aft er be co nst ru ct ed a t air p o rt s of th e Cor po ra tion but w ith 

fu nds appr op ri at ed to th e D epart m ent of D efe nse ; ca n be oc cu pied by th e De ­

p art m en t of Defen se w ithout pay m en t of re n ta l to th e Cor po ra tion un les s, an d 

ex ce pt to th e ex te nt th a t th e C or po ra tion in cu rs ac tu al co sts w ith re sp ec t to 

th os e fa ci lities . Und er th e curr ent hill, H.R. 10471, th e adm in is tr ati ve resp on sibility fo r th e op er at ion of W as hi ng to n N at io na l an d Dul les In te rn ati onal Airp o rt s wo uld be take n aw ay fr om th e A dm in is tr at or of th e Fed er al Aviati on 

Ag enc y, as prov ided by exis ti ng law , an d giv en to th e ne w an d inde pe nd en t 

B oa rd . Un lik e th e pr ev io us pr op os al , th e cu rr en t bill do es no t define th e me thod 

of op er at io n intend ed , b u t m er el y au th or iz es th e B oa rd to issu e su ch re gula ­

tion s as it may deem nec es sa ry to carr y ou t it s duties under th e ac t. Und er 

su ch br oa d an d ge ne ra l te rm s, th e tr u e fina nc ial im pa ct of th e bil l on th e D ep ar tm en t of Defen se ca nn ot be accura te ly judg ed .

T he b ett er to es ta blish an d de fin e th e re la tionsh ip be tw ee n th e p ropo sed B oa rd 

and o th er Gov ernm en t ag en cies , th e D ep ar tm en t of D ef en se rec om me nd s th a t 

th e te x t of sections 5, 12. an d 13 of H.R. 7399 he ad de d to H.R . 10471, w ith th e 

wor d “B oa rd ” su bst itute d fo r “C or pora tion” or “A dm in is tr ato r” whe reve r thos e 

w or ds appea r in sections 5. 12, and 13.

En ac tm en t, of H.R. 10471 wou ld ad d one more G ov er nm en t ag en cy to th e alre ady la rg e list of th os e co nc er ne d w ith civil av ia tion m att ers . Of di re ct in ­

te re st to th e D ep ar tm en t of D ef en se an d th e A ir Fo rce, ho wev er, wo uld be th e 

ch ar ge s wh ich th e Boa rd, if es ta bl is he d, m ig ht im po se fo r th e us e of fa cil it ie s 

a t th e tw o ai rp or ts . The D ep art m ent of Defen se has ne go tiat ed seve ral ag re em en ts w ith th e Fed er al A via tion Agenc y co ve rin g m il it ary us e of fa ci lities at 

W as hi ng to n Natio na l A irpo rt. As in di ca te d by th e un de rlin ed po rtio n in p a ra ­

gra ph 3. above, H.R . 10471 wou ld seem ingly per m it th e ne w Boa rd to mod ify 

or te rm in ate an y such ag re em en t, po ssibly to th e dis ad vanta ge of th e D epart ­

men t of De fen se. If th is is no t in te nd ed th e bill sh ou ld be mo dif ied acco rdingly.

Su ch mo dific ati on co uld be ac hiev ed by de le ting th e pe riod a t th e en d of sec ­

tion 5 (a ) , on page 6 of th e bi ll, an d ad di ng th e fo llow in g: Pr ov ided , T hat

no contr act or ot he r ag re em en t sh al l lx* modified , te rm in at ed , su pe rsed ed , se t 

as id e, or repe aled by th e B oa rd in co nt ra ve nt io n of its te rm s w ith out th e pri or 

w ri tt en co nsen t of al l th e p art ie s th ere to .”

Sub je ct to th e in co rp or at io n of th e prop osed am en dm en ts, th e D ep ar tm en t of 

D ef en se offers no ob jection to th e en ac tm en t of II.R . 19471 in so fa r as it affects 

th e D ep ar tm en t's op er at io ns . How ev er, on th e m er its of th e bil l, the D epart ­

m en t of Defen se de fe rs to th e view s of th e oth er G ov er nm en t ag encie s more 

dir ectl y co ncern ed w ith th e use an d op er at io n of civ il air port s.

Thi s re port ha s bee n co ord in at ed w ithi n th e D ep ar tm en t of Defen se in ac co rd ­

an ce w ith pr oc ed ur es pr es cr ib ed by th e Sec re ta ry of Defen se .

T he B ur ea u of th e Bu dg et ad vi se s th at, from th e st andpoin t of the Adm inistr a ti o n ’s pr og ram, th ere is no ob ject ion to th e pre se nta ti on of th is re port fo r 

th e c on si de ra tion of th e co mmitt ee .

Sinc erely ,

J o se ph V . C h a r y k.

Under Secr etary of the Air Force.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIR PORTS 73

T he Secretary of Comm erce,

W as hi ng to n, D.C., May 2, 1962.

Ho n. Oren H ar ris,

Cha irm an , Com m itte e on In te rsta te an d Fo reign Co mm erce,

Hou se of R ep re se nt at iv es , W as hi ng to n, D.C.

Hear Mb. C ha ir man : T his le tt er is in fu rth e r repl y to you r re ques t fo r view s of th is D ep ar tm en t w itl i re sp ec t to H.R . 10471, a hill to tr a n sfe r cert ain adm in ­ is tr ati v e re sp on sibi lity fo r th e ope ra tion of W as hin gto n N at io nal A ir port an d D ulles In te rn ati o n al A ir p o rt fro m th e A dm in is tr ato r of th e Federa l Avi atio n Ag ency to a W as hi ng to n A ir port Boa rd , an d fo r oth er pu rp os es . The bill wo uld est abli sh a W as hi ng to n A ir port s B oa rd hav in g five mem be rs ap po in te d by th e P re si dent, by an d w ith th e ad vi ce an d co ns en t of th e Se na te, to

• as su m e th e ad m in is tr ati v e re sp on sibi lities fo r W as hi ng to n N at io na l A ir port an d Du lles In te rn ati o n al A irport wh ich a re no w th e res i>on sib ilitie s o f th e Adm in is tr ato r of the F ed era l Aviatio n Agenc y. The b ill w ou ld m ak e no oth er ch an ge in th e adm in is tr ati on of th e tw o air port s. T he D ep ar tm en t reco mmen ds again st 

en ac tm en t of th is le gi sl at io n. The bill wo uld ch an ge th e adm in is te ri ng ag en cy , but wo uld no t ch an ge th e metho d of adm in is tr ati o n . In th e vie w of th is D ep ar tm en t, th e bil l offers no cle ar ad va nt ag e to th e G ov er nm en t or to th e W as hi ng to n ar ea . Sinc e Dulles In te rn ati onal is sc he du le d to open la te r th is yea r, and th e Fed er al A vi at io n Agenc y an d a ir p o rt u se rs a re in proc es s of m ak in g de ta iled ar ra ngem ents fo r it s use . it wou ld seem inad vi sa bl e to tr a n sfe r its ad m in is tr ati on to an o th er ag en cy at. th is cri ti cal tim e w ith ou t su bst anti al reas on . We ha ve bee n ad vi se d by th e B ur ea u of th e Bud ge t th a t th er e wo uld be no ob jection to th e su bm ission of th is re port from th e st an dpoin t of th e adm in ­

is tr ati o n ’s pr og ra m .

Sinc er ely yo ur s, E dward Gud em an,

Und er Sec re ta ry o f Co mm erce.

U.S. Depa rtme nt of J us tice ,

Office of th e Deput y Attorney G enera l,

W as hi ng to n, I).C ., May 7, 1962.

Hon. Oren H ar ris,

Ch airm an , C om m itte e on In te rs ta te an d Fo reign Co mm erc e,

Hou se o f R ep re se nta tive s, W as hing ton, D.C.

Dear Mr. C ha ir m an : Thi s is in resp on se to you r re qu es t fo r th e view s of th e D ep ar tm en t of Ju sti c e on th e bill ( H.R. 10471) “T o tr a n sfe r cer ta in a d m in is tr a ­ tiv e re sp on si bi lity fo r th e op er at io n of W as hi ng to n N at io na l A ir port an d D ulles In te rn ati onal A ir port from th e A dm in is tr ato r of th e Fed er al A viatio n Ag ency to a W as hi ng to n A ir port s Boa rd, an d fo r oth er pu rp os es .” Th e bill wou ld es ta bli sh as an ag en cy of th e U nited S ta te s a W as hi ng to n A ir ­ po rt s Boa rd co mpo sed of five mem be rs ap po in te d by th e Pre si de nt , by and w ith

«» th e ad vi ce an d co nse nt of th e Se na te. The Boa rd wou ld ha ve co nt ro l ov er, an d re sp on sibi lity fo r, th e ca re , op er at io n, m ai nt en an ce , an d pr ot ec tion of th e W as h­ ington N at io nal A ir port an d Dulles In te rn ati o n al A irpo rt. Th e su bj ec t of th e bil l is not a m a tt e r fo r which th e D ep ar tm en t of Ju sti ce ha s pri m ary re sp on si bi lity an d ac co rd in gl y we mak e no reco m m en da tion as to

« it s en ac tm en t. How ev er, th er e is a fe atu re of th e bill to which att en ti o n is

in vi ted. In co n tr ast to o th er bo ar ds and co mmissio ns hav in g re gula to ry or quasi -j udi­ ci al fu nc tion s, th e Boa rd cr ea te d by th e bil l wou ld ha ve es se nt ia lly ex ec utive re sp on sibi lities and man ag em en t fu nc tion s. How ev er, th e bil l pr ov id es th a t th e “m em be rs of th e B oar d may be r em ov ed by th e P re si dent fo r ine ffic iency, ne gl ec t of du ty , or m al fe as an ce in office,” po ss ibly im pl yi ng th at th ey m ay not be re ­ mov ed a t th e P re sid en t’s plea su re , w ithout ca us e. The ca se s in whi ch th e P re s­ id ent’s po w er s of remov al ha ve be en lim ited hav e inv olv ed off icia ls of co mm is­ sion s w ith sta tu to ry ad ju dic at iv e fu nc tio ns , in contr ast to th e ess entiall y ex ec ut iv e re sp onsi bilitie s of th e B oa rd under th e bill. W iene r v. ( nited Sta te s,

357 U.S. 349 (19 58 ) an d H um phr ey 's E xecuto r v. United Sta te s, 295 U.S. 602 

(193 5). A pa rt from an y const itutional que st io n which such a li m it ati o n wo uld ra ise, it is ou r vie w th a t su ch a re st ri cti on on th e Pre si dent’s po wer of re m ov al 

is no t de sira bl e.
74 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIR POR TS

T he B ure au of the Bud ge t h as ad vi se d th a t th er e is no ob ject io n to th e su bmiss ion of th is re port from th e st andpoin t of th e A dm in is tr ati on’s prog ram. 

Si nc er ely yo urs ,

Nicho la s deB. K atzenbach,

D ep uty A tt o rn ey General.

(A dd ition al rep orts have been received on IT.R. 7399 which are as 

follo ws :)

D ep artm en t of t h e Air F orc e.

Offic e of t h e Sec re ta ry , 

W as hi ng to n, D.C., Sep te m ber Ilf, 1962. Ho n. Oren H ar ris,

Cha irman , Com m itt ee on In te rsta te an d Fo reign Co mm erc e,

H ou se o f Rep re se nt at iv es .

Dear Mr. Cha irman : Ref er en ce is mad e to yo ur re qu es t to th e Sec re ta ry of 

D efen se fo r th e vie ws of th e D epart m ent of D efen se w ith re sp ec t to II. R. 7399. 

87 th Con gress, a bil l to cre ate th e N at io na l C ap ital A irpor ts Cor po ra tio n, to 

pr ov id e fo r th e op er at io n of th e fe der al ly ow ned civ il air p o rt s in th e D is tr ic t 

of Colum bia or it s vici ni ty by th e Cor po ra tion , an d fo r oth er pu rpos es. Th e 

S ecre ta ry of Defen se has de le ga te d to th e D ep ar tm en t of th e Air Fo rce th e 

re sp on sibi lity fo r ex pr es sing th e view s of th e D ep ar tm en t of Defen se.

The gen ra l pu rpos e of II .R . 7399 is as st ate d in th e titl e. The bil l wo uld 

spec ifi ca lly tr an sfe r the ope ra tion of th e W as hi ng to n N at io nal A irport an d th e 

new Dul les In te rn ati onal A irport , as we ll as an y oth er civil a ir p o rt th at th e 

F ed er al Gov er nm en t mig ht acq uir e in th e D is tr ic t of Colum bia or it s vicinity, 

to a Gov er nm en t co rp or at io n, w hi ch wo uld be su bj ec t to th e di re ct io n of th e 

A dm in is tr ato r of th e Fed er al A via tion Age ncy.

U nd er se ct ion 5 of II.R . 7399, th e Cor po ra tion is au th ori ze d to ch ar ge Go ve rnm en t ag en cies fo r spa ce, fa ci li ti es , an d se rv ices “a t ra te s ba se d on th e ac tu al 

co st to th e Cor po ra tio n * * The D ep ar tm en t of D ef en se su pport s th is 

pr ov isio n an d, ind eed, reco mmen de d its in se rtio n in si m il ar le gi slat io n wh ich 

w as in tr od uc ed in th e 86 th Con gres s. Th e D ep ar tm en t of D ef en se under st an ds 

se ct ion 5 of th e bil l to mea n th a t th e C or po ra tion may no t im po se an y ch ar ge 

upon Gov er nm en t ag en cies fo r sp ac e, fa ci lities , or se rv ices which do no t inv olv e 

actu al co st to th e Cor po ratio n.

Sp ecifically , th e D ep ar tm en t of D ef en se assu mes th a t—

(1 ) fa ci lities now in ex is te nce which were co nst ru ct ed w ith app ro pri at ed 

fu nds an d wh ich are no w oc cu pied by th e D ep ar tm en t of Defen se w ith out 

ch arg e: an d (2) fa ci lities w hi ch may here aft er be co ns tr uct ed a t air port s 

o f th e Cor po ra tio n bu t w ith fu nds ap pro pri ate d to th e D ep ar tm en t of 

D efe n se ;

ca n be oc cu pied by the D epar tm en t of D efen se w ithout pa ym en t of re nta l to 

th e C or po ra tion un les s, an d ex ce pt to th e ex te nt th at, th e C orp or at io n in cu rs 

actu al co sts w ith re sp ec t to th os e fa ci lities .

If th e fo re go ing as su m pt io n is co rr ec t, th e D epar tm en t of D ef en se wo uld 

ha ve no o bj ec tion to the enac tm en t o f H.R . 7399.

Thi s re port has bee n co ord in at ed w ith th e D epar tm en t of Defen se in ac ­

co rd an ce w ith p ro ce du re s pre sc ribe d by t he S ecret ary ’ o f D efen se.

Th e B ure au of th e Bud ge t ad vis es th at, fro m th e st andpoin t of th e ad m in ­

is tr ati o n 's pr og ra m th er e is 110 ob je ct io n to th e pre se nta ti on of th is re po rt fo r 

th e co ns id er at io n of th e co mmitt ee .

Si nc erely,

J os ep h S. I m ir ie.

A ss is ta nt Sec re ta ry o f th e A ir Force .

Comptroll er Genera l of th e Unite d States,

W as hi ng to n, D.C., M ay 17, 1962.

B-120047

H on . J o h n B el l W r i i a mr,

Cha irman , Su bc om m itte e on Tra nsp or ta tion an d Aer on au tics , C om m itte e on In ­

te rs ta te an d Fo reign Co mm erc e, H ou se of Rep re se nt at iv es .

Dear Mr. Cha irman : Ref er en ce is m ad e to th e hea ri ngs bef or e you r subcom ­

m itte e on May 2, 1962, on H.R. 7399, a bi ll to cr ea te a N at io na l C ap it al A irpo rts 

C or po ra tion . W hile w e d id no t ap p ear be fo re y our su bc om mitt ee o n May 2, 1962.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRFORTS 75

to pre sen t our views on the bill, we would like to poin t out th at we do not recom­ mend favo rabl e con side ration of the enac tme nt of the proposed legislation. Our reasons for be lieving th at t he creatio n of the C orpo ratio n is neith er neces­ sa ry nor desi rable for the operation of the Washing ton Nationa l Airport, the Dulle s Inter natio nal Air port, and any oth er civil airp or ts which the Governm ent may acquire in the Di str ict of Columbia or its vicin ity were commented on in det ail in a let ter dat ed Ju ly 17, 1961, to the chairm an, Committee on In terstate and Foreign Commerce, Hou se of Representati ves, a copy of which is enclosed, and in testim ony by rep res ent atives of this Office in hea ring s before your subcomm ittee on Jul y 18, 1961.

Sincerely yours,

Joseph Campbell,

Comptroller General of the United States.

Sectional Analysis of H.R. 7399

Section 1 p rovides th at the act may be cited as the National Capi tal Airports 

Act of 1961. Section 2 cre ate s the Nationa l Cap ital Air por ts Corp oration subj ect to the direction of the Ad mi nis tra tor of the Feder al Avia tion Agency. It charges the Agency with ope ration of the Washin gton National Air por t and such other fede rally owned civil airp or ts in the Distr ict of Columbia and vicinity as may be 

tra nsf err ed to the Corporation. Section 3 gran ts the Corpo ration perpetu al succession subje ct to dissolution 

by Congress. Section 4 d esig nate s the District of Columbia or vicinity as the p rinc ipal office of the Corporation. Venue for civil acti ons is placed in each jurisd iction where 

offices are located. Section 5 con stitutes a decl arat ion of policy th at the Corpo ration sha ll con­ side r it in the public in terest to operate its air po rts on a self -sus taining busin ess 

enterprise basis. Section 6 gr an ts to the Corp oration enu merate d gene ral corp orate powers. Section 7 gran ts the Corp oration add itio nal powe rs incident to its ope rati on of its fac iliti es as busi ness ent erp rise s and as public service facilit ies sub ject to sta tut ory procedur es for the annual budget prog ram prescribed by section 102 

of the Govern ment Cor pora tion Control Act. Section 8 vests man agemen t of the Cor pora tion in a General Mana ger who shal l lie a ppointed by the Admin istrator and whose salary shall not exceed the maximum perm issible und er section 3 0 2 (f ) of the Fed era l Aviation Act of 1958. It also establishes five new sup ergrade positio ns. It estab lishe s a five-member advisory board, to be appointed by the Admin istrator, and to be compe nsated, if from priva te life, on a per diem bas is equ ival ent to the maximum ra te of grad e 18, and with reim burs eme nt provision s for trav el, subsistence and oth er 

neces sary expenses. The section req uir es a t lea st one meeting each 6 months to review general Corporation policies and advise the Ad minis trator and Manager with resp ect 

thereto. Section 9 (a ) esta blis hes a National Capita l Air por ts Fun d which shal l consis t o f:

(1 ) Amounts specifically app ropriat ed. (2 ) Unexp ended app rop riat ion s of the Washing ton National Airport. (3 ) Unexpended balances of Feder al Aviat ion Agency app rop riat ion s of any 

oth er air po rt und er the Corp oration’s j urisdi ctio n. Section 9 (b ) dir ect s the Corp oration to pay ann ual ly into the Tre asu ry in terest as follow s: “ (1 ) In tere st equ ivalent to the local sha re th at a pro ject spons or would have had to pay if th e ai rp or t had been built and developed under the Fed eral Airpo rt Act by a local public agency with maxi mum Fe deral grants-in-ai d.” Section 9 ( b )( 2 ) sets the form ula for the interest ra te on the fun d as esta blished. Section 9 ( b )( 3 ) sets the form ula fo r the interest rate on subse quen t cap ita l 

advan ces to the f und. Section 9 (c ) prov ides proce dures for han dlin g of capi tal excess to cu rre nt 

needs.
76 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Se cti on 9 (d ) pr ov id es th a t re ce ip ts fr om ope ra tion s sh all be cr edit ed to the 

fu nd , wh ich sh al l be av ai la bl e fo r al l ex pendit ure s of th e Cor po ra tion ,

Se cti on 8 (e ) au th ori ze s ap pro pri ati ons w ithout fiscal year lim itat io ns.

Secti on 9 (f) au th or iz es ap pro pri ati ons to pa y su ch am ou nts as m ay he show n 

in th e annual bu dg et to cover actu al lo ss es of pri or ye ar s. Thi s su bs ec tio n als o 

pr ov id es th a t am ou nt s appr op ri at ed to th e fu nd un de r th is su bs ec tio n sh al l no t 

re qu ir e in te re st pa ym en ts.

Se cti on 10 auth ori ze s C or po ra tion ’s use of fu nd s fr om w hate ver sour ce s 

de rive d in th e ex er ci se of its po we r, pr ov id ed th a t no new ty pe acti vit y or sing le 

ca pit al pro je ct s in excess of $1 mill ion not includ ed in th e annual bu dg et be 

un de rt ak en .

Se cti on 11 re quir es th e C or po ra tion to contr ib ute to th e civil se rv ic e re ti re ­

m en t an d dis abil it y fu nd an d th e em ploy ee s' co m pe ns atio n fu nd fo r it s em- *

plo.vees fo r pe riod s be ginn ing w ith t he effe ctiv e d ate of th e ac t.

Secti on 12 auth ori ze s use of air p o rt fa cil it ie s un de r th e ju ri sd ic ti on of th e 

C orp or at io n by m il it ary a ir cra ft w ithout ch ar ge , prov ided th a t th e A dm in is tr ato r 

may cu rt ail or lim it un re as on ab le in te rf ere nce w ith civil a ir cra ft .

Secti on 13 auth ori ze s C or po ra tion to fu rn is h ad eq ua te space, w ithout ch arge , F

to Gov er nm en t ag en cies fo r ac ti vit ie s in co nn ec tio n w ith air p o rt tra ffi c co ntro l, 

re la te d co m m un icat ions , an d w eath er re port in g.

Se ction 14 p ro hib its us e of the n am e of any air p o rt o per at ed b y th e Cor po ra tion 

w ithout its co ns en t.

Se cti on 15 tr an sf ers all pr ope rt y of th e W as hi ng ton N at io na l A ir port to th e 

C or po ra tion . to get her w ith va riou s parc el s of land . S ubst itute s th e Cor po ra tion 

fo r th e U ni ted S ta te s fo r outs ta ndin g li abil it ie s an d contr ac ts in co nn ec tion w ith 

th e W as hi ng to n N ationa l A irpo rt. A ut ho rize s such tr a n sfe r of any a ir p o rt in 

th e D is tr ic t or it s vicinity .

Secti on 1(J exe m pt s th e C or po ra tion fr om ta xat io n, hut au th ori ze s pa ym en ts in 

lie u of S ta te an d local pr ope rt y ta xe s, th e pa ym en t of which sh all be gu ided by 

th e polic y o f no t mak in g pa ym en ts in ex ce ss of ta xes which wou ld ha ve bee n 

pa ya bl e on th e p ro per ty in th e co nd itio n in wh ich it w as a cq ui re d.

Secti on 17 ve st s ru le m ak in g po wer in th e M an ag er w ith res pec t, to pr ot ec tio n 

of pr oper ty and co nd uc tio n of pe rs on s on pr em ises w ithin th e ju ri sd ic ti on of 

th e < ’orp or at io n. Pe na liz es v io latio n of ru le s by max im um $500 fine, or 6 m on th s’ 

im pr is on m en t or bo th.

Se cti on 18 em po wers de sign at ed em ploy ee s ap po in te d to pro te ct li fe an d 

pr op er ty , to m ak e arr est s, an d to c a rr y wea po ns. Autho rize s as si gnm en t by 

Sec re ta ry of In te ri o r of Par k Po lic e fo r po lic ing of a ir p o rt are as by th e P ark 

Police. Pro vi de s fo r ac ce pt an ce of coll ate ra l from vi ol at io n of ru le s or re gula ­

tion s by ch ie f law en fo rc em en t officers and dir ec ts de po sit of th e sa m e w ith th e 

appro pri ate officia ls.

Se cti on 19 re se rv es th e ri gh t to a lt e r ch art er.

Section 20 co nta in s tech nica l am en dm en ts to ex is ting la w s af fe cted by th is 

legi slatio n.

Se cti on 21 conta in s a sa vi ng s clau se.

Secti on 22 pr ov id es th a t th is ac t sh all be effecti ve up on en ac tm en t.

11.R. 7399—N ation al Cap ital Airports Corporation

Li sted below are bri ef ex pla na tions of cit ati ons to oth er ac ts , in th e ord er of 

ap pe ar an ce , which ar e foun d in se ct io ns 6, 10. 11. 12, 15, IS, an d 20 of II.R . 7399. 

A. Section 6 of If .I t. ~3f)9

1. Fed er al Pro jier ty an d A dm in is tr at iv e Se rv ices Act of 1949 (63 Sta t. 377: 

40 T’.S.C. 471 ) : Thi s ac t go ve rns m an ag em en t an d di sp os al of Gov ernm en t 

pro per ty a nd . ex ce pt as specifica lly p ro vi de d in II.R . 7399. th e C orp ora tion wo uld 

be go ve rned by th e prov isi on s of th e F edera l P ro per ty an d A dm in is tr ati ve Se rvice s A ct in di sp os al o f p ro pe rty.

2. Ac t of Aug us t 1. 1888, as am en de d (25 Sta t. 35 7: 40 T’.S.C. 257 ) : T his ac t 

go ve rn s pr oc ed ur es fo r co nd em na tio n of re al pro per ty fo r pu blic buildi ng s or 

oth er pu blic us es . Cor po ra tio n wo uld be mad e su bj ec t to su ch pr oc ed ur es .

3. Act of Ju n e 25. 1948 ( 62 Sta t. 86 9: 28 U.S .C. 1403 ) : G ra nts to th e Fed er al 

d is tr ic t court s ju ri sd ic tion over co nd em na tio n pr oc ee ding s.

4. Ac t of F ebru ary 2(5. 1931. as am en de d (46 Sta t. 1421 : 40 U.S.C. 2 5 8 (a )) : 

P erm it s th e Gov er nm en t in co nd em na tio n pr oc ee di ng s to t ak e po ssession of p ro pert y fo r Gov er nm en t us e in ad va nc e of fin al ju dg m en t.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS zz

3. Se ction 333 of th e Rev ised S ta tu te s, as am en de d (40 U.S .C. 233) : Thi s ac t 

pro hib it s th e ex pen diture of pu bl ic fu nds fo r th e er ec tion o f pu blic bu ild ings , 

ar m ories, cu stom ho us es , etc ., w it h o u t an A tto rn ey G en er al ’s w ri tt en op inion as 

to th e val id it y of ti tl e to th e la nd .

6. Act of Octo be r 31, 1945 (5 9 S ta t. 333; D.C. Code, sec. 1-101— W as hi ng to n 

N at io nal A irpo rt, ju ri sd ic ti o n ) : S ta te of V irgi ni a co ns en ts to ex clus ive ju ri sd ic ­

tion in W as hi ng ton N at io nal A ir port to th e U ni ted S ta te s su bj ec t to cer ta in 

re se rv at io ns.

7. Pub lic La w 7G2, 81 st C on gr es s (64 Sta t. 77 0), Second W as hi ng to n A irport 

A ct : T his ac t au th ori ze d to co nst ru ct io n of a second W as hi ng to n air p o rt in th e 

vi ci ni ty of th e D is tr ic t of C olum bia.

8. Se ction 13 of th e ac t of A ug us t 2, 1046 ( 60 Sta t. 81 0: 5 U.S.C. 55 ( a ) ) ; 

A ut ho ri ze s th e te m pora ry em pl oy m en t ( not to exce ed 1 y ear) of e xper ts an d co nsu lt an ts w ithout re gar d to ci vi l se rv ice an d cl as sifica tion la w s of ra te s no t to 

ex ce ed .$100 pe r die m.

B. Se ct io n 8 o f H .B . 7399

1. Se cti on 505 of th e C la ss ific at io n Ac t of 1049, as am en de d (63 Sta t. 95 9; 5 

U.S .C. 1111 ) : T hi s act es ta bli sh es th e ba sic c om pe ns atio n sc he du les, know n as t he 

G en er al Sc hedu le, which is divi de d into 18 gra des of difficu lty an d re sp on sibi lity 

of work.

2. Secti on 302(j ) of th e F ed er al Aviation Act of 1958. as am en de d (72 Sta t. 

747 ) : Thi s se ction auth ori zes th e A dm in is tr ato r of th e F edera l Aviatio n Ag enc y 

to pl ac e ce rt ai n num be r of po sition s in gra de s 16, 17. an d 18 .

3. Tra vel Exp en se Ac t of 1949, as am en de d (63 S ta t. 166; 5 U.S.C. 8 3 5 ): 

T his ac t es ta bl is he s per di em allo wan ce s fo r Gov er nm en t em ploy ees tr aveli ng on 

official bu sin ess.

C. Se ctio n 10 o f H.B. 7399

1. Se ction 102 o f t h e G ov er nm en t Cor po ra tion s Con tro l Ac t of 1945, a s am en de d 

(59 Sta t. 598; 31 U.S.C. 847) : Thi s se ction re quir es Gov er nm en t co rp ora tions 

to pre par e an annual bu sine ss -typ e bu dg et fo r su bm ission to th e B ure au of th e 

Bud ge t an d pr es cr ib es th e fo rm , co nten t, an d m an ner of su bm iss ion.

D. Se ction 11 of H.B . 7399

1. Se cti on 4 (a ) of th e Civil Se rvice R et ir em ent Act, as am en de d (70 Sta t. 747 ; 

5 U.S.C. 2 254(a )) : T his se ct io n es ta blish es th e am ount of co nt ri bution by em ­

plo ye es an d Gov er nm en t-em ploy ing ag en ci es to th e civi l se rv ice re ti re m ent fu nd.

E. Se ctio n 12 of H .B . 7399

1. Fed er al A irport Act, as am en de d (60 S ta t. 17 0; 40 U.S.C . 1101) : T his act 

is co nc erne d w ith th e ex ec ut io n of th e Fed er al -a id -t o-a ir port s pr og ra m and co nta in s pr ov isio ns fo r fr ee us e of la nd in g and nav ig at io n fa cil it ie s by G ov er nm en t 

a ir c ra ft a t a ir p o rt s w hi ch ha ve rec eive d F ed er al ai d under th e ac t.

E. Se ction 15 o f H .B . 7399

1. Ac t of Ju n e 29, 194 0 ( 54 Sta t. 68 6; D.C. Cod e, sec. 7-1301) : T his a c t p ro ­

vide s fo r th e ad m in is tr ati o n of th e W as hi ng to n N at io nal A irport by th e A dm in ­

is tr a to r of th e F edera l Aviatio n Agency an d es ta blish es th e boun dar ie s of th e 

ai rp ort .

G. Se ct io n 18 o f H .B . 7399

1. Ac t of M ar ch 17, 1948, as am en de d (62 S ta t. SI) : T his act g ra n ts ju ris ­

diction to th e U.S. P a rk Po lic e to m ak e a rr e sts w ithin Fed er al re se rv ati ons in 

th e en vi ro ns of th e D is tr ic t of C olu mb ia.

H. Se ction 20 of H .B . 7399

1. Se ctio n 101, G ov er nm en t C or po ra tion C on trol Ac t, as am en de d (59 S ta t. 

59 7; 31. U.S.C. 846 ) : De fin es “w ho lly ow ne d Gov er nm en t co rp ora tion” to m ea n 

th e G ov er nm en t c orp ora ti ons spe cified in su ch se ction.

2. Ac t of J u n e 29, 1940 ( 54 Sta t. 686 ) (a d m in is tr ati o n of W as hi ng to n N at io nal 

A ir p o rt ). (S ee p ar. F abov e.)

Se cti on 2 : V es ts th e A dm in is tr ato r w ith co nt ro l over, an d re sp onsi bil it y 

fo r th e ca re , op er at io n, m ai nt en an ce , an d pr ote ct io n of th e air p o rt (W as hin gto n 

N ational) .

Se ction 3: A uth ori ze s the A dm in is tr ato r to le as e sp ac e or pro pert y w it h in or 

upon th e air p o rt (W as hi ng to n N ati onal) .
78 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Section 4 : Authorizes the Ad ministrator to establish a police force to protect 

the air po rt (Washington Na tional).

Section 5: Provide for penalties (tine and imprisonment) for violations of rules 

or regulations on the airport (Washin gton National).

Section 6: Authorizes posting of collate ral for violations.

3. Act of October 9, 1940 (provision in th e Supplemental Act of 1950) (54 Stat. 

1030) : Authorizes the construction of five hangars at Washington Natio nal Airport. Proviso limits the length of leases for h ang ars to 3 years and concessions 

to 5 years.

4. Act of March 17, 1948 (see par. G above) : The National Cap ital Airports 

Corporation Act would amend the definition of “environs of the D istric t of Columbia” to include Loudoun County, Va.

5. Act of September 7, 1950 (Second Washington Airport Act) (04 Stat. 

770) (see p ar. A(7) above).

6. Act of June 25, 1948 ( 02 Stat. 809, 984 ; 28 U.S.C. 5 07(b ), 2079)—Exclusiveness of rem edy: Authority to sue Federal agencies limited to remedies provided 

by title 28 and the Corporation Act proposal would make this provision applicable 

to the Corporation.

7. Section 307, Revised Statutes (5 U.S.C. 316) : Authorizes the Attorney General to send the Solicitor General or ot her officers of the Dep artm ent of Justice to 

any Sta te or dis trict in the United Sta tes to atte nd the inte rests of the United 

States in an y su it pending before an y Fed era l or State court.

H ous e of Rep resen ta tiv es, 

Co m m it tee on I nte rs ta te an d F or eig n Comm er ce ,

Washington, D.C., August Jt

, 1961. Hon. Na je eb E. H al ab y,

Administrator, Federal Aviation Agency,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Halaby: During the July 19 hearings before the Subcommittee on 

Tra nsp ortation and Aeronautics on II.R. 7399, to estab lish a National Capital 

Airp orts Corporation, a witness for the Air Tra nsp ort Association proposed the 

following amendment to section 5:

“In the event of the failur e of the Corporation and any airport user to agree 

upon the fair ness or reasonableness of any rate or charg e proposed hereu nder, 

the disargee inent shall be subject to arb itration pursu ant to the provisions of 

the Fed era l A rbitration Act (9 U.S.C. 4).”

This amendment was opposed by the FAA witness, who sa id : “We looked into 

this at the time this was first proposed by the Air Transpo rt Association, and 

do not find comparable examples of an instrumentality of the United States 

subjecting itse lf to arb itration pu rsu an t to th at act in connection with dealing 

with one of its customers in t his corporation capacity.

“We would feel that the Congress itse lf would not wish this. It would be 

exceedingly unusu al as a provision of law. We do not thin k it applies to any of 

the other 15 Government corporations in existence and feel th at the committee 

would not wish to accept th at proposal.”

Attac hed is a copy of a memorandum furnish ed the subcommittee by the Air 

Transpo rt Association.

Tour comments on th e proposed amendment in the light of comments made in 

the Air Transpo rt Association memo randum would be a ppreciated.

Sincerely yours,

J o h n Bel l W il l ia m s ,

Member of Congress,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and, Aeronautics.

J uly 24, 1961.

M em or an du m

To: J. D. Durand.

Fr om : R. H. Doyle, legal departm ent.

Re Government corporation subject to Federal Arbitration Act.

A question has arisen with resp ect to precedents for sta tutorily providing

that disagreements between the National Capital Airp orts Corporation and airport users which may arise reg ard ing the fairn ess or reasonablenes s of rates or 

charges be subject to arbitra tio n und er the Federal Arb itra tion Act. Legal
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 79

re se ar ch di sc lose s th a t su ch pre ce den ts ex ist. On e su ch in st ance is th e ca se of 

Rec on st ru ct io n Fin an ce Cor po ra tio n v. H ar ri so ns an d Cr osfield, 106 F. Supp. 

358, affir med 204 F. 2d 366.

The re , th e RFC , a who lly ow ne d Gov ernm en t co rp or at io n, sta tu to ry su cc es so r 

or R ub be r Res er ve Co mp any, an o th er co rp or at io n who lly ow ne d by th e United 

Sta te s, mo ve d to va ca te a no tice of arb it ra ti o n se rv ed up on it by H arr is ons & 

Cr osfie ld p u rs u an t to a cl au se in a co ntr act be tw ee n th e p a rt ie s to th e ac tion 

whi ch pr ov id ed th a t all clai m s, di sp ut es , or co nt ro ve rs ie s w hi ch co uld no t be 

am ic ab ly se ttle d sh ou ld be det er m in ed by arb it ra ti o n . H arr is o n s & Cr osfield 

mo ved fo r di sm issa l of R F C ’s m ot io n an d re qu es ted, und er th e pr ov isio ns of th e 

F edera l A rb it ra ti on Act (9 U.S .C. 4 ), an af firm ativ e ord er dir ec ting RFC to 

pr oc ee d to arb it ra ti o n . The U.S . D is tr ic t C ourt fo r th e South er n D is tr ic t of 

Ne w Yo rk di sm isse d R FC 's p eti ti on an d ord er ed it to a rb it ra te . T his ord er 

w as affir med on ap pe al by th e Se cond C ircu it C ourt of App ea ls. The fa ct th a t 

a who lly ow ned Gov er nm en t corp or at io n w as invo lved w as no t he ld to pr ec lu de 

en fo rc em en t of th e arb it ra ti o n cl au se und er th e F ed er al A rb it ra ti on Act.

Thu s, th e N at io nal C apit al A irport s Cor po ra tion , alt hough a Gov ernm en t 

ag en cy an d in st ru m enta li ty , w it h sto ck to be who lly ow ne d by th e U ni te d 

S ta te s, ne ve rthe le ss w ill be a co iqxiratio n lim ited by it s c h a rt e r and th e gen er al 

la w s of co rp or at e ac tivity, and will be ab le to th u s co nd uc t it se lf in a m an ner 

no dif fe re nt in pr in ci pl e to th a t of an y p ri v ate cori> ora tion. I t ca n be, as oth er 

G ov er nm en t co rp or at io ns bef ore it ha ve been, re quir ed to se tt le dis pute s under 

th e Federa l A rb it ra ti on Ac t. In th e w or ds of Mr. Chi ef Ju sti ce Hug he s (R eco ns tr uc tion Fin an ce Cor po ra tio n v. M en ih an , 312 U.S . 81, 83) : “W hile it 

[r efe rr in g to th e RFC] acts a s a go ve rn m en ta l ag en cy in pe rf orm in g it s fu nction s, st il l it s tr ansa cti ons a re akin to p ri v ate ente rp ri se s and th e m er e fa ct 

th a t it is an ag en cy of th e Gov er nm en t do es no t ex te nd to it th e im m un ity of 

th e so ve re ign. ’’

Asid e from pur e le gal is tics , it wou ld see m th a t a pr ov is io n fo r arb it ra ti o n , 

th e pu rp os e of which is to av oid a m ultip lici ty of ju dic ia l pr oc ee ding s, fu rt h ers 

th e in te re st of th e pu bl ic in th e ord er ly tr an sa cti o n of th e G ov er nm en t’s busi ­

ne ss an d is th us pra is ew ort hy. C er ta in ly th e mere fa c t th a t a Gov ernm en tow ne d co rp ora tion is invo lv ed is no t suffi cien t lega l re as on in itse lf, as has 

be en show n, to oppo se th e m ea su re .

F ederal Avia tio n Agency, 

W as hin gto n, D.C., August 10,196 1.

Hon . J oh n Bell W il lia m s,

Cha irman , Su bco m m itte e on Tr an sp or ta tion an d Aer on au tics ,

Hou se of R ep re se nt at iv es , W as hi ng to n, D.C.

Dear Mr. Cha ir man : T his is in repl y to yo ur le tt er o f Aug us t 4. 1961, in 

which you re qu es t th e co mmen ts of th is Agenc y on a pr op os al m ad e by th e 

A ir T ra nsp ort A ss oc ia tio n to su bj ec t th e N at io nal C apit al A irport s C orp ora tion 

to the p rovi sion s of t he U.S. A rb itra tion Act.

At th e ou tset , we be lie ve it is appro pri ate to not e th a t th e U.S. A rb it ra ti o n 

Ac t (43 Sta t. 883, 9 U.S.C . 1- 14 ), appare ntl y has ne ve r been he ld to in cl ud e 

w ithin it s sco pe tr an sa cti o n s in which th e U ni ted S ta te s is a part y (32 Comp. 

Gen . 335, Ja n. 27, 195 3) [n ot e sp ec ia l ci rc um st an ce s of ca se m en tion ed im m edi at el y be low]. I t is tr ue, ho wev er, th a t su bm ission of claim s ag ain st th e 

U ni ted S ta te s is sp ec ifi ca lly au th orize d under oth er s ta tu te s : T he s uit s in A dm iralt y Ac t (46 U.S.C. 749 ) ; th e Pub lic Vessels Act (46 U.S.C. 786) ; th e C ontr act 

Set tlem en t Act (41 U.S .C. 11 3 (e )) .

We dir ec t your a tt en ti o n to th e ca se of Rec on st ru ct io n Finan ce Cor po ra tio n v. 

Har riso ns an d Cr osfie ld. 106 F. Supp. 358, Ja n u a ry 30, 1952, which w as ci te d by 

th e A ir T ra n sp o rt A ss oc ia tio n m em or an du m and w hi ch purp ort s to b e a pre ce den t 

“f or st atu to ri ly pr ov id in g th a t dis ag re em en ts be tw ee n th e N at io nal C apit al A ir ­

po rts C or po ra tion and air p o rt us er s which may ari se re gar di ng th e fa ir n ess or 

re as on ab le ne ss of ra te s or ch ar ge s be su bje ct to arb it ra ti o n under th e F ed era l 

A rb it ra ti on A ct.” I t do es no t pr ov id e an y su ch pr ec ed en t. T h at ca se in vo lv ed 

an ac tion on a G ov er nm en t contr act co nta in in g an arb it ra ti o n cl au se and w as 

br oug ht p u rs u an t to th e te rm s of th e contr ac t. It st ands fo r th e pri nci ple th a t 

a Gov ernm en t corp ora tion may su bje ct it se lf to th e se tt le m en t of cl ai m s ag ain st 

it by arb it ra ti o n if it contr ac ts to do so. You will no te th a t th e A ir T ra n sp o rt 

Assoc iatio n am en dm en t is co nc erne d w ith ra te arb it ra ti o n , w hi ch is unpre cede nted . It fu rth e r pr ov id es no st atu to ry pre ce den t fo r G ov er nm en t co rp or a-
80 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

tlons ge ne ra lly to be su bj ec te d to th e pr ov isions of th e T'.S. A rb it ra ti on Act in 

in st an ce s w he re in th ey d o no t c ontr act to be so b ound.

We ne xt di re ct yo ur att en ti o n to th e ca se of Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Menihan, 312 U.S. 8183, F eb ru ary 3, 1941. which ca se was also cite d in 

th e A ir T ra nsp ort Assoc iatio n mem or an du m . Ag ain , th is ca se do es no t st an d 

fo r th e pr op os iti on th a t G ov er nm en t co rp or at io ns by th eir sta tu s pe r se are 

re qu ired to se ttle di sp ut es under th e U.S. A rb it ra ti on Act as th e mem oran du m 

su gg es ts. Thi s ca se is ir re le v an t to th e in sta n t qu es tio n. It su pp or ts th e 

pr op os iti on th a t th e mere fa ct th a t th e Rec on stru ct io n Fin an ce Cor po ra tio n is 

a Gov ernm en t ag en cy do es not ex te nd to it th e im m un ity of th e U ni ted Sta te s 

fo r liabil it y fo r co sts whe n it is an un su cc es sful li tigan t.

Si nc e th ere ap pea rs to be no sta tu to ry pr ec ed en t fo r su bje ct in g Gov ernm en t 

co rp ora tions to th e U.S. A rb it ra ti o n Act, an d sin ce we kn ow of no in stan ce in 

wh ich th e en ab lin g ac ts of ex is ti ng Gov ernm en t co rp ora tions co nt ai n suc h a 

pr ov ision nor is th e same ap pl ic ab le to air p o rt au th ori ti es, it s see ms unw ar ra nte d 

an d not in th e in te re st of G ov er nm en t op er at io ns to cre ate a pr ec ed en t in th e 

ca se of th is Agency. According ly, th e po lic y of th is Agency is op po sit ion to 

su ch a prop os al.

Ma y we rem ind th e co m m itt ee th a t se ction 8 (c ) of H.R . 7399, 87th Co ngres s, 

wou ld es ta bl is h a five mem be r Adv isor y Bo ard, of which a t le ast th re e me mbers 

sh al l be ap po in te d from p ri v ate lif e, an d a t le ast on e of su ch sh all ha ve a ir 

c a rr ie r op er at io ns ex pe rie nc e. T his Boa rd sh al l m ee t a t le ast ev ery 6 mon ths 

an d sh all review ra te s an d ch ar ges , an d sh all ad vise th e A dm in is tr ato r an d th e 

M an ag er w ith re sp ec t th er et o. W ith th e Adv iso ry B oa rd acti ng in th is ca pa ci ty 

w ith re sp ec t to ra te s and ch ar ge s, it is un re as on ab le to co nte m pla te th a t excessive r a te s a nd cha rg es w ou ld be im po sed.

Sinc erely ,

.Tam es T. P yle. 

Deputy A dm in istra tor.

Aug ust 4,1961.

Hon . Naj ee b E. H alaby,

Adm inistrator, Federal Aviation Agency,

Wa shington , D.C.

Dear Mr. H al ab y: On th e att ach ed th re e s he et s wi ll be fo und q ue stio ns grow ­

ing ou t of th e Ju ly 19 heari ngs on th e N at io nal C ap ital Cor po ra tion bill.

You r co mmen ts on th es e que st io ns wi ll be ap pr ec ia te d.

Since re ly yo urs,

J oh n Bell Willi am s,

Chairman, Subcom mittee on Tran sportation and Aeronautics.

[S he et 1]

On th e b as is of st at em en ts m ad e in th e J uly 19 heari ng (t ra n sc ri p t pp. 99, 100, 

an d 101) wo uld it be fa ir to sa y th e FA A would ha ve no ob ject ion to th e pro ­

po sed am en dm en t to se ction 5 if subs ec tio n (3 ) (c ) of tli e AT A pr op os al is 

de le te d? T hi s re ads:

“ (3 ) (c ) Cap ac ity in ex ce ss of cu rr en t us e of th e a ir p o rt; ”

An d al so d elet e su bs ec tio n (5 ) re la ti n g to arb it ra ti on.

[S h eet 2]

ATA su gg es ted ad di ng th is se nt en ce a t en d of su bs ec tio n on pa ge 11, lin e 25 : 

“Su ch loca l sh ar e sh al l be co m pu te d on th e dep re ci at ed co st of th e air p o rt as 

of the y ear in w hich th e in te re st pay m en t is m ad e. ”

FAA st at em en t on pa ge 110 of tr a n sc ri p t in dic at es th is is ac ce pt ab le.

[S h eet 3]

A t pa ge 10, l in e 22, th e ATA su gg es te d th e follo wing am en d m en t:

S tr ik e ou t “f un d” an d in sert “f und, ex clud in g th a t po rt io n of th e ca pital of 

th e fu nd as si gn ab le to an y a ir p o rt u nder th e ju ri sd ic ti on of t he C or po ra tion w ith 

re sp ec t to which th e re ve nu es p ro du ce d from th e oper at io n of th e a ir p o rt do no t 

exceed th e cos t o f o pe ra tion an d m ain te nan ce t he re of ,” .

T he FA A st at em en t does not expla in w hy th is am en dm en t wou ld no t el im in at e 

us el es s bo ok ke ep ing, as clai m ed b y th e A TA.
NATIO NAL CAPITAL AIR PORTS 81

Augus t 4, 1961.

Ho n. Najee b E. Hala by,

F ed er al A via tion Age nc y,

W as hi ng to n, D.C.

Dear Mr. II al ab y: Sinc e m uc h of th e dis ag re em en t be tw ee n th e A ir T ra nsix>rt A ss oc ia tio n and th e F ed era l Aviatio n Ag ency in th e J u ly 19 hea ri ngs on th e 

N at io nal C ap ital A ir port s C orp ora tion hi ll seem ed to t u rn on th e pla n to tr a n sfe r 

th e ac ce ss ro ad to th e N ational P a rk Se rvice to be oper at ed as a to ll-f re e pu blic 

high w ay , co uld th e dis ag re em ent be reso lved by am en dm en ts m ak in g th e FA A 

po si tion cl ea r?

The su gg es ted am en dm en ts will be fo un d on th e att ached sh ee ts.

You r co mmen ts will be ap pr ec ia te d.

Sinc erely yo urs,

J oh n Bell Wil li am s,

M em be r o f Congress,

Cha irm an , Su bc om m itte e on T ra nsp ort ation and A er on au tic s.

[Sheet 1]

On pa ge 5, lin e 6, str ik e out “c ha rg e” and in se rt “im po se fa ir an d re as on ab le 

ch ar ges fo r th e use of th e fo re goin g: Pro vide d, ho wev er , T h a t th e aero nauti cal 

use s of an a ir p o rt oper at ed by th e Cor po ra tion sh al l not be ch ar ge d fo r ac ce ss 

ro ads no t lo ca ted on th e a ir p o rt

Pag e 5, lin e 7, str ik e o u t se ction 7 an d re nu m ber su bs eq ue nt su bs ec tio ns ac ­

co rd in gly.

Pag e 10, lin e 3, am en d section 9 (a ) (4 ) by ad di ng a t th e end th ere of th e 

fo llow in g: “An y ac ce ss ro ad no t w ith in th e bo und ar y of th e air p o rt sh al l no t 

be co ns idered as an ass et of th e air port . T h at port io n of th e fu nd whi ch is 

eq ui va le nt to th e F edera l sh are th a t wo uld ha ve been su pp lie d by th e F ed era l 

Gov ernm en t ha d th e a ir p o rt s bee n buil t an d de ve lope d in th eir enti re ty su bs equen t to th e e nac tm en t of th e Fed er al A ir port Act and und er it s pr ov isio ns by a 

lo ca l pu blic ag en cy w ith max im um F edera l gra nts -i n-a id sh al l no t be su bj ec t to 

am or tiza tion an d sh al l no t be am or tize d by th e C orp or at io n.”

[S he et 2]

Pag e 7, aft e r line 9, in sert a new se ct ion 7, as fo llo ws, re nu m be ring re m ain ­

in g se ctions of th e bil l ac co rd in gl y :

“Sec. 7. T her e is her eb y tr an sf err ed to th e N at io nal P a rk Servi ce, D ep art ­

men t of th e In te ri or, al l of th e righ t, title, an d in te re st of th e Fed er al A vi at io n 

Agency in an d to th e ac ce ss ro ad to th e ad dit io nal W as hi ng to n air port a u th o rize d by Pu blic Law 762, Eig ht y- firs t Co ng ress (64 Sta t. 770), wh ich tr a n sfe r 

th e sa id N at io nal P a rk Se rvice is he re by au th ori zed to ac ce pt. Th e N at io nal 

P ark Se rvice is her eb y auth ori ze d to pr ov id e fo r th e ope ra tion an d m ain te nan ce 

of such ro ad unde r su ch re gu la tions as it may p re sc ri b e : Pro vide d, ho wev er ,

T h at no to lls or char ges m ay be im po sed fo r th e us e of su ch ro ad .”

F ederal Aviat ion Agency,

Off ic e of th e Admini str ator, 

W as hi ng to n, D.C., A ug us t 10, 1961.

Ho n. J oh n Bell Wil lia m s,

Cha irm an . Subcom m it te e on Tra nsp ort at io n a nd Aer on au tics ,

Hou se o f R ep re se nta tive s, Was hing ton, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chair m an : The re are en clo sed our co mmen ts on a se ri es of su gge sted am en dm en ts to II.R . 7399 tr ansm it te d by you r le tt ers of Aug us t 4, 1961. 

As a p a rt of th es e co mm en ts we ha ve includ ed a prop os ed am en dm en t to section 5 which we be liev e will fu rt h er cl ari fy th e in te n t of th e le gi sl at io n w ith 

re sp ec t to de fining ra te m akin g pr in ci pl es to est ab li sh a co m pa ra bl e sit u ati o n 

be tw ee n th e N ational C ap ital air p o rt s an d oth er a ir p o rt s rece iv ing g ra n ts under 

th e Fed er al -a id a ir p o rt pr og ra m .

We will be pl ea se d to f urn is h an y ad ditio nal in fo rm at io n th a t you may re quir e 

in th is m att er.

Sinc erely,

J am es T. P yl e,

(F o r N. E. H alab y, A dm in is tr ato r. )

84 67 4— 62— pt . 2----- 2
82 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIR POR TS

Com me nts on Sugge sted Ame nd me nts to H.R. 7399 1

Su gg es ted am en dm en ts to se ction 5

On th e ba si s of s ta te m en ts m ad e in th e J uly 19 h ear in g (t ra n sc ri p t, pp. 99, 100, 

an d 101) wo uld it he fa ir t o sa y th e FA A wo uld ha ve no objec tio n to th e prop osed 

am en dm en t to secti on 5 if su bs ec tio n (3 ) (c ) of th e ATA pr op os al is de leted? 

Thi s re ad s:

“ (3 ) (c ) Cap ac ity in ex cess of c u rr en t us e o f t he a ir port 

An d also d el et e subs ec tio n (5) re la ti n g to ar bit ra tion.

Co mmen t

Se cti on 5 of th e bill as re w ri tt en in th e ATA prop os ed am en dm en t wo uld no t 

be ac ce pt ab le to FAA even w ith th e de letion of th e prop os ed su bs ec tio ns (3 ) (c) 

an d (5 ).

Th e prop os ed subsectio n (1 ) is not ac ce pt ab le sin ce it wo uld go beyo nd th e 

es ta blish m en t of land in g fees an d o th er ch ar ge s to ai rl in es which we believ e is 

th e in te n t of t h e ATA p ro po sa l.

In m an y in st an ce s it wi ll be in th e be st in te re st s of th e Gov ernm en t to ha ve 

one co nc es sion ai re fo r bo th air port s under a sing le sc he du le of pay m en ts to the 

Gov er nm en t eit her in th e fo rm of a minim um guar an te e or pe rc en ta ge of gross 

bu sine ss. Exa mpl es of th es e co nc es sion ai re s are gr ou nd tr ansp ort ati on, rent -aca r, an d fli gh t insu ra nc e. We be lie ve t h e “so un d co mmercial pra ct ic e" prov isi on 

of th e exis ting se ction 5 to get her w ith a “f a ir an d re as on ab le ” pr ov isio n wh ich 

we w ou ld n o t o bj ec t t o pr ov id e n ec es sa ry gu id an ce to m ee t th e AT A ob jec tiv e.

Su bs ec tio n (2) : A “f air an d re as ona ble " prov isi on is ac ce pt ab le if th e ph ra se 

“s ha ll no t ex ce ed ” is replac ed by a phra se such as “sha ll giv e du e re gar d to.” 

The co rp ora ti on’s ob jective is to m ak e ra te s co mpa ra ble in pr in ci pl e to thos e at 

co m pa ra bl e air p o rt s ra th er th an co m pa ra bl e in price. A ct ua l ra te s m ay ne ed to 

va ry du e to va ry in g co ns truc tion co sts an d m ai nt en an ce co sts ari si ng fro m 

such th in gs as he at in g an d ai r- co nd itio nin g needs, labo r ra te s, and th e pe rio d 

whe n fa cil it ie s were co ns truc te d.

Su bs ec tio n (3 ) is no t ac ce pt ab le a s a su bst it ute fo r th e pre se nt la ng ua ge in 

se ction 5. T he se lf-s us ta in in g pri nci ple i s st ate d in th e pr es en t bil l. The r est ri ction on our cu rr en t ex pen di tu re s not ex ce ed in g cu rr en t re ve nu es is no t re al is tic 

sin ce it is cle ar th a t in th e in it ia l de ve lo pm en ta l year of ope ra tion s a t th e new 

In te rn ati o n al A irpo rt th e corp ora ti on’s e xpe nditure s will exceed it s reve nu es.

Su bs ec tio n (3 ) (a ) is ac ce pt ab le in pri nci ple bu t is an unn ec es sa ry ad ditio n to 

secti on 5 sinc e subs ec tio n 9 (4 ) of th e pre se nt bil l st ate s th a t “* * * th e va lue of 

(he ass ets [o f th e corp ora ti on] sh al l he de te rm in ed * * * ta kin g in to co ns id er ation * * * [t h eir ] us ab le va lu e to th e a ir p o rt if cl ea rly les s th a n co st * * *.” 

[I ta li c su pp lie d. ] Furt her m or e, se ct io n 9(4 ) pr ov ides th a t th e det er m in at io n of 

th e v al ue o f ass et s sh al l be mad e on ly a fte r n ot ic e t o an d oppo rt un ity for comm ent 

from th e aer onau tica l us er s an d oth er te n an ts o f the air port .

Su bs ec tio n 3 (b ) wo uld no t be ne ed ed in view of th e follo wing am en dm en t 

which we su gg es t fo r in se rtio n in th e bil l. The am en dm en t al so refle cts ou r 

prop os ed alt ern ati v e to ad op tio n of th e am en dm en t to se ction 9 ( a ) ( 4 ) wh ich 

was su bm itte d fo r ou r comm ents.

On pa ge 2, lin e 19, de lete th e w or ds “c os ts an d in te re st on th e G ov er nm en t’s 

in ves tm en t.” an d in se rt in lie u th ere of “o per at in g co sts as we ll a s de pr ec ia tion 

an d in te re st on th a t po rtio n of th e G ov er nm en t’s in ve st m en t th a t wo uld ha ve 

been su pp lied by th e pr oj ec t sp on so r had th e air p o rt s been built in th eir en tire ty 

by a loca l pu blic agency su bs eq ue nt to th e en ac tm en t of th e F edera l A irport Act 

an d w ith max im um Fed er al gr an ts -in- ai d, ap pl yi ng th e pr in ci pl es follo wed in 

pr og ra m in g fu nds u nde r th e Fed er al A ir port Ac t duri ng th e per io d of co ns truc tion 

of a ir p o rt s u nder th e juri sd ic tion o f t h e C or po ra tion .”

Su bs ec tio n (4 ) is an un ne ce ss ar y re peti ti on o f t he A dm in is tr ato r’s re sp on sibi lities b ut w e w ou ld n ot ob jec t t o i ts r est ate m ent in th is bill.

sug ge sted a m end m en ts dea li ng w it h pa y m en t of in ter e st

Su gg es te d am en dm en t

ATA su gg es te d ad di ng th is se nt en ce a t en d of su bs ec tio n on pa ge 11, line 5: 

“S uc h lo ca l sh are sh al l be co mpu ted on th e de pr ec ia te d co st of th e a ir p o rt as 

of the y ear in w hich th e in te re st pay m en t is m ad e.”

FAA statem ent on page 110 of tran script indicates this is acceptable.

1

 See le tt er s of Aug. 4, 1961.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 83

Commenf

This suggested amendment is not acceptable to the Agency. The testimony referred to on page 110 of the tra nscript was not intended to indicate acceptance of the amendment as it was presented. Rather, the testimony was intended to point out th at the bill provided a mechanism for reducing intere st payments on wh at is believed to be a more desirable principle tha n th at suggested by the above amendment and one th at would more fully protect the investme nt of the 

Fed eral Government. The suggested am endm ent would elimin ate the value of the annual depreciation from the interest-be arin g investment each year whether or not the payments were made to the Tre asury. As our testimony pointed out, und er the provisions of the bill, paym ents from the Corporation fund to the Tre asu ry will reduce intere st payments by reducing the Federal investme nt in the Corporation. This will occur as soon as Corporation receipts reach the p oint of exceeding expendi­ tur e requirements. This cond ition is anticip ated within 3 to 4 years after the opening of the Intern ati onal Airport. It is the Agency’s intention a t that tim e to reduce advances to the Corp oration fund except for a reasonab le level of work­ ing capital, and thus reduce the interest-bearing investme nt of the Government on an orderly and businesslike basis. We do not believe th at the suggested 

amendment is in accordance with these principles.

Suggested amendment

At page 10, line 22. the ATA suggested the following am endm ent: Strike out “fun d” and inse rt “fund, excluding that portion of the capital of the fun d assignable to any ai rp or t under the jurisd iction of the Corporation with respect to which the revenues produced from the operation of the air po rt do 

not exceed the cost of operation and main tena nce thereof,”. The FAA sta tem ent does not explain why this amendment would not elim inate 

useless bookkeeping, as claim ed by the ATA.

Comment

This suggested amendment would auto matica lly waive intere st payments for the c apital value of an airp or t not operating at a profit in any given year. The ATA has described the app ropriat ion of funds for payment of intere st to the Tre asu ry as a “useless transa ction.” H.R. 7399, in subsection 9(b), provides for the Congress to waive appropriations for int ere st as well as for the accrual of intere st at any time it so desires. We believe this is preferab le to an auto­ matic waiver as contemplated by this amendment. A more imp ortant objection to this amendment, however, is its relation to th at period of the Corporation’s operations when receipts would cover int ere st paymen ts even though they may not completely cover all costs of operation and main tenance, including deprecia­ tion. Furth er, durin g a period when it is anticipated th at the Corporation’s revenues will exceed its expenditure requ irements, one airport may still be ac­ cruing an operationa l loss. As we interpret the suggested amendment, inter est payments would be excluded for th at airport regardless of the total cash posi­ tion of the Corporation. For several yea rs we anticipate that the tota l Corpo­ ration position will be solvent on an exp end iture basis even though the new Int ern ational Airport will be op erating on a deficit basis. The suggested amend­ ment would preclude p aym ent of inte res t on the Intern ational Airport investment during this entire period even though our projections would indicate the total cash position of the Corporation would enable it to meet intere st payments for both airports. We do not believe th at this would represe nt either sound business principles or a proper protection of the Government’s interes t.

SUGG ESTED A M EN D M EN TS CONC ER NI NG TR ANSF ER OF T H E AC CE SS ROAD 

Current status of negotiations

Ju st prior to appealing before the Subcommittee on Transpo rtation and Aeronautics, the Federal Aviation Agency reached agreement in principle with the Secretary of the Int erior concerning tra ns fer of the access road to the National Pa rk Service. This tra ns fer would remove the road from the ass ets of the National Capital Airports Corporation and would elim inate a significant investment from the books of the Corporation. While we app arently left the subcommittee with the und erstanding th at all aspe cts of the tra ns fer arrang e­ ments had been determined and agreed upon, the re is still much to be done in this regard concerning the conditions and timing of such a tran sfe r. In add ition, it appears desirable th at some parts of the road not having limited access
S 4 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIR POR TS

fe atu re s an d no t being co nst ru cte d fu lly to pa rk w ay st an d ard s mig ht bett er be 

tr an sfe rr ed to th e Sta te of V irgi ni a.

It is in th e li ght of th es e conditio ns th at our co mmen ts on th re e am en dm en ts 

su gg es ted fo r so lutio n of th e ac ce ss ro ad prob lem are phra se d :

Su gg es te d am en dm en t

On pa ge 5. lin e 6, st ri ke ou t “c harg e” an d in se rt “im po se fa ir an d reas on ab le 

ch ar ge s fo r th e use of th e fo re goin g: Pr ov ided , ho wev er , T h a t th e ae ro na utica l 

us es of an air p o rt op er at ed by th e C or po ra tion sh al l not be ch ar ged fo r access 

ro ad s no t loca ted on th e a ir p o rt

Pag e 5, lin e 7, st ri k e out se ct io n 7 an d re nu m be r su bs eq ue nt su bs ec tio ns 

ac co rd in gly.

Com men t

We do not belie ve th at th e am en dm en t is ne ce ss ar y to th e so lu tio n of the 

prob lem co nc erni ng th e acce ss ro ad to th e In te rn ati o n al A irport . The Agency 

is on re co rd as favo ring th e tr a n sfe r an d as in di ca te d above , th e D ep ar tm en t of 

In te ri o r ha s acce pted th is in pri nci ple su bj ec t to ou r m ee ting ac ce pt ab le st andard s of cons tr uc ting th e ro ad w hi ch we are pre pa re d to do. Su bs ec tio n 6(7 ) of 

H.R. 7399 pr ov id es f ul l au th o ri ty to m ak e th e tr an sf er. In ad ditio n, th e am en dmen t as w ri tt en above wo uld eli m in ate al l oth er ac ce ss ro ad s bo th fo r th e 

In te rn ati onal Airpo rt, an d th e W as hi ng to n N at io na l A irport not on th e air p o rt 

pr op er . T hi s is no t a de si ra bl e fe a tu re sin ce ac ce ss ro ad s un d er no rm al circ um ­

st an ce s a re re ga rd ed as a nec es sa ry a ir p o rt im pr ov em en t ev en to th e ex te nt of 

part ic ip ati on in th e Fed er al -a id a ir p o rt pr og ra m fo r ro ad s ow ne d by an air port 

fr om it to th e nea re st high w ay . F o r th es e re as ons we wou ld oppos e th is 

am en dm en t.

Su gg es te d am en dm en t

Pag e 7. a ft e r lin e 9, in se rt a new’ section 7, as fol low s, re num be ri ng rem aini ng 

se ct io ns of th e b ill ac co rd in gl y:

“S ec. 7. Ther e is he reby tr a n sfe rre d to th e N at io na l P ark Se rvice. D ep ar tm en t 

of th e In te ri o r, all of t he ri ght, ti tl e, an d in te re st of t he Fed era l Aviatio n Agency 

in and to th e access ro ad to th e ad dit io nal W as hi ng to n A ir port au th or iz ed by 

Pu blic Law 762, Eig ht y- firs t Con gr es s (64 S ta t. 77 0), which tr a n sfe r th e sa id 

N at io na l P ark Se rvice is he re by a uth ori zed to accept. The N at io nal P ark Se rvi ce 

is he re by au th orize d to pr ov id e fo r th e op er at io n an d m ain te nan ce of such ro ad 

und er su ch re gu la tion s as it m ay pre sc ri be: Pro vide d, ho wev er , T h at no to lls or 

ch ar ges m ay be impo sed fo r th e use of such ro ad .”

Com men t

Th e Ag ency ca nn ot ag re e to th is am en dm en t. The pre se nt subs ec tio n 6(7 ) 

is ad equate to acco mplish th e tr a n sfe r of t he a cc ess ro ad . F u rt h e r, th e propo sed 

am endm ent, wo uld tr an sfe r th e e n ti re ro ad to th e N at io nal P a rk Se rvice an d as 

in dic at ed ab ov e it m ay be desi ra ble to n eg ot ia te a t ra n sfe r of p ort io ns of t he roa d 

to th e S ta te of Virg in ia. Bec au se of th e pre se nt sta te of neg ot ia tion s, as pre ­

viou sly disc us se d, th e Ag ency w ou ld p re fe r th e flex ib ility as to w ho m th e ro ad is 

tr a n sfe rr e d an d th e tim e a t w hi ch it is tr an sf err ed as co nta in ed in su bs ec tio n 

6(7 ) of H.R. 7399 to th e co nd itio ns co nt ai ne d in th e pr ov isio ns of th e su gg ested 

new se ct io n 7.

Su gg es te d am en dm en t

Pag e 10. line 3, am en d se ct io n 9 ( a ) ( 4 ) by ad di ng a t th e en d th er eo f th e fo llo w in g: “A ny ac ce ss ro ad not w it h in th e bo un da ry of th e a ir p o rt sh all no t be 

co ns id er ed a s an a ss et to th e a ir p o rt . T h at p or tion o f t he fu nd w’hic h is eq uiva lent 

to th e F edera l sh ar e th a t wou ld hav e been su pp lie d by th e F edera l Go ve rnmen t 

ha d th e a ir p o rt s bee n buil t an d de ve lope d in th eir enti re ty su bs eq ue nt to th e 

en ac tm en t of th e Fed er al A ir port A ct an d und er it s pr ov isio ns by a local pu blic 

ag en cy w it h max im um F edera l gra nts -i n-a id sh all not be su bj ec t to am ortiz at io n 

an d sh all no t be am or tize d by th e co rp ora tion .”

Com men t

The firs t se nten ce of th is am en dm en t is ob je ct ed to fo r th e same reas on s 

pr ev io us ly men tio ne d fo r a si m il ar pr ov isions on th e acce ss ro ad . The sec ond 

se nt en ce will be un ne ce ss ar y if th e su bc om m itte e ac ce pt s a prop os ed am en dm en t 

to se ct io n 5 c on tain ed elsew’h er e in th ese co mm ents. The re fo re , we do no t believe 

th is p a rt ic u la r am en dm en t is eit h er ne ce ss ar y or de sira ble.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

F edera l Avi at io n Agency

Offic e of t h e A d m in is t e r

Washington, D.C., May

lion. J oh n Bel l W il l ia m s .

Chairman, Subcommitte e on Tran sportation and Aeronautics,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Cha ir man : I re fe r to yo ur l ett er of M ay 3, 1962, re ques ting m y view s 

on t he am en dm en t to H .R . 7399. prop osed by Mr. B ro yh ill in tes tim on y be fore your 

co m m ittee on May 2.

Mr . Broyliil l wo uld am en d se ction 6(7 ) of th a t act by ad din g th e fo llow in g: 

“N o te rm or co nd itio n of an y su ch tr ansf er, an d no re gula tion go ve rn in g th e 

op er at io n an d m ai nte nan ce o f th e access ro ad so tr an sf err ed , sh al l pre ven t th e 

fu tu re co ns truct io n of ad d it io n al high way lane s para ll el to su ch acce ss ro ad , on 

la nd includ ed w ithin th e righ t-of -w ay ac qu ir ed fo r su ch acce ss road , to m ee t 

lo ca l tra ffic ne ed s.”

W hi le th ere do es no t ap p ear to be an yth in g o bj ec tion ab le to th is A gen cy in Mr . 

B ro yhil l’s am en dm en t, th e bri ef tim e avai la ble to us has pr ev en te d co or di na tion 

of th is vie w w ithin th e ex ec utive br an ch .

Sincerely,

N. E. H ala by, A d m in is tr a to r.

F ederal A via ti on Agen cy ,

Wash ington, D.C., Mag 8 1962.

Hon. J ohn Bel l W il l ia m s .

Chairman, Subcom mittee on Transportation and Aeronautics,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear .Mr. W il l ia m s : Due to Mr. Il ala b y ’s ab senc e. I am fu rn is hin g th e in fo rm at io n you re qu es te d in your le tt er of May 3. 1962, re gard in g cer ta in oper at io ns 

a t W as hing ton N at io na l A irpo rt. The gr ou nd tr an sp o rt ati o n co ntr ac t fo r W as hington Natio na l A irport an d Dulles In te rn ati onal A ir port ex pi re s 5 years a ft e r 

th e op en ing d ate of D ul les. Thi s co ntr act w as aw ar ded on th e ba sis of c om pe titive bi dd ing an d we an ti cip ate th at th e sa m e pro ce du re will be follo we d whe n 

th e pr es en t contr act ex pi re s.

W ith re sp ec t to your oth er qu es tion s ab ou t co nc essio n policy, we a re c u rre ntl y au th ori ze d to co ns um m at e co nc essio n ag re em en ts th ro ug h th e so lici ta tion 

of fo rm al bids , pub licl y so lic ite d in vit ati ons fo r pr op os als, neg ot ia tion w ith 

pr os pe ctive co nc es si on ai re s, or an y appro pri ate co m bi na tion of th es e m et ho ds .

Most co nc es sion ai re le as es are th e re su lt of w ri tt en pr op os als or neg otiat ed 

ag re em en ts. It is th e ge ne ra l policy th a t su ch ne go tiat io n is pr ec ed ed by so lici ­

ta tion of p ro po sa ls fr om a re pre se nta tive nu m be r of thos e ca pa bl e of per fo rm in g 

th e servi ce. T his co nc es sion po lic y has b een su cc es sful ly follow ed a t W as hin gto n 

N at io na l A irpo rt and sh ou ld be co nt in ue d a t D ul le s In te rn ati onal A irpo rt.

Many co ntr acts a re de sig ne d pri m ari ly to fu rn is h a re qu ired se rv ic e to th e 

pa ss en ge rs an d oth er use rs of th e air port s. Pro m pt, efficie nt, an d quali ty opera ­

tion s an d re as on ab le ra te s are im port ant co nsi der at io ns in th es e ag re em en ts .

Co ncessio ns pr ovid e a va lu ab le so ur ce of inco me to an air port . The y se rv e 

du al pu rp os e of pro vid in g a pro duc t or se rv ic e de si re d by th e pa ss en ge rs , em ­

plo yee s, an d vis itors , in ad di tion to su ch reve nu e.

A fle xib le po lic y has bee n follo wed in aw ard in g co ncessio n contr ac ts . The 

aim ha s been to m ak e th e be st po ss ible bu si ne ss ar ra ngem en ts , ke ep in g in min d 

th e nee d of th e a ir p o rt fo r reve nu e, and th e in te re st s of th e pu bl ic us in g th e 

ai rp ort . Thu s, co nc essio n contr acts ha ve not al w ay s been aw ard ed so le ly in 

te rm s of re ce iv in g th e hig he st m on et ar y re tu rn . In ad di tion , th e air p o rt has 

en de av or ed to obta in re as on ab le co nc es si on ai re s wh o wo uld fu rn is h goo d se rv ic e 

a t fa ir pr ic es to th e public.

Aviatio n fu el fo r th e ai rl in es is n eit h er bought nor sold on th e W as hin gto n 

N at io na l A irpo rt . Eac h carr ie r purc has es th e fu el off th e a ir p o rt fr om th e 

su pp lier of hi s ch oice . Man y of th es e air li n es have system wide co ntr acts . Th e 

fu el st ora ge an d dis tr ib uti on is le as ed un d er an ag re em en t be tw ee n th e air li nes, 

a se rv icin g ag en t, and th e Gov ernm en t.

A irline fu el -s er vi ci ng no rm al ly is not co ns id er ed a concessio n an d its han dling 

var ie s co nsi de ra bl y from a ir p o rt to air p o rt . The ch arge , of co ur se , var ie s 

gre at ly de pe nd in g on w het her th e air li n e or th e air p o rt fu rn is hes th e fa cil it ie s 

and th e siz e an d cost o f such fa ci lities .
86 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

At Washington National Airpo rt revenue from the fueling system is considered as a part of the total landing are a revenue, and is based generally on 

cost recovery under the overall non-profitmaking concept of the landing area .

Available inform ation for Newark, O’Hare, and Los Angeles would indic ate 

that these airpor ts also do not consider the ir ai r carri er fueling facilities as a 

profitmaking enterprise but as a cost recovery.

Sincerely,

G. Ward Hobbs, Director,

Bureau of National Capital Airports.

Mr. Williams. I have a l etter also for insertion in the record from 

Senator Beall of Maryland.

(The letter referred to follo ws:)

U.S. Senate,

Committee on the District of Columbia,

April 27, 1962.

Hon. J ohn Bell William s,

Chairman, Transportation and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Intersta te and Foreign

Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : I reg ret th at my schedule prevents me from appearing

personally before your subcommittee with respe ct to legislation to create a 

separate airp ort board to ope rate W ashington National and Dulles International 

Airports. I do, however, wa nt to express my full support of H.R. 10471, one of 

the subject bills pending before your subcommittee. As the sponsor of S. 2969 

which is identical to H.R. 10471, I am indeed pleased th at you have scheduled 

hea ring s on this subject.

H.R. 10471 would tra nsfer the responsibility for the operatio n of Washington

National Airp ort and Dulles Inter natio nal Airp ort from the Federal Aviation 

Agency to a Washington Air ports Board. This bill would thu s remove the Federa l Aviation Agency from its dual role as both ope rato r and regulator of the 

Washington airports. The esta blishment of a Washington Airp orts Board is 

essential if we are to guara nte e a free competitive atmosph ere for all of the 

air po rts in the area.

Ea rlier this year, officials of the Federal Aviation Agency and the Civil

Aeronau tics Board announced th at upon completion of Dulles Internatio nal 

Airport, all jet service for Washington would be diverted from Frie ndship Int er ­

national Airport to Dulles. Since 1959, Friendship has served Washington area 

jet traffic efficiently and effectively. Yet this traffic is now to be diverted by 

Fed eral edict, for no reason other th at th at Dulles is to be considered the a irport 

of the N ation’s Capital. So long as Dulles and Washington Natio nal are administered by the Federal Aviation Agency, service to are a residents and preference 

of the a irlines will no longer be fac tors in determining the development of commercial aviation in the m etropolitan area.

At present, Friendsh ip offers more convenient service to residen t of Montgomery and Prince Georges C ounty as well as those i>eople living in the western 

half of the District of Columbia. These people deserve the rig ht to choose the 

airport facility which best serve s the ir needs. I do n ot suggest th at Friendship 

be given a preference. At the same time, I cann ot condone preferential trea tment for Dulles.

The establish ment of a Washin gton Airports Board, independ ent of the Federal Aviation Agency, will insure equitable treatm ent for all air ports serving the 

Nation’s capital.

I urge your favorable consideration of H.R. 10471 and would appreciate it if 

you would make this let ter a pa rt of the record.

Sincerely yours,

J. Glenn Beall.

Mr. Williams. Our first witness this morning will be our colleague 

from Virginia, Congressman Broyhill.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 87

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIR GIN IA

Mr. Broyiiill. Tha nk you, Mr. Chairman, for this privilege of testifying before the committee.

I have a prepared statement and I realize that the committee has 

several witnesses to hear this morning. So if it is all right with the 

committee, I should like to submit these statements for the record and 

just touch briefly-----

Mr. Williams. It will be received.

Mr. Broyiiill (continuing). On the part of the legislation in which 

I am interested.

I might say in general, Mr. Chairman, that I have no objection to 

the main objective and purpose of the legislation. In fact, I think th at 

there might be some very substantial benefits in establishing a Federal 

Corporation to manage and operate the Washington National A irport 

and the Chantilly Airp ort.

Incidentally, I say Chantilly Airp ort rather purposely because I 

had proposed originally th at we name that airport the Chantilly In ternational Airpor t and we had legislation pending before this committee, and the previous administration asked us to hold up that legislation for further consideration and in the meantime by administrative 

or executive action they named it the Dulles A irport, and as far as I 

am concerned, it will always be known as the Chantilly A irport.

I hope that something can be done to officially name it the C hantilly 

or Washington International Airport, Chantilly, Va., because the people in th at area would like to have some national as well as international recognition of their particu lar area.

Mr. Chairman, the primary thing that I am concerned about in this 

legislation is on page 5, section 7, beginning at line 7 concerning the 

transfer of the access road running from the International Airport to 

the circumferential highway. In the original authorizing legislation, Public Law 762, 81st Congress, it provided therein to transf er 

the access road when completed to the District government if the airport were located in the District of Columbia or to the State government if it were located outside of the District of Columbia.

The access road lies entirely within my congressional district, entirely within F airfax County, and while we recognize th at the access 

road was necessary in order to make proper access from Washington to 

the airport which is around 30 miles from the District of Columbia, we 

also must recognize that it imposed quite a hardship on the people in 

the area because i t did split the community in half. It did cause the 

confiscation of a lot of properties. It split farms in half, neighborhoods in half, ran through people’s backyards. So it was quite a hardship and quite an imposition.

But yet we recognized in the community that the access road was 

necessary if the airport itself was going to function to its full use. 

We felt, however, that in a spirit of cooperation between the F ederal 

Aviation Administration and the community, particula rly in view of
88 NATIONA L CAPITAL AIRPORTS

the fact that the construction of the airport would cause quite an impact on the community, because of a great deal of additional growth 

in a community that was already suffering the hardship of abnormal 

growth, we felt that there should be something worked out for joint 

use of that access road, but the Federal Aviation Agency did not 

agree. They felt it had to be limited access and it was so constructed 

to prevent any commuter traffic from using it whatsoever. The only 

way of gettin g on the access road is in a one-way direction headed 

toward the airport or to get off the access road if you are coming 

from the airport.

There is no way in which commuter traffic can use that access road 

to go to and from Washington unless they go out to the airport and 

start from there.

However, the previous Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

Agency recognized that there was a problem involved there, that there 

was justification for some cooperation between the Federal Agency 

and the local community, and so in acquiring the right-of-way for 

the access road, they purposely acquired an additional amount, a 400- 

foot right-of-way. In fact, in the testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, General Quesada, the former Administrator 

of the Federal Aviation Agency, said in conclusion in talking about 

Ibis access road right-of-way, referring to the fact tha t it had to be 

a limited-access road:

Thi s po lic y is es se nt ia l to pre vent th e ac ce ss ro ad from be co ming sa tu ra te d 

w ith tra ffi c be tw ee n loc al co m m un itie s an d th e D is tr ic t of Co lumbia, a co nd ition 

wh ich wou ld def ea t th e pu rp os e of pro vi di ng su ch a hi gh w ay who lly a t Fed er al 

ex pe ns e. Su fficie nt la nd is be ing acq uir ed to per m it th e fu tu re co ns tr uct io n of 

addit io nal la nes par al le l to th e a ir p o rt a cc ess ro ad .

Now several communities out there, several community groups, have 

been asking for interchanges so that commuters could use the access 

road, and the Federal Aviation Agency, in refusing their request, 

pointed out that they would be providing the additional right-of-way 

so tha t when the additional impact was suffered by the community, 

the State highway department or any local highway agency could 

use that right-of-way to build additional commuter roadways in order 

to absorb the saturation. So that was understood to be an agreement 

between the communities and the Federal Aviation Agency. Although 

it wasn’t in any bound contract, it was understood to be a compromise wherein the Federal Government—recognizing that a problem 

was being created there in the communities—that they would provide 

some help in relieving the communities from that problem by providing additional right-of-way than what would otherwise have been 

necessary.

Last summer, in our continuing efforts to get interchanges provided. 

Senator Humphrey, of Minnesota, came into the picture. He communicated with Mr. Halaby, the present Administrator, and in the 

reply to Senator Humphrey's request to provide a full and complete 

interchange at Herndon so the people in the town of Herndon could 

use the access road for commuting, Mr. Halaby turne d down that 

request and stated the same reasons in general tha t his predecessor
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPOR TS 89

had stated, tha t it was to l>e a limited-access road wholly for the use 

of the airport. He said in par t:

If th er e is a w ay to ass u re fa st , sa fe tr av el be tw ee n th e ci ty an d air p o rt , an d 

a t th e same tim e m ak e it us ef ul to re si dents an d fu tu re re si dents of th e are a, I 

wo uld be ha pp y to c onsi der it.

And then he said fu rthe r:

It w as w ith th is co nc ep t in mind th a t we ac qu ired en ou gh rig ht-o f-way ori gin al ly 

to per m it const ru cti on of a loc al tra ffi c ro ad w ay in ad di tion to th e air p o rt 

ex pr es s high way . I t m ay be po ssible fo r FA A to m ak e th is la nd av ai la ble to 

th e S ta te of V irgi ni a so th e S ta te could m ee t th e loc al tra ffi c needs of i ts ci tize ns 

in th e are a. Thi s wou ld re quir e fu rth e r pla nni ng and co ns truc tion fo r whi ch 

th e FA A ha s no mon ey, b u t I can ass ure yo u we wou ld cooi>erate to th e fu ll est 

exte nt in e xp lo ring t h is po ss ibili ty .

Now, the objection we have to this legislation is tha t it authorizes 

the transfer of the access road and its right-of-way to another Federal 

agency. That is the result of the amendment to the original act.

Xow, on the surface there is no real objection to that except it has 

been announced tha t it is proposed to tran sfer this right-of-way, if 

this legislation is enacted as written, to the Department of the Interior 

in order for the access road to be maintained and operated by the 

National Park Service.

The National Pa rk Service is a very fine organization. They do a 

splendid job in preserving our parks and parkways throughout the 

Nation. Mr. Conrad Wirth, the Director of the National Park Service, is a very capable and well-qualified man. But they are primarily 

interested, Mr. Chairman, in preserving the beauty and esthetics of 

parkways. They are not interested in moving commuter traffic.

Now, Mr. Chairm an, you have been a member of the House Com ­

mittee on the District of Columbia and we had a problem with the 

location of the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge. The Park Service continually objected to what actually would be the construction of tha t 

bridge. They didn't want the beauty or the esthetics of the Memorial 

area marred. We were several years delayed in commencing construction of that bridge because they wanted a tunnel constructed 

under the river at that point.

We have many, many examples of how highway and roadway construction has been delayed here by the Park Service because they 

are not interested in serving commuters in this area or moving traffic. 

They are merely interested in, as I said before, the beauty of the area 

and scenic highways.

We are having a problem right now on the proposed construction 

of the Three Sisters Bridge which would connect the George W ashington Memorial Parkway. This highway goes up to the Central 

Intelligence Agency in Langley, and incidentally, it is going to be one 

of the main routes to this airpo rt for the next few years because Route 

66 which connects with this access road will not be completed for 

several years.

Xow, that road was constructed primarily to move traffic up to the 

(TA Building and yet the Park Service which has jurisdiction over 

that roadway prohibits any connection of the Three Sisters Bridge 

to that parkway because they do not want additional roadways con-
90 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

structed. They do not intend to have any furthe r construction on tha t 

right-of-way. They want to preserve it for the scenic beauty.

I think that is incompatible with the reason this access road was 

originally authorized and constructed. It is there primarily for movement of traffic. Tha t additional access right-of-way was acquired 

solely for the purpose of futu re construction for traffic as the growth 

of the area required additional traffic facilities.

So if the committee or the Congress approves this legislation authorizing the transfer of this airport access road, I plead with the committee to put some restriction, some language in there that will p rotect the communities and provide for future construction of additional traffic facilities on tha t right-of-way. It would not injure the 

flow of traffic whatsoever between Washington and the airport. On 

the contrary, as the community grows and that access road becomes 

saturated, you will find commuters driving out to the airport in order 

to get on the access road.

I think it would be in the interests of the Federal Government as 

well as fulfilling their moral obligation and commitment to the communities to assure when this property is transferred, whenever the 

State of Virginia will come in there and use or be willing to use th at 

additional right-of-way to construct additional roadway, that the 

property will be made available.

I have an amendment here that will p retty much do that. I am not 

trying to dictate or insist on any particular language, but the language 

I have proposed I wish the committee to consider adding at the end 

of tha t paragraph I have been discussing and would include the following:

No te rm or co nd iti on of an y su ch tr ansf er, an d no re gula tion go ve rning th e 

oper at io n an d m ai nt en an ce of th e acce ss ro ad so tr ansf err ed, sh al l pr ev en t th e 

fu tu re co ns truc tion of ad dit io nal high w ay la ne s para ll el to su ch ac ce ss ro ad , on 

la nd in cl ud ed w ith in th e righ t-of -w ay ac qu ired fo r su ch ac ce ss road , to mee t 

loca l tra ffi c needs .

Xow, in fact, this amendment does exactly what it says. The P ark 

Service or any other Federal agency th at takes over tha t access road 

would clearly be on notice tha t whenever a State agency needs that 

additional right-of-way, that additional vacant land to construct traffic 

facilities for local needs, it would be made available to them. Tha t is 

what I am asking of the committee, Mr. Chairman, just the protection 

for (he community and a way in which the Federal Government can 

be required to live up to its agreement and its commitment heretofore 

made with the community.

Mr. Williams. Do I understand, Mr. Broyhill, that you are not 

objecting to the limited access high-speed throughway tha t the Federal Aviation Agency is bu ilding between Washington and Chantilly 

which permits automobiles or traffic to get on this roadway going west, 

but requires that before they get off it they have to go all the way to 

the airport and you can’t gel on it coming back to Washington ? You 

are not objecting to that, as I understand-----

Mr. Broyhill. Well, I am objecting, Mr. Chairman-----

Mr. Williams. Excepting conditionally on the proposition tha t 

some of this right-of-way would be made available to the State of 

Virginia to build roads to serve their local traffic or the ir commuter 

traffic ?
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 91

Mr. Broyhill. Well, tha t is essentially correct, Mr. Chairman. I have protested the prohibition of the use and yet we recognize that we were unable to get commuter use of the access road and recognize that the FAA had some good reasons for prohibiting the use of the access roads for commuter traffic. And we took that right-of-way as merely a compromise between what we had asked for and getting nothing at all. If this access is transferred to the Park Service, it will result in 

our getting nothing at all.

Mr. Williams. I see what you mean.

Mr. Friedel?

Mr. Friedel. Mr. Chairman, I can understand what Mr. Broyhill 

is trying to do but I am really surprised that in the statement you just made you say it will have quite an impact on the people in the com­ munities near the Dulles Airport. You must have known th at when you fought so hard for getting Chantilly Airpor t out there. Why 

didn’t you take that into consideration then ?

Mr. Broyhill. Mr. Friedel, tha t is a very good question, and if I can 

.refresh your memory just a little bit here, you may recall tha t the gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Virginia were on the same side for a while because they had proposed tha t this 

airp ort be constructed out at Burke, Va.

Mr. Friedel. I was never for Burke, either.

Mr. Broyhill. I wasn’t, either, and I opposed it at Burke because 

of the impact on the communities, the harassment, nuisance, noise, and I would have much preferred to see the airport located not in Virginia but rath er tha t Friendship be used. The location at Chantilly was a compromise in order to have as little impact as possible on the 

communities.

Mr. F riedel. Compromise with whom?

Mr. Broyhill. I would say possibly with the communities and with 

the FAA officials. I think they recognized themselves in due course that Burke itself was not the proper location for the airport. May I say I didn’t ask for the airport. The airport was put out there not because the people in Virginia asked for it but because the Congress asked for it and people in the Nation’s capital asked for it, and it was built there solely for the convenience of the Federal Gov­ ernment and people in Washington, not for the people in Virginia, and T would not have been disappointed if the airpo rt had not been located 

in Virginia to s tart with.

Mr. Friedel. How far is it from W ashington?

Mr. Broyhill. Approximately 30 miles.

Mr. Friedel. How far is Friendship from Washington? Do you 

know the distance of Friendship from Washington ?

Mr. Broyhill. The gentleman knows. I don’t know.

Mr. Friedel. About 31 miles; 31 or 32.

T argued on the floor against the bill for Chantilly, Burke, and any other airport because it was wasting money. I think at tha t time they asked for $14 million and right now they have spent over $105 million, not counting the access road, not counting the sewerage. It is a white elephant and should never have been built, and I am not in accord with it in any way, shape, or form. So you fought for it, you voted f or it, I voted against it. You knew tha t there would be problems there be­ cause when we are building an a irport, there is going to be noise, they
92 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

are going to have to have highspeed roads, etc. I thin k if you go back 

to your letters where General Quesada and even Mr. Halaby of the 

FAA said that they needed this high-speed road, but they cannot let 

these people use it for local communities. If they are willing to build 

another road and give you the land, Virginia ought to take some 

responsibility and not put i t all on the Government because Maryland, 

as well as the other 49 States, is contributing the ir share in paying for 

this white elephant and it is going to be probably $200 million before 

it is completed.

Mr. Broyhill. If I may add, Mr. Chairman, to the statement of 

Mr. Friedel, if I understood your statement correctly, that is the point 

I am tryin g to make, tha t we recognize tha t we cannot get use of the 

access road for our communities. We are merely tryin g to assure that 

we can use the additional right-of-way to build our own roadways in 

the future to take care of future growth.

And I might, at the risk of being too repetitious, say again to the 

gentleman that when th is was originally proposed, I did not ask for 

the airport, nor did the people in Virginia ask for the airpo rt. It was 

put over there against the wishes, against the request of the people of 

Virginia for the convenience of the Federal Government, but yet once 

it was there, we realized we had to live with it and we had to make 

the best of it, and th at is what we are trying to do here this morning. 

I hope it will be beneficial fo r the communities and it probably will be 

in the long run.

Mr. F riedel. I have a lot more questions but I won’t ask them now.

Mr. Devine?

Mr. Devine. Mr. Chairm an, I think we are kind of begging the 

question now as to whether this is a white elephant. I know my 

colleague from Maryland has consistently promoted Friendship Air ­

port and I can understand th at. It is in the area which he represents. 

Chantilly is here. We have expended or are about to expend $100 

million. The structure righ t outside the window is another $100 million expenditure authorized in 1955 which has been subject to a great 

deal of question, but our only issue here today is in connection with 

the access road and whether or not the people in the surrounding 

communities should have access or have a parallel road. Is tha t not 

right ?

Mr. Broyhill. Mr. Devine, 1 might say, just using the additional 

right-of-way for construction of a new road. I am not optimistic 

enough to think I could get the committee to force the FAA to let us 

use the access road itself. I am not asking for that this morning. 

1 would like to have it but T merely want the additional right-of-way 

to be used in the future for construction of additional roadways when 

needed. That is all I am asking.

Mr. Devine. Do you have any estimate or any figures whatsoever 

relative to the increase in population, what the total impact will be in 

the Chantilly area as a result of the facility that is now established 

there ?

Mr. Broyhill. Xo, I do not. The area was growing even before 

the airport got there.

Mr. Devine. You would agree that most of the impact on the 

facility itself can be handled by the limited access road that is under 

construction now.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIR POR TS 93

Air. Broyhill. That is correct.

Air. Devine. All right. Now, the people that live in C hantilly and 

surrounding areas have had ingress and egress to the District by other 

means.

Air. Broyhill. That is correct.

Air. Devine. That hasn’t changed; has it?

Air. Broyhill. No.

Air. Devine. Other than the fact that this may have provided some 

of the communities.

Air. Broyhill. Tha t is correct.

Air. Devine. I believe that is all.

Air. AVilliams. Thank you, Air. Broyhill.

(The prepared statement of Air. Broyhill is as follows:)

Sta tem en t of H on. .Joel T. Br o y h il l, a R ep res en ta ti ve in Con gr es s F rom

t h e Sta te of Vir g in ia

F ir st , Mr. Cha irm an , I w ish to th an k you fo r your co nsi der at io n an d th oughtfu ln es s in giv ing me th e opport unit y to te st if y on H.R . 7399, and te ll yo u of th e 

vie ws o f re si de nt s of the a ffec ted ar ea .

As y ou know , Mr. C hai rm an , th e D ulles In te rn ati o n al A ir port a nd th e so-call ed 

ac ce ss ro ad co nn ec tin g it w ith W as hi ng ton, D.C., lie enti re ly w ithin V irgin ia ’s 

10 th Con gr es sion al D is tr ic t w hi ch I ha ve th e ho no r of re pre se nting in th e Ho use. 

It is th e ac ce ss ro ad w ith which we now are p art ic u la rl y co nc erne d.

Brie fly , th e acce ss ro ad w as in te nde d to be a high -spe ed ro ute fo r m ot or vehicles tr av el in g be tw ee n W as hin gt on an d th e air port . W he n th e id ea of su ch 

a ro ad w as fi rs t be ing di sc us se d, re si den ts of th e a re a th ro ugh which it is be ing 

bu ilt, ur ge d th a t in te rc han ges be prov ided to perm it th em to us e th e ro ad , too, 

fo r tr avel to an d from W as hin gt on.

The th en A dm in is tr ato r of th e Fed er al Avi atio n Agenc y, Ge n. E. R. Que sa da , 

st ro ngly re si st ed al l su ch re ques ts . He he ld th a t th e so le pu rp os e of bu ildi ng 

th e ro ad e nt ir el y at Fed er al ex pen se w as t o pr ov id e a high -spe ed free w ay b etw ee n 

th e a ir p o rt an d W ash in gto n; th a t to open it up to loca l tra ffi c wo uld re su lt in 

ov er lo ad in g th e ro ad w ith a ty pe of traffic fo r which it w as no t in te n d ed ; an d 

th a t th is no t only wou ld c re ate sa fe ty prob lems, but it wou ld less en th e a ir p o rt ’s 

att ra cti v en ess to a ir tr av ele rs to an d fr om th e C ap it al by in cr ea si ng th e tim e 

ne ed ed fo r th e 30-mile tr ip fr om th e a ir p o rt to W as hi ng to n.

G en eral Que sada , ho wev er, w as thor ou gh ly sy m pat het ic to th e re qu es ts. He 

re al iz ed th e ne ed of th e a re a 's re si de nts fo r bett er traf fic co nn ec tio ns w ith 

W as hi ng to n. He re al iz ed th e need fo r m ain ta in in g am on g th os e re si dents a 

sy m pat het ic an d unders ta n d in g att it u d e to w ar d co nst ru ct io n of a no isy an d in 

m an y way s bo th er so m e a ir p o rt ju st a sh ort dis ta nce fr om th e ir pr ev io us ly qu ie t, 

pl ac id homes.

For th es e an d oth er re as ons, th e FAA in ac qui ri ng righ t-of -w ay fo r th e ac ce ss 

ro ad pu rp os ely ac qu ired m or e land th an w as ne ed ed fo r th e ro ad itse lf. It s 

id ea w as th at, ultim at el y, th e un us ed la nd co uld be utilize d by th e S ta te of 

Virg in ia fo r co nst ru ct io n of ad di tiona l ro ad w ay s para ll eli ng th e ac ce ss ro ad 

but no t co nn ec ted w ith it — se rv ice lane s, so to sp ea k. The se la nes wou ld ha ve 

loca l co nn ec tio ns al on g th e way an d wo uld be in te nde d fo r loc al an d co m m ut er 

tra ffi c. The y wou ld th u s ha ve mo st of th e ad vanta ges of dir ec t co nn ec tio ns 

w ith th e ac ce ss ro ad it self but wo uld no t in te rf ere w ith hig h-spee d air port - 

W as hi ng to n tra ffi c alon g th e access road .

On Ju ly 17, 1959, G en er al Qu esad a st ate d th is po lic y to th e Sen at e App ropri ati ons Com m itt ee in th es e w ord s: “S ufficient la nd is be ing ac qu ired to perm it 

th e f u tu re c ons tr uc tion of a dd itio n la ne s p ara ll el to th e a ir p o rt acce ss ro ad.”

Res id en ts o f th e a re a re gar de d th is s ta te d polic y as less th an w ha t th ey so ug ht , 

hut st ill fa r bett er th an no thin g. I am su re th a t be ca us e th ey ac ce pted G en er al 

Q ue sa da ’s im plied pro m is e of fu tu re side lane s, m an y of them re la xe d in th e ir 

ef fo rts to ob ta in d ir ect ac ce ss to th e ro ad .

As re ce nt ly as la st Ju ly 5, th e no w A dm in is tr ato r of th e FAA. Mr. N. E. 

Halab y. re sta te d th e po lic y in a le tt er to Sen at or H ubert Hum ph re y. R ev ie w ­

ing th e co nt in ui ng ef fo rts of som e loca l re si dents to w ard loca l use of th e ac ce ss
94 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

road, Mr. Halaby referred to the concept th at the road was solely for use of air ­

port traffic on a safe, high-speed basis. Then he added : ‘‘If there is a way to assure fast, safe travel between the city and the airport, and at the same time make it usefu l to residents, and futu re residents of the 

area, I would he happy to consider it. “It was with this concept in mind tha t we acquired enough right-of-way originally to permit construction of a local traffic roadway in addition to the airport express highway. It may he possible for FAA to make this land avail­ able to the State of Virginia so the State could meet the local traffic needs of its citizens in the area. This would require furthe r planning and construction, for which the FAA has no money, but I can assure you we would cooperate to 

the ful lest extent in exploring thi s possibility.” Now, however, we have a most disturbing development. It lies in the apparent real possibility tha t the FAA will turn over the access road to the National Par k Service, and that the Park Service will refuse to permit construction of additional roadways along th e unused right-of-way, as was so long intended. Subsection (7 ) of section 6 of H.R. 7399, Mr. Chairman, would authorize the FAA, through the proposed National Capital Airports Corporation, to “transf er to any Federal or State agency under mutually acceptable terms and conditions any access road to the additional Washington Airport authorized by Public Law 762, 81st Congress. * * * ” The FAA tells me th at if this bill is passed, it is their intention to turn over the access road we have been discussing to 

the National Park Service. I think no one has a greater admi ration than I do for the splendid work being performed by the National Park Service and its capable and conscientious Direc­ tor, Mr. Conrad Wirth. The work they have performed in developing and im­ proving our system of national park s has been outstanding. However, there is one point on which Mr. Wirth and I differ sharply. It is the use which should be made of Park Service roads in the District of Columbia. He and the National Park Service have made it clear on many occasions that they are opposed to local or commuter traffic use of Park Service roads any­ where, even in the Washington area. They now have made it clear tha t should they assume control of the Dulles Airport access road, they will strongly oppose any development of it or its right-of-way to permit such use. They refuse to recognize the undeniable tru th tha t local conditions create different circum­ stances for this road than exist for the vast majority of roads under the Park 

Service’s jurisdiction. If the National Park Service would agree to honor the FAA’s longstanding commitment to permit use of the extra right-of-way for additional local-use roads, we would have not the slightest objection to giving it the access road. If the FAA would agree to require honoring of this commitment by whatever agency it turns the access road over to, we would not have objection to enact­ ment of the blanket road- trans fer authority contained in section 6 (7 ) of H.R. 

7399. In the absence of such an agreemen t—and we have thus fa r been unable to obtain it—we most strenuously urge tha t specific language be written into H.R. 7399 to carry out the commitment. We do so not only for the sake of residents of the area, but also for the well-being of the airpo rt itself, which must have the wholehearted cooperation and assist ance of the area in which it is located if it 

is to achieve its maximum beneficial use. May I repeat here what I said in a lette r of April 17, 1962 to Administrator Ha lab y: “The airpor t needs the support and cooperation of these [nearby] communities in many community services as well as a generally friendly and cooperative attitu de on the part of their residents. To deliberately flout wha t we all took as a firm commitment concerning the possible use of the access raod’s unused right-of-way, most assuredly will alienate these communities and their residents, rather than crea te any feeling of friendly cooperation. The move would be extremely bad from the standpoin t of community relations.” In tha t same letter to Mr. Halaby, I suggested that if the National Park Service was unwilling to agree to honor the commitment, it might be more appropriate to tur n the road over to the Bureau of Public Roads. I would urge the committee now to give the most serious consideration to this suggestion. This is an ex­ ceptional case, and the Bureau not only is thoroughly fami liar with the problems involved but could readily perform the function of managing the road. Fur the r­ more, we a re confident t ha t it would be receptive to honoring w hat we feel was a firm commitment to permit construction of additional side lanes to handle local 

and commuter traffic.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 95

I am sure the members of the committee are fami lia r with the phenomenally 

rapid growth of this pa rti cu lar section of Virginia in recent years. You also 

know of the additional grow th and development th at can be anticip ated for the 

are a with the opening and developing operation of Dulles Airport. You can 

read ily und erstand our reas ons for being so disturbed now by the app are nt 

abandonment of a promise th at certain land would be made available to help 

alle viate the area ’s traffic problems.

For these reasons, Mr. C hairman , we most urgently requ est that the committee 

join us in seeking an adminis trative agreement to carry out the commitment 

concerning th e unused right-of-way, or that in the absence of such an agreement, 

the committee write such a require ment into the pending bill.

We urge i t not only in the in terest of demo nstrated need bu t in fairness to the 

people of an area who tho ught they could count on a prom ise previously made.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Halaby, are you prepared to testify this morning?

Mr. H alaby. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. N. E. HALABY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL

AVIATION AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY ALAN L. DEAN, DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINISTRATION; G. WARD HOBBS, DI ­

RECTOR, BUREAU OF NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS; AND

NATHAN IEL H. GOODRICH, GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY

Mr. Williams. You may proceed.

Mr. Halaby. Mr. C hairman and members of the subcommittee, on 

Jul y 18, 1961, I had the privilege of appearing before you to present 

the views of the Federal Aviation Agency on H.R. 7399, a bill to 

create a National Capital Airports Corporation to operate the federally 

owned civil airports in the District of Columbia area. I welcome this 

opportunity to te stify again on behalf of the Corporation legislation 

and also to state my opposition to H.R. 10471, a bill to establish a 

Washington Airports Board.

Before I proceed with my prepared statement, I would like to introduce the members of my staff who have accompanied me and who will 

help answer such technical questions as the members of this subcommittee may have. Mr. Alan Dean is the Deputy Administrator for 

Administration; Mr. Ward Hobbs is the Director of the Bureau of 

National Capital Airpo rts; and Mr. Goodrich is the General Counsel, 

the new General Counsel of the Agency. 1 should also like to present 

Mr. Harold Seidman, Acting Chief of the Office of Management and 

Organization of the Bureau of the Budget, who is the expert in the 

application of the Government Corporation Control Act to revenueproducing activities of executive agencies.

I believe at the present time there are about 13 such corporations 

wholly owned by the Government.

H.R. 7399 provides for the operation of the federally owned civil 

airpo rts in the Washington metropolitan area through a corporation subject to the direction of the Administrator of the Federal 

Aviation Agency. The primary purpose of this legislation is to place 

the management of those airpo rts on a sound business basis for the 

purpose of affording better service to the traveling public, the air ­

lines, and other users of aircraft at a minimum cost to the taxpayer. 

The corporate form of organization will materially enhance the effi-
96 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

ciency of airp ort operations and will make possible prompt action to 

meet needs involving the safety or convenience of the public.

Mr. Chairman, in the last year, in fact, since I last appeared before 

this committee, we have taken quite a few steps to consolidate and 

strengthen and improve the management of the Agency. It is one 

of the largest and most expensive agencies in the executive branch. 

And we have tried to bring in modern management for it. During 

its first couple of years it had to run so fast that it did not always 

have time to consolidate and strengthen the management of these 

44.000 people in all 50 States and overseas.

Recently, and I hope you will permit a little bragging, we have 

been able to bring in some additional strong experienced men. In 

particular, Mr. Robert Shank has become Deputy Administrator for 

Development. He is a scientist-engineer of the first rank, former 

member of the Bell Telephone Laboratories staff, more recently vice 

president of research and development at Hughes Aircraft and for 

the past 18 months president of his own corporation, the American 

Systems, Inc.

Mr. Gordon Bain is now Assistant Administrator for Appraisal. 

We have that unique quality of introspection and continuing selfappraisal in this outfit. Mr. Bain, who lias been in charge of his own 

firm and recently vice president of Northwest Airlines, will bring great 

strength to our investigating ourselves to improve our management.

To head up our Systems Maintenance, we have Mr. Barney Vierling, 

a District resident, and a man who has run his own company and 

previously was vice president, maintenance, of Capital Airlines and 

an aeronautical engineer at Douglas.

Finally, among those we have been able to get to come and help 

run this Agency, Mr. William Schulte of Oklahoma, who has been 

running his own company. lie is a private pilot, formerly a business 

leader in Baltimore, Md.

All of these men will help provide you and the public better management of the almost three-quarter billion dollars a year in budget 

and nearly 45,000 men in this Agency. With the ir help and with this 

bill I think you can feel some confidence that we have a good management in the “Friendly Aviation Agency.”

The National Capital Airpor ts Corporation would have the authority to conduct airport operations within a broad delegation of statutory authority, but it would remain under the policy direction of the 

Adm inistrator of the Federal Aviation Agency. This is a most desirable arrangement, for while a certain degree of independence of 

action must be possessed by any airpo rt authority if i t is to do its job 

well, it is essential that an official of the executive branch concerned 

with the fostering of aviation be in a position to assure the Congress 

and the President tha t the airp orts are being operated in a manner 

consistent with the public interest. And, I might add, to be held 

accountable.

In contrast. II.R. 10471 would create an entirely independent agency 

administered by a Washington Airports Board consisting of five 

members appointed bv the President and confirmed by the Senate. 

The Board would add unnecessarily to the number of agencies in 

the executive branch and would complicate thetask of exercising policy 

direction and assuring good management in the operation of our
NATIONAL CAP ITAL AIR POR TS 97

National Capital area airports. The divorcement of the Board from 

the Federal Aviation Agency would also separate the stall' o f the air­ ports from the technical and management resources which can be readily provided to a corporation established within the Federal 

Aviation Agency. I might add tha t we intend that these two airports be pacesetters, be examples for the rest of the national airport system to which so much attention is being given and on which the Congress has author­ ized the spending of $75 million a year of Federal funds. It there­ fore is helpful to us if we can have the most modern, th e most conven­ ient, and above all, the safest airp orts in the world and can use these standards where possible for application to other airports. Moreover, H.R. 10471 does nothing more than create a new agency; it does not equip that agency w ith the revolving fund financing, the commercial-type budgeting, and the administrative flexibility avail­ able under the corporate organization contemplated by H.R. 7399. Thus H.R. 10471 produces an undesirable fragm entation of Govern­ ment organization without a single management advantage of the 

kind provided for by the Corporation bill. I recognize the author’s objectives and he and the distinguished member of this committee from Maryland have constantly and, I might add, ceaselessly and with great vigor and great effort, represented the views of the citizens of M aryland. A day does not pass but what we feel the strength of their intellect and interest in this matter. And we understand that this is an alternative way of conducting the public business in these two airports, and we have no doubt that this is their view of the best way to do it. And I might add it is possible to run these two airports through a five-man board. We feel, however, despite this ingenuity in engineering an alternative, that the bill 

proposed by the administration is preferable. In the hearings conducted by the committee last J uly we presented in full the case for a National Capital Airports Corporation which would operate the Washington National and Internatio nal Airpo rts under the direction of the Administrator of the Federal Aviation agency. Subsequently members of my staff testified on certain amendments proposed by other witnesses. On August 10, 1961, the Agency further commented in writing on some possible amendments 

to the bill. A repetition of what is otherwise already on the record and known to you is believed unnecessary, yet I do wish to stress the increased urgency of action on H.R. 7399, if we are to have the best organiza­ tional and management tools to undertake the operation of the new International Airport at Chantilly scheduled for completion this year. With the completion of tha t airport, operating expenditures, total revenues, the volume of business transactions with the public, and the number of situations requiring pro mpt action by the airport management will all sharp ly increase. If we are to meet th e challenges of a much more complex airp ort operation, we must replace an organization not as appropriately adapted to business-type activities with a corporate arrangement spe­ cifically tailored to our needs. I would hope th at act ion could be com­ pleted on the corporation legislation during the current session of

84674— 62— pt. 2- 3
98 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Congress in view of the fact tha t Congress has already given much 

thoughtful attention to this proposal.

As long ago as the 83d Congress the Senate Committee on Interstate 

and Foreign Commerce unanimously recommended the establishment 

of a corporation to operate Washington National A irport. Tha t committee specifically cited the difficulties which had resulted from the 

application of customary budget and fiscal practices designed fo r conventional Government agencies and urged the creation of a corporation 

as a means of achieving more effective management of the airport. 

In 1960 the Senate Inte rstate and Foreign Commerce Committee held 

hearings on a bill virtually identical to II.R. 7399, and, of course, the 

Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics received testimony 

on H.R. 7399 on July 18 and 19 last year.

The executive branch has consistently supported an Airports Corporation for the National Capital. The President, in his budget message in 1955, urged the enactment of legislation to establish an AirS

orts Corporation. In his 1962 budget message the President enorsed the Corporation and stated th at—

This arrangement will provide greater management flexibility to meet changing 

requirements and permit more businesslike operations.

The pending bill also has the full endorsement of the present administration.

We are also hopeful of early action because a corporation of the 

type contemplated by H.R. 7399 is not a novel proposal. Since the 

enactment of the Government Corporation Control Act of 1945, the 

Congress has repeatedly approved the establishment of corporations 

in instances in which the activities of an agency are: (1) Revenue 

producing; (2) are potentially self-sustaining; (3) involve a large 

volume of business-type dealings with the public; and (4) require the 

management flexibility to respond swiftly to unpredictable changes in 

demands for services. In the transp ortation field the Congress has 

provided for a St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation and 

has incorporated the Panama Canal Company. In other areas of 

Federal responsibility the Congress has created such important corporations as the National Mortgage Association, Federal Deposit I nsurance Corporation, Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, Federal Prison Industries, Inc., and the Virgin Islands Corporation. All we ask is th at this tested device for effective management 

in revenue-producing, business-type situations be made available to 

FAA.

As indicated in my statement to the committee last July 18, the 

Corporation will continue, if this legislation passes, to be under the 

stric t scrutiny of the Congress in accordance with provisions of the 

Government Corporation Control Act. Several members of this committee, I am sure, feel tha t the airports should be under a continuing 

scrutiny and should not be fully divorced from the Appropriations 

Committees surveillance and control. I think it will be possible both 

to achieve the operating and managerial advantages of the corporate 

form o f organization and at the same time assure that the activities of 

the Corporation are properly subject to congressional surveillance.

Und er the Government Corporation Control Act, an annual business-type budget must be prepared under such rules and regulations 

as the President may establish. That budget sets forth for the Con-
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 99

gress a plan of operation for the Corporation during the fiscal year. 

The budget includes an estimate of the financial condition of the Corporation for the current and ensuing fiscal years and states the actual 

condition and result of operations for the last completed fiscal year. 

Thus the Congress has before it a complete statement concerning the 

affairs of the Corporation, its plan of operations, and it may take 

such action as it deems appropriate.

With respect to the proposed National Capital Air por ts Corporation, it will be necessary to present to this committee a request for the 

initial appropriation to finance the operation of the National Capital 

area airports. The Congress will in the regu lar manner determine the 

amount of this appropriation and impose any limitation which it 

determines to be proper.

Furtherm ore the Corporation is prohibited from undertaking new 

activities or capital expenditures in excess of $1 million unless included in the annual b udge t program.

Furtherm ore the bill provides for an annual public report.

There is some curiosity about just what steps would be taken in 

getting the Corporation underway, and it seems to me worth dwelling 

on for a moment. If this committee reports favorably on this bill 

and the House passes it, i f the Senate committee has a hearing and the 

Senate passes it, and when the President signs it, there would then be 

a legislative basis for the establishment of the Corporation. There 

would then be a request to the Congress through the Appropriations 

Committee for the appropriatio n for the Corporation. This would be 

like a capital fund for th e Corporation. The C orporation would then 

establish its operating account known as the fu nd of the Corporation.

Now, as we have testified to the Appropriations Committees repeatedly, and as they are fully familiar with, we will make money on 

the National Airpo rt and we will lose money on the Internation al A irport. The Interna tional A irpo rt will be operating a t a deficit for quite 

a few years. We estimate tha t perhaps in the first 10 years or so 

there will be a deficit at Internationa l but a profit at National. Maybe 

the second decade of the life of the Internation al Airport will be 

around the break-even point. And the third will be profitable. We 

will recover capital in the third 10 years and we will have to invade 

the appropriation to operate both airports only during this early 

phase. But in the payoff phase this would feed back into the ap propriation, reducing it, and it would return to the Treasury through the a ppropriation whatever net revenues we were able to earn on the combined operation of the National and Inte rnation al Airports.

That is the end of a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I am sure 

the committee has questions and I will try to answer them, and if I 

can’t, I would like the privilege of calling on those more expert than 

myself.

Mr. Williams. It will be quite all right.

I suppose, to start the questioning, we might as well turn Mr. Friedel 

loose on you, because I understand he has several million questions 

tha t he would like to pose to you.

The C hair recognizes Mr. Friedel.

Mr. F riedel. First I would like to say this: Mr. Halabv, I am no t 

blaming you for Dulles Airport. You weren’t here at the time the 

original $14 million was appropriated, and I know tha t you have this
100 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

mess on your hands, but I have some pertinent questions tha t I would 

like to bring out for the record and I want you to be assured there is 

nothing personal. You have a job to do th at was inherited by you.

Can you tell me the amount tha t has been appropriated so far for 

the construction of Dulles Airport, including the designs and all of 

the costs just for the constructing of Dulles Airport?

Mr. Halaby. Mr. Friedel, the total amount appropriated to date, 

and either spent or in the process of being spent, is $106.8 million. Of 

tha t the access highway, the construction of the access highway, is 

about $13.9 million and highway land about $4.2 million.

Mr. F riedel. Plus the $106 million?

Mr. H alaby. No; included within the $106 million.

Mr. Friedel. Now, how much of the access roads have been completed or expect to be completed out of the $106 million ?

Mr. Halaby. In mileage it is approximately 18.2 miles and in total 

cost for construction and land the figure is about the same, about $18.1 

million.

Mr. F riedel. More? To complete the full access roads?

Mr. Halaby. No. That is the completed cost.

Mr. Friedel. Completed cost.

Mr. Halaby. Yes, sir.

Mr. F riedel. Will that be in addition to the $106 million ?

Mr. Halaby. No, sir. Th at is part of the $106 million.

Mr. Friedel. Pa rt of the $106 million?

Mr. Halaby. Yes.

Mr. Friedel. Well, w hat additional will there be to the $106 million?

Mr. Halaby. Well, as far as I know-----

Mr. Friedel. You say $13.1 so far and you expect $18 million, so 

it will be a little more th an $5 million more in addition to the $106 

million, is that correct?

Mr. Halaby. No, sir. Let me recapitulate. The total appropriation and estimated cost of the airpor t program including the highway, 

including the access road, is $106.8 million. Of the $106.8 million, 

approximately $18.1 million is being spent on highways. Now, there 

is in that amount a right-of-way to connect the access road to U.S. 

Route 66 at some future date and if tha t is required and if the Congress appropriates funds for that, tha t would be the only additional 

amount that I know of in the program for any further highway construction. But that is not now in being or in immediate contemplation.

Mr. F riedel. What about sewerage?

Mr. H alaby. Well, sir, there is, as I understand it, a sewage system 

being p ut in to serve this airpor t and adjacent communities.

Mr. F riedel. What will th at cost?

Mr. Halaby. It is my understanding that a $3 million Federal 

gra nt has already gone into the construction of this sewage project 

and that the District has been authorized to borrow an additional $25 

million for this so-called sewage interceptor.

Mr. Friedel. That is in addition to the $106 million. Congress is 

still appropriatin g money in addition to the $106 million.

Mr. Halaby. Mr. Friedel, the question actually arises as to whether 

this sewage system would be necessary regardless of the airport. It 

is my understanding, and as you say, I wasn’t here, and fortunately
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 101

the FAA is not in charge of this particular District of Columbia 

activity, the sewage disposal—it is my understanding tha t you would 

need a sewage disposal system for this region regardless of an airpo rt, 

but because of the size of this a irpo rt, the airport and the public usage 

of it, this system is much larg er than it would otherwise have been. 

Mr. Friedel. I just cannot get this clear in my mind.

If the airport is in Virginia, the communities are in Virginia, why 

would the District of Columbia pay for the sewage system? I just 

put tha t all down to the cost of the airport in addition to the $106 

million.

I was informed that only 15 miles of this speedway to the airp ort is 

contemplated being completed this year, and the rest of it will not be 

completed until 1968, for the other 15 miles.

Now, is tha t not additional funds which are needed for the access 

roads or the speedway to th e airport?

Mr. II alaby. Well, as I said, there is an airpor t terminal highway 

to the intersection of the McLean bypass approximately 15 miles, and 

tha t will be completed this year, and that is the principal access road.

Now, as you know, Route 66, under the inte rstate highway program, 

is being constructed and, to facilitate travel to and from the airport 

for those who would use Route 66, there is about a 2-mile or a 2^- mile 

stretch between the McLean bypass and Route 66 for which the rightof-way has been purchased, but for which construction funds have not 

been requested and will not be requested until the requirement emerges.

Mr. Friedel. Well, tha t answers my question.

Mr. Williams. Do you have, perhaps, with you maps where we 

might see the location ?

Mr. Halaby. I thin k we do. That might be he lpful to put those 

up righ t now.

Could we put it on this wall over here, Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. Williams. You may put it anywhere where it can be seen.

Mr. H alaby. I think, Mr. Friedel, you want the record clear, that 

to complete the contemplated highway program of access to the 

airport-----

Mr. Friedel. Yes.

Mr. Halaby (continuing). Will require an additional $5 million 

over the amount already spent for right-of-way and land; namely, 

18 miles of it, and the construction of approximately 15 miles of it 

which will be completed this fall.

So, at some future date this connection between the Route 66, which 

has not yet been built from the District through Arlington and, of 

course, all the way to California, that portion which has not yet been 

built will be built, and at tha t point it would be desirable, it is contemplated, to build on land already purchased within the $106 million a 2 ^-m ile connection between the access highway and Route 66.

The estimated cost of th at at present prices is $5 million. We have 

the right-of-way and the land has been purchased, but we have not 

turned a spade of dirt on that section.

Mr. Friedel. $5 million for the 2 ^ miles ?

Mr. H alaby. Yes, sir.

Mr. Friedel. Now, what do you thin k the drivin g time will be?

Mr. H alaby. From-----
102 NATIO NAL CAPITAL AIR POR TS

Mr. Friedel. From Washington to Dulles Air por t with your 15- 

mile speedway in there, how long will it take from downtown Washington, to get to the Dulles Airpor t ?

Mr. Halaby. Well, tha t is a little bit like asking how fa r is “f ar”.

Mr. Friedel. Well, speaking of the best time.

Mr. Halaby. The best time will-----

Mr. F riedel. Speaking of 6 o’clock in the morning.

Mr. H alaby. The best tim e will be midmorning, and midafternoon, 

when the commuter traffic at the metropolitan end of the route is 

lightest, and tha t will depend upon the individual form of 

transportation.

There will probably be buses and there will be private cars as the 

most used means of transportation.

Now, most of the traffic from the Washington metropolitan area, 

according to the studies th at I have seen, comes from what is known 

as the northwest part of Washington.

This is the business community and the source of most of those who 

use air transportation.

Therefore, tha t will originate on the northwest side of the dense 

auto traffic region. They will come across one of the four bridges, 

the 14th, the Memorial, the new Roosevelt, and the Key Bridge.

And, they will have the ir slowest going during the first mile or so. 

When they get on the parkway and start out to the McLean bypass, 

and get on the airway to the airport, the “speedway” to the airport, 

as you called it, then they will have fast going.

So that I would guess that the best time would be midmorning, midafternoon, and at nigh t for the 29.5 miles from the Statler, and it 

probably would be in the order of 45 to 50 minutes.

The worst time will depend on just how much bridge traffic there is.

Mr. Friedel. Forty-five to fifty minutes at the best time at night, 

and the afternoon, when there is no traffic?

Mr. Halaby. Well, it is a tough guess. I would say tha t the very 

best time, adhering to the speed limits, would be in the order of 45 

minutes.

You could make it. You can make tha t last 15 miles in 15 minutes. 

If you zipped across I suppose you could make it in 30 minutes, but 

I would not recommend th at for the average person.

I do not think the bus can make it-----

Mr. Friedel. 30 miles in 30 minutes going through traffic of the 

downtown area and-----

Mr. Halaby. I say, I do not think I would recommend that, and I 

do not believe it is possible under normal conditions but, theoretically, 

you could do it.

Mr. Friedel. Well, how long do you think it would take to get to 

Friendship?

Tha t is what I am tryin g to bring out here.

Mr. Halaby. Well-----

Mr. F riedel. Tha t is from the Statler Hotel.

Mr. Halaby. Mr. Friedel, I would sum i t up this wa y: I think it 

depends upon where the man starts from.

Air. F riedel. You used the Statler, so let’s use the Statler.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 103

Mr. H alaby. For those starting from the northwest pa rt of Washington I thin k it is going to be a little sooner or a little faster to go to 

Chantilly than to Friendship.

Obviously, for those on the other side of town it is going to be faster 

to go to Friendship. And everyone going out there is going to have 

a different experience every time he goes.

Sometimes you can go from Rockefeller Center to LaGuardia in 30 

minutes and sometimes it takes you an hour and 30 minutes.

Mr. Friedel. It will take you an hour and a half to get to Chantilly 

or Dulles at certain times of the day right now.

It will never take you an hour and a half from downtown Washington to get to Friendship.

Mr. Halaby. Well, it lias taken individuals an hour and a half 

to get from downtown Washington to Friendsh ip, but it is an unusual 

condition.

All you need is one accident or a Thanksgiving Day or July Fourth 

weekend, and you have quite a delay in ge tting out of th e city limits.

Mr. Friedel. Well, we are going from the best to the most ridiculous.

Mr. H alaby. Yes, sir.

Mr. Friedel. Mr. Halaby, tha t is one of the points tha t I argue 

against spending $105 million, as you say now, and then $25 million 

for sewerage. Tha t is $131 million. And then another $5 million for 

roads makes $136 million, and it will be $150 million before you 

know it.

At the most, using the Statler Hotel as a star ting point, you say 

tha t you can save a couple of minutes, and here you have a most 

wonderful airport. I argued against this on the floor. Of course,

1 did not get enough votes.

This was dumped in your lap. To me, it should never have been 

built. And they said tha t the peak would be reached, about 1965 when 

we would need all three airports.

Baltimore City spent the original funds out of loans to build 

Friendship Airport. They spent their own funds just before we had 

the Federal Aviation Act to give us money.

They are right now under a $26 million loan program. The tax ­

payers in Baltimore City are going to pay to make Friendship even 

better. It is a wonderful airport. All this money is spent to save

2 or 3 minutes and, certainly, Washington is much closer to Fri endship th an it is to Chantilly.

Now, I am worried. The only thing here is that we have been 

in business for 12 years at Friendship and last year was the first year 

that we got out of the red.

We are very fearful of what will happen when Dulles opens, what 

FAA is going to do, an d what the CAB is going to do to shift these 

airlines out of Friendship.

And I want to ask you this question, Mr. Halaby, and, believe me, 

I would like to know the meaning of this statement.

This is the Aviation Daily and you spoke at a luncheon at an A viation Space Association in New York, and I jus t want to quote part 

of what you said:

He also charged—
104 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

that is, Mr. Halaby—

th at the carriers are “trying to trea t me ju st like any oth er airport owners 

and th ey won’t get aw ay with it. This is a thr ea t to them.”

Now, they said you added:

“Some have been watching me to see i f I am as tough as former Adm inistrator 

Pete Quesada but, mind me, gentlemen, I thin k you will find me tougher, but I 

may be a little bit more precise in picking my targets.”

Now, I am worried about this because certain of these airlines may 

not want to go from F riendship to Dulles, and if the airlines do not 

want to go, what are you doing to do to force them to go? If this 

means anything?

And that is the crux of my question.

Mr. Halaby. Well, Mr. Friedel, I guess even you may have had 

the experience of having to say “I did not say th at.”

Air. Friedel. Many a time.

Mr. Halaby. But since it is believed that I did say that, and since 

one’s denial almost never catches up with the claim, let me assure you 

tha t I have not, and will not, use the regulatory powers that the 

Congress has reposed in the office I hold to coerce the air carriers to 

do anything against their will.

I do have to say, sir, and am rathe r pleased to be able to say, this 

morning, tha t the air carriers have now agreed to use the International 

Airpo rt and tha t we will shortly sign an agreement.

We have been able to negotiate a sound, sensible agreement with 

the air carriers for the use of the airport.

The terms, in substance, are all agreed and so they have decided 

tha t the public convenience and necessity and demand for airport services is such, at that location, the Internatio nal Airpo rt at Chantilly, 

tha t they, good businessmen, all, should use it.

So these gladiators tha t I was talking about at tha t Wings Club 

luncheon, are now knights in glistening armor, and we have come in 

not to clash with them but into harmony with them.

And it is a great relief to me that, having this lovely legacy, we 

have been able to come into agreement with those who will use it on 

terms, I believe, quite favorable to the Government, and this removes 

the major uncertainty and very heavy question tha t we have had to 

bear.

Mr. Collier. Will the gentleman yield?

Air. Friedel. Yes.

Air. Collier. With no thou ght of alleviating your fears, I would 

suggest to you to analyze and review the trend in the traffic flow 

from Midway Airport in Chicago to O’Hare Field, which is in my 

district, in the last 2 years. Wha t transp ired, I am sure, was done 

with no coercion from the FAA but, rather, voluntarily by the airlines as a result of the expanded and adequate facilities that existed 

there.

Air. Friedel. Well, I was informed that one of the airlines, a major 

airline, is losing a lot of money; that it will cost them $1 million more 

to operate out of Dulles than it does cost them today to land and take 

off at Friendship.

Now, I cannot see any good business tha t is losing money arranging 

to lose more unless there is something to bring it back.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 105

I would like to know whether there is anything, unde r the law, whereby you can force the airlines to take flights away from Friend ­

ship and go to Dulles ?

Mr. Halabv. Well, Mr. Friedel, I must say to you tha t there is a 

very positive side to this. This airp ort is going to be the greatest airp ort in the world. It 

is going to be the safest. It has the runways, the taxiways, the ramp, that are the best designed and best built ever. It is going to have fueling out in the center of the airfield, and remove that hazard to occupants of the terminal. It is going to be the most beautiful airp ort in the world, and this positive feature is due to this magnificant design by the late Eero Saarinen, and the very handsome way it is being carried out. These are positive, dynamic attractions of th is airpo rt. It is going to be one of the most comfortable for the neighbors, because my pred­ ecessors in this business and you, in the Congress, bought 10,000 acres and the community, we believe, will zone the takeoff and landing por­ tions so tha t the noise will not be the nuisance tha t it is at so many airports. This is a terrible problem for Mr. Collier and his neighbors in Chi­ cago a t O’Hare and Midway. This noise problem is a very difficult matter. Out here it has been anticipated in the design. So I think—and, remember, this is private enterprise tha t is com­ ing in and paying these landing fees, as high as they are. They are calculating th at there is a demand for this airport. And I believe the positive side of this is tha t as population expands, as urbanization continues, as the carriers get he althier financially and more able to offer more productive services, more comfortable serv­ ices, there is going to be need for Friendship, for Chantilly, for Wash­ ington National, for heliports, and that we are going ahead, and that this is going to be a momentary unfavorable factor for those who had the courage and the foresight to build a good airport at Baltimore. And it is this few’ years along in here, where there will be a set­ back just as there was a setup for Friendship during the last 3 years when the jets came in and could not be accommodated at Washing­ ton National Airport which was built in the thirties.

Mr. Friedel. Well, Friendship is far visioned because they zoned 

properly, and there are no homes near the airport. I do not know the acreage there but they have access to many thousands more acres. We have never had any complaints about 

noise at Friendship. You have heard complaints at Idlew’ild in New York, but you have never heard of any at Friendship. You have heard of it in other 

areas. Baltimore had good vision. They planned it very well. It w-as 

done on their own funds. Now, of course, becoming the most beautiful airport with $150 million—well, it ough t to be, no question about it.

Air. Halaby. Well, quite a bit of money has been spent on a lot of airports tha t have not been something which the country can be 

proud of.
106 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Mr. Friedel. In other words, there has been no pressure put on by 

the FAA to get the airlines to move from Friendship to Dulles?

Mr. Halaby. No, sir, not to my knowledge. In fact, I have tried 

to keep these negotiations in the hands of my Director of National 

Capital Airports, Ward Hobbs, who is a former airline official, and 

I have told him, and I have backed him every step of the way, that 

he is negotiating so that I will not be charged with coercion or regulating with the left hand and negotiating with the right hand.

And he has done a magnificent job of working out with these men 

a deal t hat is very sound and tha t conforms to the admonition of the 

Appropriation s Committee.

This is one of the reasons why we need this bill, I think. I think 

we ought to pu t this activity in a businesslike arrangement, a corporation, and not make it completely independent from the FAA but 

sufficiently independent so that you can hold it accountable and so 

that you can see what it is doing.

Now, those remarks that you quoted, th at were alleged to have been 

made by me, were designed to assure the airlines that we were not 

about to give them a free ride at Chantilly.

I think they thought maybe we would just give them a free ride 

out there. And I just wanted to make it very clear that in Mr. Hobbs’ 

negotiations I was backing him 100 percent, and that we were going 

to negotiate and th at it was going to be done on a businesslike basis, 

to recover as soon as possible as much of the national taxpayers’ investment in this airport.

And it apparently had some effect because they have voluntarily 

come into agreement with us on a deal.

Mr. Friedel. Are you following the directive of the Appropriations Committee to get landing fees commensurate with the cost of 

the airport?

I mean, are you getting proper landing fees or are you cutting them 

too low ?

Mr. Halaby. Well, we will make public very shortly the agreement we have reached with the airlines in the last few hours, and it 

will provide something like this.

There will be a landing fee o f 30 cents per 1,000 pounds of landing 

weight. There will then, in addition to that, be a charge of about 12 

cents per 1,000 pounds of landing weight for the use of this unusual 

feature of this airport, the mobile lounge.

The terminal building rates’ rental will be so much per square foot, 

and we will recover the investment tha t should be recovered within 30 

years. Now, the question of what should be recovered is the m atter 

of policy, and we have discussed this with the Appropriations Committee chairman and have though t very hard about how much of the 

$106.8 million should be recovered over the next 30 years.

Now, almost every airport, of major significance has what we call 

“FA AP money,” Federal Aid to Airports money. And they— 

Friendship, Midway, and others—do not atte mpt to recover from the 

air carriers the Federal grant money.

The equivalent amount of Federal grant, if this had been an eligible 

airp ort, was $11 million. So we are not going to recover that $11 

million of the $106 million, just as your airp ort auth ority does not 

recover the Federal g rant.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 107

The tower is normally built by the FAA. So we are not going to recover the $2 million cost of the tower. This mobile lounge, we believe, is going to be a successful development and usable at other 

airports. For example, there is a new airport going in at Houston, Tex. Maybe th at intercontinental airport might use this mobile lounge if 

it is successful here. So we are not going to charge the airlines the research and development costs for tha t mobile lounge. The access highway is not, in the view of the airlines, part of the airport and we are not proposing to recover tha t money over this 30- 

year period. So wThat we have worked out and discussed with the Appropriations Committee is to recover all of the $106 million but the 

$33 million tha t I have just enumerated. And so, the deal with the airlines provides for our recovering $73.8 million out of the $106.8 million, over the next 30 years. And the way we do tha t is to sta rt w ith these landing fees, and we have insisted in the agreement tha t we can escalate these fees upward. Now, as you know, these fees are quite a bit higher than the fees at Friendship. They are more than twice the fees that I am charging at Washington National Airport, and I have just been able to negotiate 

those up by 100 percent. So, although Mr. Boyd will not be happ y with these additional costs to the air carriers at this time of their financial troubles, it does provide a business like recovery of the national taxpayers’ investment 

m these two airports.

Mr. F riedel. You said the access road to the speedway or the access 

road to the airpo rt. Is that going to be a toll road ?

Mr. Halaby. It could be. At the present time it is not proposed 

tha t it be, and we have that under consideration. The problem there is, as Mr. Broyhill pointed out, it is a 400-footwide right-of-way an d it goes to the airport. The employees of the airport, the airline crew’s, as well as passen­ gers* would have to pay a toll if it were a toll road. This would tend to discourage the use of the a irpo rt and since much of our revenue is from the money spent by passengers going through the airport, it would reduce the annual revenue and increase the deficit by the amount 

of discouragement of those who wyould not want to pay a toll, but-----

Mr. Springer. Mr. Chairman-----

Mr. Collier. Will the gentleman yield ?

Mr. Friedel. I have a lot more questions but I will yield.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Springer?

Mr. Springer. Do you just have a question ?

Mr. Collier. Yes.

Mr. Springer. I will yield for the question.

Mr. Collier. Would this corporation, provided this bill is enacted into law, have the a uthority to assess the various Federal agencies pur ­ suant to the Airpo rt Act of 1961 for use of quarters t hat they maintain at the airport ?

Mr. Halaby. You are thinking of, say, the Weather Bureau and 

the Immigration and Naturalization Service?

Mr. Collier. Yes.

Air. Halaby. Would we charge them rent ?
108 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Mr. Collier. Yes.

Mr. II alaby. We are empowered to do so under the act, and we 

would, as we do at Washington National.

Mr. Collier. The Corporation would have the power to do this ?

Mr. IIalaby. Yes, sir.

Mr. Collier. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Springer. Mr. IIalab y, at the present time, as of now, May 2, 

1962, Washington National Airpo rt is under one corporation.

Is tha t correct ?

Mr. Halaby. No, sir. It is a facility of the Federal Aviation 

Agency.

Mr. Springer. All right.

Now, what is Dulles Air por t ?

Mr. II alaby. It is another facility of the Federal Aviation Agency.

Air. Springer. Now, you are going to put these two together in a 

corporation.

Is that, in essence, what you have in mind ?

Mr. H alaby. Yes, sir. Th at is the proposal in this legislation.

Air. Springer. All right.

Now, what purpose would you have in mind by doing that?

Air. II alaby. Well, as outlined in the prepared statement, we feel 

tha t it will provide for a g reater accountability, a simplified form of 

management, tha t it is in keeping with the Government Corporation 

Control Act, and that over a period of time we will ge t more service 

for the taxpayers in this form.

Air. Springer. Could you tell me-----

Air. H alaby. As I said, one other reason is the more independent 

this is, from my office, the better I like it.

Mr. Springer. Do you at the present time request appropriations 

for both airports ?

Mr. H alaby. Yes, sir.

Mr. Springer. From the Federal Government?

Mr. Halaby. Yes, sir.

Air. Springer. From the Federal Government only ?

Air. Halaby. Yes, sir. We, of course, earn revenues a t W ashington National Airport, and it is returning the investment the taxpayers 

have made in it over the years into the Treasury, because i t is a 

profitable airport. At some point in the future, as early as we can 

make it, the International Airpo rt at Chantilly will likewise return 

to the Treasury the net investment.

Air. Springer. All right. Now, if this is accomplished, would there 

be any reason that you can think of w'hy, for instance, airports in 

Chicago or New York or Los Angeles should not do the same?

Air. H alaby. Well, in effect, sir, they have done the same.

The analogy breaks down in several respects, but the airport 

auth ority in most large cities is comparable to this Airports Corporation that we are proposing.

Of course, some cities simply run the airport like any other facility 

of the city but, in the more successful operations of airports, they have 

set up, in effect, a local airp orts corporation. They usually call it an 

authority and this, as in this bill, has been usually authorized by the 

State legislature before it is set up.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 109

Mr. Springer. I presume, however, you will indefinitely continue 

to request appropriations for these two airports by the Federal Government ?

Mr. Halaby. That is correct, sir, and, as I may have pointed out 

before you arrived, we anticipate, if you pass this legislation, seeking 

the Corporation appropriatio n which would be like a capital account, 

and during the first several years we will make money on Washington 

National, lose money on internationa l, and the Corporation will 

operate at a deficit.

Now there is another kind of appropriation. We even sought, I 

think, $2.5 million this year for Washington National Airp ort capital 

improvements, where you extend a runway or repave a ramp or the 

like and, of course, that goes on all over the country.

There are about 25 airport authorities in the United States tha t 

are comparable in struc ture to the proposal here.

I was looking for one in your area in the State of Illinois. Springfield has the airport authority . There is an Alton Civic Memorial 

Airpo rt A uthority.

Mr. Springer. What about Chicago?

Mr. Halaby. In Rockford there is a Greater Rockford Air por t 

Authority.

In Chicago I believe it is run by a municipal department. I think 

it is called the airports commission.

Mr. S pringer. Called the what?

Mr. Halaby. It is unde r a department of the government of the 

city of Chicago, and I believe it is called the Aviation Department of 

the City of Chicago, and there is, at least, one commissioner who I 

have, incidentally, called in, along with the chief of airports in Los 

Angeles and in New York, to advise with regard to this airport.

Mr. Springer. Let me ask you this: Have there been any local 

contributions by bond issue or otherwise, or anything, for Washington 

or for Chantilly?

Mr. Halaby. It is my understanding, sir, tha t these two airports 

have been constructed and operated without any local funding of any 

nature.

They are the only two civil, federally owned and operated airports 

in the 48 contiguous States.

Mr. Springer. Would there be any reason why, for instance, Idlewild should not have the same benefits or the International Air por t 

in Miami or the Internationa l Airport in Los Angeles, should not 

have the same benefits as these two airports ?

Mr. Halaby. Do you mean the benefits of Federal ownership?

Mr. Springer. Well, we will say, a t least, Federal funding.

How do we justify a 100-percent contribution by the Federal Government to these two airp orts when there are other airports tha t are 

serving this country just as well in the international field and yet 

they do not enjoy the same kind of contributions as do these two 

airports ?

Mr. Halaby. Well, sir, all I can say is that you have made me responsible by law for operating and maintaining these two airports 

and-----

Mr. Springer. Mr. Halaby-----

Mr. Halaby. I did not share in tha t decision.
110 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Mr. Springer. I am not finding any fau lt with you. I am trying 

to get your opinion as the Adm inistrator of this Agency.

Now you ought to have an opinion as to whether or not this is a fair 

proposition or is not a fair proposition.

Mr. Halaby. Well, if the policy of Federal ownership of airports 

in this area were up for discussion I th ink I would conclude that, if 

you could get the local community, whom the airp ort serves, to build 

the airport and operate it, that this would be preferable as a m atter 

of philosophy, I suppose, because it is designed to serve the local 

community.

You have an extraordina ry situation here in which the District of 

Columbia has no home rule?

 is not a normal political entity in the 

sense that New York or Chicago or Los Angeles is, and you have a 

very important use of this facility by Federal employees. The air ­

ports really serve the National Capital and this is a justification for 

Federal financing which does not exist elsewhere.

I suppose you could say there was a national defense interest, but 

it is a minor one in view of the presence of Andrews and other fields. 

Chantilly could be used in an emergency to recover Strategic Air 

Command bombers. If this were an established State or city, with 

its own taxing, with its own legislative and executive officials, it 

would probably be able to set up its own airp ort corporation and 

build and run it.

Mr. F riedel. Will you yield?

Mr. Springer. Yes, I will yield for a question. I am almost 

through.

Mr. F riedel. Mr. Halaby, I just wonder if you have any explanation for the need of these frequent design changes and estimates.

I know this occurred before you became Administrator, but there 

must have been something wrong somewhere.

In 1959 the fiscal year cost estimate for the airport was $66 million. 

In September of last year the FAA estimated, for building the airport 

exclusive of hangars, $105 million, an increase of $39 million in 2 

years.

That is hard to understand. If the FAA cannot do a better job 

than tha t, do you not think it is time th at Congress turned the Washington airports over to someone else, a specialized body, who can give 

its time and attention to airports, for instance, maybe a regional a irport board where you can have Friendship International, Washington 

National, and Dulles Internatio nal under a regional board?

To me I think it would be run better as a p rivate business rather 

tha n unde r the FAA, because you have a lot to do for safety and 

everything else.

Mr. Springer. Thank you, Mr. Friedel.

Mr. Halaby, this pa rt disturbed me as it did when this bill went 

through on Dulles, and I went along and I voted for it with some 

reservations as to exactly what the responsibility is of the Federal 

Government in the situation, but I cannot come to any other conclusion th an if we build Dulles Internationa l Airport, so-called for this 

community which, after all, has roughly half of the population of 

the District of Columbia in the greater metropolitan area, we have 

completely subsidized this airport.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 111

We have not done that for Friendship. We have not done it, as 

I understand it, for Idlew ild or any other international airport.

They have borne their own expense, and I did want to get from 

you an expression for the record tha t possibly we should be a contrib uting facto r equally as we do for other airports, but that it was 

not our job to completely subsidize an airport because it happens 

to be in the vicinity of the Dis tric t of Columbia.

Mr. Halabt. The irony of it, Mr. Springer, is that the Federal 

Government has spent a gre at deal of money on this Chantilly Airport and was doing so at the very time th at it proposed to reduce to 

nothing the Federal assistance to local and municipal airports.

I think the error of phasing out the Federal-aid program was 

corrected in time, and we now have a sound Federal assistance to 

local and State and regional airports, but it still does not explain this 

unusual situation. Now, coming back to Mr. Frie del’s question. I hope that you will 

feel a sense of confidence in the way this matter has been handled 

in the last year. I share your reservations about the way it was handled in the past, 

but we have told you forthrigh tly that this airpor t would cost what 

it is going to cost, and we have told you that we would make maximum 

efforts to have it open this fall.

When I came into this job I had to inform you that it would cost an additional $20 million, and take an additional 18 months to complete over the previous estimates of the past.

Now, why tha t is so, you will have to judge for yourselves, but 

it has, as you say, been a real headache. And the final point, it 

seems to me, tha t is imp orta nt is that we are doing what we said 

we can do, and we have gotten the agreement of the airlines which, 

for a while, you know, was uncertain and, in fact, it looked as though 

we migh t have the most magnificent terminal in the world, the safest 

and biggest airport in the world, and everything bu t passengers.

Mr. Friedel. Can you tell me to what extent you got them to agree 

to keep some of their flights, jet flights, at Friendship ?

Mr. Halabt. We are not tryin g to eliminate jet flights at Friend ­

ship. We are trying to provide an additional airpor t at Chantilly, 

Va., in the best possible manner.

And the public, Mr. Congressman, will determine in the end whether 

or not the traffic demand is there or here.

Mr. Friedel. If the airlines do not find it profitable, and they want 

to come back to Friendship, there would not be any persuasion on your 

part?

Mr. Halaby. The normal, natural instincts of a landlord to keep 

tenants will always prevail, out we certainly are not going to use any 

regulatory power in the FAA to hold them against their will.

The public is going to decide this in the end.

I have what I thin k is a very important policy of trying to reduce 

Fede ral expenditures and airlines costs where sensibly and rationally 

a large community or communities can be served by one regional airport; but, in the end, the public demand is what really determines 

this.

Mr. F riedel. Well, that is it the public demand, and I am hoping 

tha t we have enough for Friendship and let the overflow go to Dulles.

We have to keep Friendship alive. That is all there is to it.
112 NATIO NAL CAPITAL AIR POR TS

Mr. Halaby. Well, I am always in favor of Friendship.

Mr. Williams. I have one or two questions, Mr. Halaby, tha t I 

would like to ask you.

As I understand it, the purpose of wanting to set up a corporation 

is to place the operation of these two airports on a strict businesslike 

basis, is it not?

Mr. Halaby. Yes, sir.

Mr. Williams. The purpose of it is to increase the efficiency of the 

operation and, insofar as it can be done through a corporation, to 

reduce the cost of operation to the taxpayer?

Mr. Halaby. Yes, sir.

Mr. Williams. How much attention will be given to the use of 

these two airports by general aviation?

Will both airports be available to general aviation?

Mr. Halaby. Yes, sir. This is a problem, as I think you, being a 

pilot yourself and frequently using both private and commercial 

aviation, know.

Right now it is pretty hard to get as aircraft parking space at Washington National and one of the members of this committee has an 

airplane out there tha t he has to walk some distance to reach occasionally. And the air carriers are not keen to share the landing approach 

with an airplane w ith one person in it that takes up as much airspace 

as a transport with 90 in it, but the right of a citizen to use public 

facilities is not to be denied.

We have given some thou ght to whether or not there could be a 

kind of general aviation airpor t within the large Chantilly Airport, 

and we will continue to give thought to that.

Mr. Williams. 1)o you plan to give concessions to fixed base operators a t Dulles?

Mr. Halaby. There is provision for a general aviation area and, 

under our policies, an opportunity will be given to several fixed base 

operators to operate there.

And it would be in pursuit of the policy of no monopoly and no 

discriminatory use of the airport. I think, again, the public demand 

will control here.

As Mr. Friedel points out, this is some distance from the center of 

the city, far further and less convenient than Washington National, 

but this is an age of the disappearing airp ort because it is so costly 

to hold on to land big enough to land airplanes.

And, as you know, we are terribly concerned tha t the pressure of 

those who are worried about the noise, the rising land values, and so 

on, will banish airports from the large metropolitan areas, and we 

are trying very hard and campaigning vigorously to keep as many 

airports as we can.

Mr. Williams. Now, as I understand it, out of Washington National you only have one fixed base operation and th at is Butler Aviation, is it not?

Mr. H alaby. In the fixed base operation or operator, where he goes 

across the board of providing maintenance and rep air and services, 

and so on ?

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.

Mr. Halaby. That is correct, and there are several reasons for it. 

One is that we do not have-----
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 113

Mr. Williams. I presume tha t that is what you call a fixed-base 

operator in this instance?

Mr. Halaby. Yes, sir. Th at is Butler Aviation. And we do not 

have room there for those who want to use it and, as fa r as I know, we have not had an applican t for a competitive fixed-base operation 

tha t we could accommodate.

Mr. Williams. Was tha t let on a bid basis ?

Mr. Halaby. Yes, sir. We are, incidentally, proposing to enforce much more strictly than in the past the provisions of the Federal Air­ port Act, which require that any airport in which Federal money has been invested shall not give a monopoly to a fixed-base operator. And this is going to create a little hueing and crying because this 

policy has not been enforced strictly in the past. There are quite a few’ places where, through local arrangements and pressures and so on, an individual or a company has been given a com­ plete monopoly over the fixed-base operations, and we believe that is 

not only unlawful but unwise.

Mr. Williams. Now’, I have a few questions that I would like to 

ask w hich are, more or less, serious type of questions, but they lead to perhaps a little better understand ing on the part of the committee as 

to the way these airports are operated. Washington National, as I understand, is being operated at a 

profit at the present time?

Mr. H alaby. Yes, sir.

Mr. Williams. Approximately how much?

Mr. Halaby. Well, this latest year was $316,000.

Mr. Williams. $316,000. About how much a year is collected from 

the airlines at W ashington National?

Mr. Halaby. I am going to ask Mr. Hobbs for that specific figure 

if he has it. If he does not, we w ill get it for the record. We will get the total, Mr. Chairman, for the record. We are charging 13 cents per 1,000 pounds of landing weight, which is about 

twice what it was last year. (The information requested was subsequently furnished and is as 

follo ws:)

Washington National Airpor t statem ent of income, fiscal year 1961

Total income_____________________________________________ $3, 709,148

Payments by scheduled airlines (41 jiercent) ------------------------------- 1,523,193 Income from concessions and oth er sources (59 p erce nt)__________ 2,185,955

Mr. Williams. Will tha t go also to general aviation?

Mr. Halaby. No, sir.

Mr. Williams. General aviation does not pay landing fees?

Mr. Halaby. Only if they are commercially operating.

In other words, a commercial general aviation aircraft would pay a charge ranging from $2.50 for an executive Twin-Beach to $t.50 

for a Convair 240.

Mr. Williams. What about gasoline sales or gasoline and fuel

sales ? Does the airport get a commission on these sales and, if so, approximately how much a gallon ?

Mr. Halaby. The w’ay we do that, sir, is we let a concession con­ tract to one of competing bidders, and they pay us a basic amount for the concession, and then we get so much per gallon pumped. 

84674— 62— pt . 2------ 4
114 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIR POR TS

Mr. Williams. Now, do you know how much it is per gallon?

Air. Halaby. The percentage of gross business done is the base 

from which this is made. The gross business is the base and we 

charge a percentage.

I am embarrassed to say tha t I am not positive what i t is.

Air. Williams. Tha t same type of arrangement is made with the 

general aviation ?

Mr. Halaby. Yes, sir.

Mr. W illiams. They pay so much fo r the concession and then you 

have a percentage of the gross ?

Mr. Halaby. A percentage of the gross.

Mr. Williams. Whether it is gasoline sales or parking a ircraft or 

what have you ?

Mr. Halaby. We will pu t tha t in the record, Mr. Chairman.

(The information requested is as follows:)

Genera l Avia tion Servicing F ac ilitie s

WASHINGT ON NATIONAL AIRPORT

On April 30, 1957, an invitation for proposals to conduct fixed-base operator 

activities at the Washington National Airport was released. This invitation 

was sent to 15 interested persons and organizations. As a result of the invitation, our records indicate that one proposal was received and a contract was 

executed with the present incumbent, the Butler company. In addition to the 

regu lar base operator functions, the agreement provides for the operator, as 

an agent of the Government, to meet, direct, and park general aviation airc raft 

and transport passengers, crew and baggage to and from the terminal to the 

airc raft. In addition, he collects the landing fees and remits 90 percent to 

the Government, retaining 10 percent for the services performed for the Government.

The operator leases a hang ar and for the last completed fiscal year paid the 

Government $53,967 in rent and $15,134 for utilities. In addition, we receive 

1 percent of his gross receipts or a guaranteed minimum of $6,000 annually, 

whichever is greater. We also receive 0.5 cent for each gallon of aviation 

gasoline sold. In view of our past experience, consideration has been given to 

negotiating an acceptable agreement with the current operator. However, the 

matter is currently under review and the final decision will be made in the best 

interest of the Government and general aviation. In any event, we would be 

pleased to receive proposals from any interested parties. Such proposals would 

be given very careful and serious consideration.

DULLE S INTE RN AT ION AL AIRPORT

Invitations have been released requesting proposals from aircraft-servicing 

operators to perform base operation activities for general aviation a t the Dulles 

International Airport. Two proposed areas have been set aside for this purpose 

and similar additional plots will be developed if required. All proponents were 

advised tha t it was not the intent of the Government to grant to a single operator 

the exclusive right of performing such service. From among the operators 

one will be selected, to act as an agent of the Government, to perform certain 

functions including arrival guidance, ramp service a t gate positions, and collection of landing fees and parking fees.

Mr. W illiams. Mr. H alaby, the second bells have run for a quorum 

call and the committee is going to have to adjourn.

I am wondering if the committee felt th at it was necessary for you 

to retu rn, if we could work out a mutually agreeable time perhaps 

next week or even possibly later this week ?

Mr. Halaby. Yes, sir.

Mr. Williams. The committee will not be able to meet this afternoon. We will meet in the morning at 10 o’clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene 

at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 3,1962.)
NATIONAL CAPIT AL AIRPO RTS

THURSDAY , MAY 3, 1962

H ouse of Representatives,

Subcommittee on T ransportation and Aeronautics of

th e Committee on I nterstate and F oreign Commerce,

Washington, D.G.

The subcommittee met, purs uant to recess, at 10:20 a.m., in room 1334, New House Office Building, Hon. John Bell Williams (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. W illiams. The committee will be in order.

Our first witness this morning, and the author of H.R. 10471, which is one of two bills that are subject to hearings in this series of hearings, is the Honorable Daniel B. Brewster, our colleague from the State of 

Maryland.

ST ATEM EN T OF HON. DAN IEL B. BREW STER, A REPRES ENT ATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. W illiams. Mr. Brewster, we are very happy to have you before 

our committee. I believe this is your first time to come before this 

committee.

We are very happy to welcome you.

Mr. Brewster. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, first, 

may I thank you and the members of the committee for the expeditious manner in which you have scheduled a hearing on the critical issues involved in the operation of airports by the Federal Aviation Agency. As you know, the F AA now operates Washington National Airpo rt and is now building and plans to operate Dulles In ternational A irport 

► at Chantilly, Va. Now, Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to refe r briefly to the 

testimony given yesterday by Mr. Halaby. Now, Air. Halaby supports a measure tha t would create a National ‘ Capital Airp orts Corporation. I am here today to support H.R. 10471, which would establish a W ashington Airports Board. In the course of Mr. Halaby’s testimony he made statements along this line, that generally local ownership of airports is preferable; that Dulles had been a real headache to the FAA, and—now, this is a direct quote—“The more independent from my office, the better I will like it.” He said tha t in referring to Dulles. He then outlined the adva ntages of the Airp orts Corporation.

And I find, certainly the principal, if not the only, point where we really differ is that in his recommendation of a Washington A irpo rts 

Corporation he states, on page 2 of his statement—

but it would rem ain under the policy direction of the Administrator of the F edera l Aviation Agency.

115
116 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

This is where we believe that the Washington airports should be 

under the direction of an independent agency or board subject to the 

supervision of the FA A, just as airports all over the country are.

The primary function of the FAA is to enforce air safety regulations and maintain proper air traffic control and air navigation facilities throughout the United States.

The role the FAA plays as the operator of Washington National, 

and may soon play as the operator of Dulles Airport, is in direct conflict with its primary function—to serve as the Nation’s a ir safety 

policing authority.

If our Nation’s air safety control system is to be held above reproach 

and merit the confidence of the flying public, it is imperative th at the 

FAA, at the earliest possible moment, be relieved of certain duties 

which are in direct conflict with its policing and air safety responsibilities.

Further, in the area of “public convenience and necessity,” in order 

tha t both the airlines and air passengers will receive equitable consideration and not be coerced into using Dulles Airp ort, it is necessary 

tha t the operation of this a irport be removed from the jurisdiction of 

the FAA.

These are two separate, serious problems which exist under the 

present laws establishing the FAA as an operator of Washington National Airpo rt and Dulles Internationa l Airport.

Fo r more than a decade, ai r traffic has been operating a t an absolute 

maximum peak at Washington National Airport and in a manner 

which the FAA does not tolerate at other airpo rts in the United 

States. Should the operation of Washington National Airport be 

removed from the jurisdiction of the FAA, it would view air operations there with a more realistic perspective and thereby increase the 

safety factor and allow for grea ter convenience for air passengers 

using that terminal.

Every Member of Congress is well aw’are that unrealistic delays, 

through stacking time, delay approach time, and delay takeoff time, 

are routine procedure reg arding flights destined for and originating at 

Washington National Airport.

It is my opinion tha t many of the flights certificated to Washington National, in the interests of both safety and convenience, would 

have been diverted to Friendship Internatio nal Air por t were it not 

for the fact that the FAA and its predecessor, the CAA, have been 

very active in trying to achieve maximum air traffic for Washington 

National.

It is to be regretted that the FAA is both the operator of Washington National and also the Air Safety Policing Authority. The unfortunate conflict of interest which exists under such conditions was 

highlighted on April 20, 1962, when Najeeb E. Halaby, Administrator, Federal Aviation Agency, described at a news conference the 

events surrounding a near-miss of a midair collision in the area of 

Washington National on March 21 between two aircraft approaching 

tha t airport.

In attem pting to explain the conditions which led up to the nearmiss, Mr. Halaby and Oscar Bakke, Assistant Administrator of the 

FAA for the eastern region, described the intricate, complicated,
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 117

tense, ha irbreadth conditions prevailing in the Washington National 

air control tower.

At one point, Air. Halaby pointed out tha t the “mounting traffic 

situation at Washington National is placing increasing pressure on 

the controllers.” More th an 10 years ago, when the CAA, then operating Washington National, wanted to have the Government build 

another airpo rt, it said th at Washington National had reached its 

traffic saturation p oint and th at another airport was required.

We cannot argue with the fact that those conditions existed 10 

years ago, jus t as they continue to exist today, but a most dangerous 

condition is aggravated when the operator of an airport is its own 

policing authority. Mr. Halaby, in speaking of equipment now in use at Washington 

National, designed to coordinate delays of approaching aircraft, by 

his own words, indicated how the FA A and the CAA have approached 

this problem in the past. Air. Halaby state d:

I hope you do n ot expect me or this administration to make up in 1 or 2 years 

the neglect of 15 years.

It is my contention that Mr. Halaby and the F AA should be given 

the primary responsibility of enforcing air safety regulations and not 

be burdened with the housekeeping operational duties in connection 

with AVashington National and Dulles Airports.

If “neglect” has been the rule for 15 years, I thin k tha t this Congress does not want to see it continue for another 15 minutes.

The Members of Congress also should take a very close look at the 

tactics used by the FA A on the operating airlines in its efforts to 

coerce the airlines into using Dulles Airp ort.

This situation places the airlines in an unfair and untenable position, for these airlines, in performing their normal transportation 

services are under the daily scrutiny and control of the FAA, and 

also, greatly dependent upon rulings by the Civil Aeronautics Board.

The conflict-of-interest which exists because of the unique arrangement whereby the FAA, as “landlord,” has tremendous influence 

everywhere in the United States over the airlines or “tenants” constitutes bureaucratic autocracy in its worst form.

Yesterday Air. Halaby stated that, naturally, the F AA would have 

all the instincts natural of a landlord in wanting to retain proper 

tenants. Not only do the FAA and CAB have powerful weapons at 

the ir disposal to coerce the airlines to use Dulles Airport, but they 

flaunt these weapons openly to intimidate the airlines and to force 

them to use Dulles.

Evidence of such weapon flaunting was made clear last F ebruary 14 

when the Adm inistrator of the FAA and the Chairman of the Civil 

Aeronautics Board, appearing on the same platform, arbitra rily declared in a joint statement tha t all jet service to AVashington will 

move through Dulles Airport..

Such arbitrary statements by the Chairman of the CAB, quite 

aside from the position of the Commissioner of the FAA, are in direct 

conflict with the Civil Aeronautics Act, for this autocratic position has 

been voiced by the CAB Chairman even before the CAB has conducted hearings for the public-convenience-and-necessity aspects of 

such flights being forced into Dulles.
118 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

By looking at any map of Maryland and Virginia, you will see that 

Friendship Internatio nal Airpo rt is in the center of the vast airtransportation market made up by the Washington-Baltimore metropolitan areas. The airlines, in planning the ir flights, through normal 

business judgment and economic considerations, want to be as close 

as possible to the center of any populated area.

If you use Friendship A irport as the center of a circle and extend 

the circle’s radius 50 miles, you will see that two thriv ing metropolises, 

Washington and Baltimore, and at least 4 million people live within 

this area.

On the other hand, i f you drew a similar circle with a 50-mile radius 

around Dulles Airport, it could easily be seen that less than one-third 

of the number of people reside within tha t area, and tha t the great 

biilk of this one-third, residing roughly in a segment resembling a 

slice of pie, extending from Dulles to Washington, also are within 

the 50-mile radius of Friendship Airport.

I thin k the Members of Congress should do everything possible 

to see that the airlines are not intimidated either directly or indirectly 

into using an airpo rt which has considerable economic liabilities.

We remember, again, yesterday Mr. H alaby’s statement of the very 

substantial increase in charges tha t will be made at Dulles over other 

existing and comparable airports.

From this point it might be well fo r the Members of Congress to 

explore what steps have been taken by the FAA in approaching the 

airlines and also how successful or unsuccessful the FAA has been in 

getting the airlines to agree to installing large operations at Dulles.

I have been advised that only two major airlines have agreed to take 

counter space, but apparently merely as a token gesture for, though 

they are major operators, one has contracted for 14 feet of counter 

space and the other for 15 feet.

Now we did hear testimony yesterday tha t several others had 

agreed. I do not have the precise information on that.

I thin k Congress should keep alert to this situation both with regard to the question o f “public convenience and necessity” and the 

tactics employed by the F AA to seek tenants for its airport at Dulles.

Any decision by the Federal aviation officials to force the airlines 

to use Dulles Airport as th eir sole terminal for Washington jet traf ­

fic would be contrary to the authority granted to these agencies by 

Congress.

And this certainly would work a hardship on the traveling public 

located in parts of Washington and in the entire metropolitan area 

of Baltimore.

As Members of Congress we must recognize th at the airlines are in 

the untenable position of not being able to speak out boldly against 

the stated position of the CAB and FAA on the compulsory use of 

Chantilly. It is our responsibility to see that the intent of the Civil 

Aeronautics Act is not abused by forcing the airlines to be unwilling 

tenants at an isolated, high-rent airport.

As a step in this direction, I urge the members of this committee to 

remove the FAA from the airport-o perating business, an action which 

can be accomplished expeditiously and without disrupting present 

aviation activities in the Washington area throu gh the enactment of 

H.R. 10471, introduced by me in the House on February 28, 1962.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 119

Now, gentlemen of the committee, it is certainly not my intention 

to recommend the discontinuance of Dulles. We recognize the great 

expenditure that the taxpayers have there, the tremendous investment, 

but what we do ask, in all fairness, is that the people of this entire 

metropolitan area do receive the service tha t they are entitled to; tha t 

arbitra rily two Federal officials do not force airlines away from a very 

substantial airp ort which the citizens of Maryland have created at 

Friendship.

And in the overall picture we urge th at the FA A wear one colored 

hat, that of a regulatory agency. They seek to be, in their own words, 

independent of Dulles.

Well, let’s make them completely independent of Dulles and put 

Dulles and Washington National in the same boat as municipal airports are all over the rest of the United States.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope I have not burdened your committee 

with testimony too lengthy in nature. I know there are several 

spokesmen here from the Maryland community, a representative of the 

mayor of Baltimore and the Friendship Airpo rt Board, the State 

Aviation Commission, the Baltimore Association of Commerce, and 

the Greater Baltimore Committee, and, with the chairman’s permission, I know these people would each like to testify on this measure.

Mr. Williams. We intend to give them an opportunity to testify, 

of course, but before you leave there may be some questions.

Mr. Friedel.

Mr. Friedel. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment Air. Brewster 

on a very fine and forth right statement.

I read an article in the local paper yesterday where it said that 14 

airlines have signed up for Dulles at about 280 percent higher rates. 

And I am thinking out loud now, but I am wondering whether to 

invite representatives of these 14 airlines to appear before this committee, and whether they would testify or would be afraid to testify 

on how this agreement was reached.

I cannot imagine that an airline that has been losing money, and 

I am speaking particu larly of major airlines, would make such a move 

which they, themselves, said will cost them $1 million more to operate 

at Dulles than it does at Friendship, and they are 1 of the 14 going 

to Dulles.

I might pursue this a little later, Air. Chairman, if they appear here, 

but I do not know whether they will admit they were coerced or not. 

It is inconceivable to think that they would undertake to spend $1 

million more while they are still losing money.

Mr. Williams. May I say, in response to that, th at the committee is 

very sympathetic to the problems tha t are faced by the people of 

Maryland in connection w ith the building of the Chantilly Airpo rt 

out here.

As fa r as the suggestion, made by my friend from Maryland, is concerned with respect to calling the airlines before this committee, I 

would th ink that the committee would not be too much interested in 

going on a fishing expedition.

But in the event some evidence of coercion on the part of the Government agencies is shown, of course, I feel tha t under those circumstances it would not only be the responsibility but the du ty of the 

committee to take testimony along those lines.
120 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

And I would suggest th at those who feel the same way that Mr. 

Friedel does, and as he and his colleagues do, should attempt to make 

some inquiry into this question, and if they can find evidence of coercion or improper acts on the part of Government agencies in working out this agreement with the airlines to use Dulles, then I can 

assure them th at the committee will be very much interested in taking 

testimony along those lines.

Mr. Friedel. Well, I wish to testify, too, in support of Mr. Brewster’s bill, and I again want to compliment him.

He made a very fine statement, and I thought it got right to the 

very point; tha t is, taking the FAA out of the landlord business, out 

of rent concessions and other problems that they have, and creating 

this new Board to operate these airports.

I am wholeheartedly in favor of your bill, Danny.

Mr. Brewster. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Devine?

Mr. Devine. I, too, would like to add my commendation to our colleague from Maryland. It was a very clear and precise ABC type of 

statement that is readily understood, coupled with the fact that it is a 

clear demonstration tha t you are interested in your constituents in the 

State of Maryland and the facility that presently exists there.

I might invite your attention to the top of page 3 of your statement 

where you sta te:

Evidence of such weapon flaunting was made clear last February 14 when 

the Administrator of the FAA and the Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics 

Board, appearing on the same platform, arbitrarily declared in a joint statement that all je t service to Washington will move through Dulles Airport.

Now, perhaps the chairman has more information on this than I, 

but it is my understanding th at the facilities here at W ashington National Airport are such th at, I guess, a turbojet is the only type of jet 

plane that can fly in there, contrasted with 707’s and DC-8’s and things 

like t ha t; tha t the airport is not equipped to handle those large jets, 

but that they could be handled at Friendship as well as Dulles.

Now, would you say tha t this statement, tha t they would move to 

Dulles, would indicate discrimination against Washington National 

or discrimination against Friendship?

Mr. Brewster. This statement was made at a conference called by 

the dean of the Maryland delegation, George Fallon, and attended by 

our entire Maryland delegation.

They stated th at the Washington market encompasses a great part 

of the State of M aryland; many parts infinitely closer to Friendship 

than to Dulles.

This would mean that anyone wishing to end up in Arundel County 

of Maryland. Montgomery County, or Prince Georges County, or any 

of southern Maryland, might say they want to go to Baltimore, but 

if they came in on a jet they would have to go to Dulles, and then 

be forced to drive for li^ hours to get to their homes.

You are entirely correct, sir, tha t the discrimination would not be 

against Washington National, which is overcrowded now and inadequate for jet service. The discrimination would be against the 

traveling public that we consider to be in the Baltimore, Md., metropolitan area but which, arbitrarily , the CAB and FAA would say
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 121

is Washington, when Friendship is so much closer to the people in 

the market than Dulles.

Mr. Devine. Well, although $100 million has been committed for expenditures, and Dulles is here to stay, I thin k tha t your testimony would indicate tha t you feel that it was a bit of bad judgment in 

even building that with Frien dship available ? Would you go along with th at statement ?

Mr. Brewster. This decision has been made-----

Mr. Devine. Yes.

Mr. Brewster. And we have the investment there and, as prudent 

people, we must utilize it. My approach or my p oint is that we want to serve th e entire metro­ politan complex made up of two great cities, and the traveling public, and that clearly in 10 years there will be enough traffic to utilize both 

grea t new airports. But, in the intervening 10 years, I say, do not unfa irly penalize Marylanders, Baltimoreans, and the Friendship operation. Let’s cooperate and work fairly one with the other and utilize both 

airports. This will be more convenient. It will certainly be safer, and the FAA can do a better job nationally if they are not housekeeping but if they are just policing.

Mr. Devine. I would ask you this very direct question in view of 

the testimony you have given. Do you have any evidence whatsoever of any indication of coercion on the part of the FAA to any commercial or any scheduled airline 

to move from Washington National to Dulles?

Air. Brewster. I have no definite event, statement, or letter, which 

I can bring to the committee’s attention. I do see that the very real danger necessarily exists under the gov­ ernmental structure that we now have. I also point out to the com­ mittee what has happened in the pa st decade, that because of FA A’s operation of Washington municipal, this airport has been badly crowded and has had serious accidents where a much larger and better facility for many years was not properly utilized which, under any fair distribution of traffic, would have been utilized for the convenience 

of the traveling public.

Mr. Devine. I think you have well pointed out in your statement the danger of the safety authority being also the operation authority, plus the very practical aspect of commercial airlines not being inclined to come before this committee voluntarily and say th at this same con­ trolling authority has also suggested tha t they move their facility to 

this new airport. I am personally quite aware of the crowded conditions at this Wash­ ington National Airport, and since I have been in Congress I have made 112 flights in or out of this particu lar airp ort and on quite a number of occasions have been involved in the stacking that you mentioned here in your statement. I recall one occasion being stacked for an hour and a h alf in zero instrument weather, and I happened on that occasion to be readin g a book entitled “Crowded Skies.” On those occasions we would have 

been very happy to get in the airport .
122 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

I think you have clearly pointed out tha t they had reached nearly 

a saturation point 10 years ago, and here with the faster and more 

modern and newer equipment in this present facility, the situation has 

aggravated itself in the intervening 10 years.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Brewster. Thank you.

We have a serious problem here and the committee may want to 

address its thoughts in the futu re to some overall regional type of 

airp ort control where F riendship, Dulles, and Washington National, 

would be much more closely integra ted together, and then the a ppropriate flights could be spotted around to one of the three.

But that goes a step furthe r than I propose at this time.

Mr. Devine. I might say this, tha t in those 112 flights, on only one 

occasion has a flight terminated at Friendship, and that was for the 

reason tha t tha t equipment at that time was a DC-7, and there was 

some runway repair situation here tha t would not handle that large 

equipment, and tha t is the only reason tha t it was diverted into 

Friendship.

That is the only occasion that that particular flight has taken me to 

that airport.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Jarman ?

Mr. J arman. Air. Chairman, I would like to Join in the tribute to 

our colleague from Maryland for his able presentation.

Do I understand tha t your bill, H.R. 10471, would tra nsfer the administrative responsibility for the National Airport and for Dulles 

to a W ashington A irport Board, the members to be appointed by the 

President ?

Mr. Brewster. Tha t is correct, sir. It is almost precisely what Mr. 

Halaby suggests, in essence, by setting up a corporation with the exception that the corporation, unde r his proposal, is under his thumb, 

a part of his operation and responsibility.

I say it should be separate and be nearly like municipal airport 

boards across all of America.

Mr. J arman. Thank you.

I have no further questions.

Mr. Williams. Air. Brewster, I, of course, concur with my colleagues on this committee in commending you for a very excellent 

statement of your position in support of the bill which you intro ­

duced.

No one can serve with Sam Friedel on this committee very long 

without being informed of all of the problems tha t are attendant to the 

use of Friendship Airport, and all of us have a deep and abiding sympathy for these problems that you face at this airfield.

The fact remains, however, t ha t whether for right or for wrong, 

some $100 million has been invested by the Federal Government in 

constructing this new airfield for the use of Washington and its 

vicinity.

Now, I would like to inquire or to make several inquiries as to the 

mechanics of the so-called Board operation tha t you would like to set 

up in your legislation.

First, I would like to ask you, who owns Friendship International? 

Is it the S tate of Maryland or the city of Baltimore ?

Air. Brewster. The city of Baltimore.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 123

Mr. Williams. Now, is it your purpose for the city of Baltimore to tran sfer title to Friendship International Airpo rt to this board 

tha t would be set up ?

Mr. Brewster. No, Mr. Chairman. My measure does not go that 

far.The board tha t I propose merely will operate and control Dulles and Washington National. The Baltimore Airport Board would still be responsible for the administration of affairs at Friendship. Now, the suggestion has been advanced, but I do not make it at this time and it is not covered in my proposal, th at perhaps we should have a regional operation of all three. Maybe other witnesses will make that suggestion, but my bill does not cover Friendship.

Mr. Williams. It is not your intention for this Board to have any 

jurisdiction whatsoever over the operation of Friendship ?

Mr. Brewster. None whatsoever.

Mr. Williams. Then, basically, what is the difference between the proposal made by Mr. Halaby and the proposal made by you, other than the fact, as I understand it, tha t your Board would not be re­ sponsible to the Federal Aviation Agency, nor would it be subject 

to control by the Federal Aviation Agency ? Aside from that, what is the basic difference between your approach 

and th at taken by Mr. Halaby ?

Mr. Brewster. Well, Mr. Chairman, there is this very fundamental approach: The board that I suggest would operate the two Washing­ ton airports as Friendship is operated by a board, as Chicago airports are operated by an independent agency there. All are subject to FA A regulation, but Mr. Halaby, on page 2 of his statement, in the second paragraph, states that the Airports Cor­ poration would remain under the policy direction of the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency. At the same time, in the same statement, he says, “The more inde­ pendent I am from runn ing an airport, the better I am going to 

like it,” So I say, “Mr. Halaby, let’s make you completely independent and take you out of the runn ing of airports business, and you supervise the overall safety and supervise all aiqiorts under precisely the same regulations and not be able to give special favo r to the one tha t is 

within your administrative duties.”

Mr. Williams. Then, as I understand it, the purpose of removing the Federal Aviation Agency from having any jurisdiction whatso­ ever over the operation of the airport is based on a fear or an appre­ hension, I might say, tha t the agency itself, due to its interest in the airport, would use the power of its position to coerce and force air­ lines to use Dulles to the detriment of Friendship Internationa l?

Mr. Brewster. Well, that is certainly correct, sir, but it goes a lit­ tle farthe r than this; to the detriment, yes, of Friendship, but th at really is not so im portant as it is to the detriment of the traveling public in a tremendous metropolitan area, and to the detriment of the traveling public of America as a whole with reference to safety. And, we have a clear historical precedent for what happens here at Washington Municipal Airport, where the FAA is the safety officer 

and is also the traffic manager.
124 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

We have had tremendous crowding, and we have had serious accidents which, I say, might have been avoided had they been entirely 

divorced from the operation of the airport, and they could be completely objective and not be in the position which they now are, and 

will continue to be, under existing law, of both prosecutor and jury.

Mr. Williams. It is quite obvious th at for the next few year’s, until 

Dulles becomes self-sustaining, that it is going to require a funding 

from somewhere.

It is your purpose tha t the Congress should make appro priations 

to this Board for the operation of Dulles?

Mr. Brewster. That is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman.

I believe th at the Congress should keep a tig ht hold on the expenditure of Federal funds, and I would anticipate annual appropriations 

by the Congress to cover the deficit which must necessarily arise in 

the operation of the Washington Airp orts Board.

I certainly do not advocate g iving this Board a right to draw on 

the Treasury without congressional approval.

Mr. Williams. I will say that I quite agree with you on that* 

whether it is a board or a corporation.

Do you have any further questions ?

Mr. Freidel.

Mr. Devine. I would like to ask one more.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Devine.

Mr. Devine. Mr. Brewster, do you know whether there is any difference in the landing fees at Washington National and at Friendship?

Whether they be termed commercial or private, there is a landing 

fee?

Mr. Brewster. I do not have th at information at my fingertips. I 

know from what we heard yesterday, and the newspaper articles, that 

the fees at Dulles are supposed to be 280 percent higher than the fees 

at Friendship.

The fees at Friendship now are 14 cents per 1,000 pounds of landing 

weight.

The fees at Washington Municipal—may I provide tha t for the 

record, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Williams. I notice th at in the schedule this morning we have 

Mr. R udolph Drennan, representing the Maryland Aviation Commission, and also Air. George Baker, representing the Air por t Board of 

the Department of Aviation of the city of Baltimore.

I would be inclined to feel th at they would be able to answer these 

questions much better than Air. Brewster.

Do you have any further questions ?

Air. Devine. It makes no difference to me. I was seeking an answer. 

I do not care about the source.

Air. Williams. I hope they will give us tha t information when they 

testify.

Do you have any furth er questions ?

Mr. Friedfl. No fur ther questions.

Air. Williams. Thank you very much, Air. Brewster.

Air. Brewster. Thank you. Air. Chairman.

Air. Williams. Our next witness, and I am very happy to recognize him, will be our colleague on the committee who Inis probably 

been the most persistent backer of Friendship Internationa l Airp ort
NATIO NAL CAPITAL AIRPOR TS 125

that we have in the Congress or, I am sure, even in the State of Maryland, and that is our colleague, the Honorable Samuel N. Friedel.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL N. FRIEDE L, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. Friedel. Mr. Chairman, I want to than k you for your very

complimentary remarks, and also thank the members of the committee.I appreciate your kind cooperation in scheduling hearings on H.R. 

10471, to establish the Washington Airports Board. We who are supporting H.R. 10471 appreciate this opportunity to 

■explain why this legislation is important not only to the residents of the Washington-Baltimore area but to the Federal Aviation Agency, 

the aviation industry and the taxpayers generally. This bill is important to the Washington area because it will provide the area with more efficient airp ort administration and operation. It is important to the taxpayers because it will mean a more economical and efficient operation of the area airp orts by people whose 

sole interest will be in providing airp ort service. It is important to the FAA and the air transportation industry 

because it will give the Administrator and his staff more time to de­ vote to the FAA, which was set up by Congress t o promote safety in 

ai r transportation—and not to run airports. The present system whereby the FAA. builds and operates the Wash­ ington area a irports has the FAA right in the middle of a very serious conflict of interest. The Agency enforcing safety is doing business, and big business, with the very people it is regulating. Congress would not stand for a situation like this anywhere else in the Government. 

Why permit it in the FAA ? The entire history of the development of Dulles Airport shows tha t the FA A should not be in the business of bu ilding and operating an airport. The history of Dulles is one of a long series of bad 

guesses, delays, and disagreements. The FAA is more than a regulatory agency. The Administrator is charged by Congress with promoting and developing aviation. 

Tha t may explain some of the frills and chrome at Dulles, such as 

the mobile lounges we have been hearing so much about. Estimates of costs submitted to Congress have not even been good guesses. Fir st we were told that an appropriation of $14 million was needed. That was short more than $100 million. Congress has al­ ready authorized more than $25 million for a sewer system to serve 

Dulles and vicinity. First, the Department of Commerce could not decide where to build the new airport. Plan s have been drawn up and discarded. As I will show later, they s tarted out with a plan for a regional airpo rt for 

the Washington-Baltimore area. Then, as soon as Baltimore had built an adequate regional airport, the CAA came up with anoth er 

plan.

Now, I am not blaming Mr. Halaby. This is not his fault. He wasn't around here then. He inherited this mess. But it is his re­ sponsibility now. He has to cope with it. Wh at we are trying to
126 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

do is relieve him of this unwelcome inheritance so he can go about his 

job of regulating and promoting civil aviation.

We are not blaming him for the mistakes of the Department of 

Commerce, the CAA, and the F AA before he came on the scene. We 

are blaming the system which placed the responsibility for developing 

and operating an airpor t system on a regulatory agency.

We want to change the system. It would be interesting to know 

how much time Mr. H alaby has spent on this airpor t problem when 

he could have been devoting his great talents and experience to the 

job F AA was set up to do. Surely there is enough to do in developing an airways system and reorganizing the safety inspection activities of the FAA without having to be a part-time builder and real 

estate agent.

Mr. H alaby should welcome this opportunity to get rid of a “white 

elephant.”

This legislation is imp orta nt not only to the National Capital area 

but to the whole Washington-Baltimore area.

In trying to salvage something from the situation in which they 

find themselves, the FAA very well could disturb airline service to 

the whole area. They are going to do just tha t if any pressure is 

exerted on the airlines to transf er flights from Friendship to Dulles 

in violation of sound business principles that the place to provide the 

service is where the airlines find the customers.

But the FAA is anxious to start taking in money, and as much money 

as possible, to pay for this white elephant.

A look at the legislative history of Dulles before this committee 

and the Committee on Appropriations, will show th at the people who 

built Dulles, on the basis of the record, have no business running this 

airport.

Let’s start with the CAA’s plan for a regional airport. The CAA’s 

Washington and Baltimore Regional Airpo rt Study of Janua ry 1949, 

had this to say about Frie nd ship:

The overall master plan which guides the development provides for a satisfactory ultimate airport which will be capable of accommodating future air 

traffic peakloads for the entire Baltimore-Washington region, should such a 

need ever arise.

Now, I would like to make this one statement here, tha t this is the 

first year tha t Friendship is in the black. It was originally built 

primarily with funds from Baltimore City.

Even at peakload now it is only using about 50 percent of its capacity at the present time.

You will find this statement in the hearings of this committee on the 

bill to authorize a second Washington airport, which I have here.

Yet, a year afte r this report favorable to a regional airpo rt was 

issued, the Department of Commerce came to Congress for authority to 

build another airport in the immediate vicinity of the District.

The bill passed in 1950—and that was before I was a Member of 

Congress—authorized an appropriation of $14 million. In the hearings, the Administrator said the cost of the hangars, which would be 

revenue-producing and pay f or themselves, might run the total cost up 

to $24 million.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 127

Up to now we have appropriated $105 million for developing the 

new airport. In addition, more than $2 million has been allocated for 

air navigation aids.

In the 1961 Independent Offices A pprop riations bill, we appropriated $2,450,000 for operating expenses. The 1962 appropria tion 

has nearly $2 million for operating costs.

And, we cannot see the end of the road. No one knows how much 

the finished job will cost.

I assume that this $14 million was just a bad guess and not an intentional move to mislead the Congress. However, at the time we were 

considering an appropriation of $12,500,000, in the supplemental appropriations bill on August 6, 1957, I made a statement for the 

record tha t the new Dulles Airpor t would cost $75 million before it 

was completed. At tha t time some members felt I was just exaggerating because I felt F riendship should be utilized to full capacity.

Time has shown how rig ht I was. Congress has already approprop riated $25 million dollars for a sewer system to serve Dulles Airport and vicinity. This is more than the original estimated cost of the 

entire airport. We have appropriated another $13 million for access 

roads to get to Dulles, here again almost the amount we were told the 

entire a irpo rt would cost. In fact, the record will show that we have 

appropriated more tha n $105 million to date for this new airport and 

the figures are still going up. This year $3,400,000 has been requested 

for Dulles, and this is not the end. All I can say, gentlemen, is tha t 

the taxpayers are paying dearly fo r this new airport.

In the 1950 hearings, the FA A was talking about the urgent need 

for a new Washington Airpo rt by 1955. Now there seems to be some 

doubt tha t the new airport will be ready this fall, 7 years later. 

Friendship has handled the traffic during this time, and handled it 

well.

And I might add that there is not a jet in use, and t hat includes the 

Cavalier and the Russian jets, tha t has not landed at Friendship Airport.

There is nothing we can do now about these delays and bad guesses 

but we can set up an independent board to run the Washington airports. It will be a board free to concentrate on the problems of r un ­

ning an airport and p roviding service to the public. It will not have 

to justify past mistakes or squeeze the airlines to get money to pay 

for those mistakes.

Baltimore is not asking for any special favors for Friendship A irport. We never have. All we want is to have a f air chance to serve 

the people of the Washington-Baltimore area. A majority of the 

people who use airline service in this area can be served more quickly 

and efficiently th roug h Friendship than throu gh an airp ort in a remote area across the Potomac in Virginia.

All we are asking is th at nothing be done to force or coerce the a irlines to move flights which are needed at Baltimore to Dulles ju st to 

provide revenue for Dulles. Public convenience should be the prime 

objective.

As Federal taxpayers, Maryland, as well as the other 49 States, 

have contributed to build Dulles and it is not fai r to take business 

away from Friendship to pay for this white elephant.
12 8 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Al l we w ant is to be le ft a lon e to pro vid e good service to the pub lic. 

We do n’t wa nt to be pe nalized so the FA A can pa y fo r a whi te 

ele phant.

We believe an ind ependent bo ard to opera te Dulles an d W ashing ­

ton Na tio na l Airp ort will prov ide prote ction bo th fo r th e taxp ay ers 

and the tra ve lin g public.

I might add th at we, in M arylan d, are very mu ch concern ed abo ut 

the FA A using—and I am gu ar di ng my words now as I would not 

wa nt to say “coerce”—un du e efforts to force thes e airli ne s to move 

fro m Fr iend sh ip to D ulles.

An d, believe me, they will no t save a ny time. In fact, it will tak e 

lon ger fro m downtown W ashing ton to go to Dulles th an it tak es to 

get to Fr iend sh ip.

As I un de rst an d it, th e CA B has set up a line which run s into 

M arylan d, Princ e Georges Co unty, an d Mo ntgom ery Co unty, and 

the y say th at ev ery thing west of th at sho uld go to W ash ington Na ­

tio na l—th is was yea rs ago—and the res t sho uld go to Fr iend sh ip.

Th ey are using the same ya rd stick fo r an ai rp or t th at is 30 miles 

fa rt her away. Wh en the y ha d th at line fo r W ashing ton Na tio nal 

I could u nd ersta nd i t. Now, if they move the line between W ashing ­

ton an d Mary lan d fro m Du lle s to Fr iend sh ip you will find th at it 

will be mu ch closer to Fr iend sh ip , much eas ier to ge t to Fr iend sh ip, 

and we h ave good limousine serv ice which is no t expensive.

R ig ht now we are taki ng care of things pr et ty well. We could 

even use more flights out of F rie nd sh ip.

O f course, if th e com mittee should decide—I me ntioned this to Mr. 

Hal ab y yeste rda y—to giv e serious con sidera ton to a R egion al Airpo rt 

Bo ard, th at would tak e in W ashing ton Na tio nal, Du lles In te rn atio na l, an d Fr iend sh ip In tern at io na l, th at might set tle the whole 

pro blem, bu t it should be ind ependent of the FA A ; th at is a re ­

gio nal b oa rd to ta ke car e o f the se three air po rts .

I wan t to than k th is com mittee again fo r giving me th is time to 

offer my statem ent.

Mr. W illiams. Pe rm it me to express ou r ap preciatio n to our colleague on th e co mmittee for a very sple ndid statem ent.

I would hope, and I am su re the oth er mem bers of th e comm ittee 

would hope , that ade qua te, r eas onable use w ill be made of both of these 

ai rp or ts an d th at one will no t be op era ted to the absolute de trime nt 

of t he o the r.

Now, I have some ques tions th at I wou ld lik e to pose to the gentlema n fro m Mary lan d bu t ina sm uch as he will be in executive session 

wi th us, when we reach th at po in t on th is leg islation, I am certa in 

th at he will volunteer answers to any question s th at might come to 

my mind, and in the interest of tim e I will no t ask an y questions.

Mr. F riedel. Th an k you, Mr. Ch air ma n.

Mr. W illia ms. Mr. Sp rin ge r?

Mr. Springer. Yes.

Ma y I say to the gentlem an I certa inly com plime nt him on the 

dilige nce with which he ha s pu rsu ed this m at te r th ro ug h the yea rs 

and th e loy alty with whi ch he has rep res ent ed his ow n people.

I know of no Congressman who h as done a m ore dilige nt job in re pr esenting his people in t his m an ne r tha n has the gentlema n from Marylan d. Th is th in g h as occ urred tim e and time aga in.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 129

Has the gentleman, himself, any concrete evidence by either undertaking it of his own accord or having someone undertake it, as to what 

the driving time is between downtown Washington, say, the Statler, 

and the Friendship A irport?

Mr. F riedel. I can state it this way, that I remember one time this 

committee flew to Friendship, and we took limousines back to the 

New House Office Building.

The speed limit a t that time was 55 miles an hour-----

Mr. Springer. And the gentleman did not exceed the speed limit, 

I take it?

Air. Friedel. Wha t is that?

Air. Springer. I say, the gentleman is not going to testify on this 

occasion th at he exceeded the speed limit?

Air. F riedel. No; but I wa nt to say th is: At tha t time it took us 41 

minutes from Friendship to the New House Office Building, and I 

think we passed 9 or 13 traffic lights after we got off of the expressway, and we made every redlight.

So I think with luck we could have made it much quicker, and we 

kept within the speed limits, but since then they have increased the 

speed limit to 60 miles an hour.

Air. Springer. Now, at what time of the day or evening was it?

Air. Friedel. I think it was around, noontime.

Air. Springer. Around noontime. And now, has the gentleman-----

Air. F riedel. Or around 2 o’clock in the afternoon.

Air. Springer. Around 2 o’clock in the afternoon.

Has the gentleman any experience, say, in the traffic hours of from 

4:30 to 6:30, or, have you had any experience in those hours?

Air. F riedel. The D.C. Transit Co. made a number of trips at various times during the day and they say it averages 50 minutes to Friendsliip but it is less du ring offpeak hours.

Air. Springer. The gentleman has not made any test inns from 

the same points to the new International Dulles Airpor t ?

Air. F riedel. I have not personally, but D.C. Tran sit and the limousine service at Friendship have made such trips and it is my understanding that the average time from downtown Washington to Dulles 

is 50 minutes. Actually this is only an estimate since the new roads 

to Dulles are not finished. The Baltimore A irpo rt Board has detailed 

figures and will present them to the committee.

Air. Springer. They have made tests?

Mr. Friedel. Yes.

Air. Springer. Are you familiar with those and any provision to 

testify to them now?

Air. Friedel. Am I familiar with what?

Air. Springer. Are you familiar with the figures as a result of the 

tests ?

Air. F riedel. No, I am not familiar with them.

Air. Springer. Th at is all, Air. Chairman.

Air. Williams. Air. Devine?

Air. Devine. I would like to take just a second or two to say t ha t 

our colleague of Alaryland is the most dedicated man I ever saw in 

the support of his airport at Friendship and his district.

S4674—62— pt. 2 5
130 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

I have noticed that for the last 31

/, years any legislation coming before the committee that in any way remotely would affect Friendship, 

our colleague has brought the subject up and has fought consistently 

for Friendship.

I would like to ask one question. Do you have any concrete evidence of any type whatsoever that 

would indicate either coercion or influence by the FAA on any airline 

or any commercial airline to transfer from Friendship or Washington 

National to the proposed air facility at Dulles ?

Mr. Friedf.l. No, I do not have any direct evidence of coercion.

Mr. Devine. Have you sought any ?

Mr. F riedel. I have talked to a few airlines and they told me thev 

did not want to go to Dulles; tha t they were w’ell satisfied with 

Friendship. Now, I see tha t a few of those I have talked to are going to Dulles 

and one airline made an estimate that it will cost them $1 million more 

to operate at Dulles than it will at Friendship.

Air. Devine. I think we recognized from the reports of the various 

scheduled airlines tha t nearly all—well, maybe not all, but at least 

a number are operating at a substantial loss, in the millions of dollars, 

but the thing I am try ing to get to is something specific th at would 

indicate tha t they are being required, either by coercion or suggestion, 

to move into this new facility.

Mr. Friedel. No, I do not have direct information of that, but I 

just cannot get it in my head tha t there was not some undue pressure 

put on them to make them pay 280 percent higher costs at Dulles th an 

at Friendship.

Mr. Devine. Is it your understanding that they would provide a 

supplemental service; t ha t is, that they would also be at Dulles and 

also at Friendship or t ha t they would vacate Friendship in favor of 

Dulles ?

Mr. F riedel. Well, at this meeting, when we met with Mr. Halaby 

and Air. Boyd, th at Congressman Brewster referred to, we had Mr. 

Crane, of the Friendship Internation al Airport Board, and all the 

Members of Congress w’ere here present when they both said that all 

jet service will go to Dulles, but since then they have modified it somewhat. We expect competition but we expect fair competition. We do not 

want the airlines to be badgered into going from F riendship to Dulles 

just because it is the most beautiful, most expensive airport in the 

wfliole world.

Mr. Devine. According to the statement of our colleague, Mr. 

Brewster, from Maryland, he said that on this occasion of February 

14, that he said all jet service to Washington will move through Dulles.

Mr. Friedel. That is what they said, all jet service to Washington 

would use Dulles. Now, the airlines are certificated to Washington 

and Baltimore. There is only one airline that I know of that is certificated just to the Washington area.

I thin k that is Braniff.

Mr. Devine. Well, this, of course, can be developed by later testimony.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 131

Mr. Friedel. That is the only airline that is certificated to Washington only. The others are certificated to both Washington and 

Baltimore.

Mr. Devine. I tha nk the gentleman.

Mr. F riedel. You are quite welcome, and I want to thank you, Mr. 

Chairman.

Mr. Williams. Thank you very much, Mr. Friedel. Our next witness is our colleague from Maryland, Hon. Richard E. L ankford.

Mr. L ankford.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD E. LANKFORD, A RE PRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. Williams. We are very happy to welcome our colleague from 

Maryland, the Honorable Richard E. Lankford.

Mr. L ankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your commitee this 

morning in support of H.R. 10471, introduced by my distinguished 

colleague and good friend, Congressman Daniel B. Brewster.

You are, of course, aware of the efforts of the entire Maryland delegation over tlie years to urge upon the Federal Government the adoption of a sane, safe, and businesslike approach to the extremely complex problem of providing additional air service for the BaltimoreWashington metropolitan complex. I am privileged to have within 

the F ift h Congressional District of Maryland, which I am privileged 

to represent, Friendship International Airp ort, one of the most modern and efficient jet airports in the United States.

I might add, that while this is a Baltimore city airpo rt, and built by 

them and owned by them, it is within my distirct. As a matter of 

fact, it is within my home county.

In recent years Fren dship Internatio nal Airpo rt has increased its 

services to the general public, and I believe has performed in a wholly 

satisfactory manner insofa r as the participating airlines are concerned, 

particularly in the international travel and nonstop, coast-to-coast 

fields.

Unfortunately, prior to and during debate over the establishment 

of Dulles Internationa l Airport, the objections expressed by the 

Maryland delegation had little effect upon the Congress. The general 

impression seemed to be tha t we were endeavoring to receive unfair, 

prefe rential treatment for Friendship Internationa l Airpo rt. Such 

was simply not the case. But we felt we had a clear duty to point 

out the numerous p itfa lls tha t most assuredly would be encountered 

if administration officials insisted upon the location of a third major 

airport on the outermost fringe of the population to be served. Recent developments have certainly proved that we were righ t, in large 

part.

Let me once again repeat that I am not suggesting even remotely, 

that Friendship Internation al Airport be given a preference by the 

enactment of H.R. 10471; but let me say tha t I cannot condone pre ferential treatment for Dulles just because the Federal Government hap ­

pens to be the owner and manager. Today, Friendship offers far 

more convenient service to residents of Montgomery and Prince 

Georges Counties than service contemplated by Dulles. It is serving
132 NATIONA L CAPITAL AIRPORTS

equally well those residents of the western portion of the District 

of Columbia. Quite obviously, it serves the residents of Baltimore 

City, Anne Arundel County, and southern Maryland, far more 

efficiently than can ever be the case with Dulles. The growth story 

of the coming decade will be in southern Maryland.

I have had the opportunity to examine the extremely fine statement 

submitted to the committee by Mr. Charles P. Crane, of the Friendship Internationa l A irport Board, and would like to subscribe fully 

to his views a t this point.

It is difficult for me to believe th at this committee will permit the 

continuation of the situation where the Federal Aviation Agency 

primarily responsible for air safety, which involves a multitude 

of highly technical operations, serves as the business manager for 

Washington National Airport and Dulles Internationa l Airport. 

This represents a legalized conflict of interest of the largest magnitude I have even encountered during my time here in the Congress. 

We all agree, I am sure, that air safety must be a prim ary concern 

of the FA A. It is for this reason tha t I wholeheartedly support the 

Brewste'r bill, for bv its passage not only will air safety techniques 

be greatly improved in this region, but present unfair competitive 

advantages now created by an instrumentality of the Federal Government ■will be eliminated. The people then will continue to have the 

righ t to choose tha t facility which best serves their needs.

I would like to add here, in response to the questions put by Mr. 

Devine to my colleagues who have appeared bpfore me, that it was 

stated to us on February 14 th at any airline, wishing to be certified to 

Washington, would use Dulles Airp ort.

Now, you can call tha t coercion or whatever you want to call it, 

but tha t was the statement tha t was made to us.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Lankford.

Of course, because of the fact that we serve on the committee with 

our colleague, Mr. Friedel, naturally we hear from him a little bitmore often than we do the others, but I can assure you tha t he has no 

monopoly in battling for the interests of F riendship Internatio nal.

You have been very active in this yourself and together, I think, 

you and Mr. Friedel have done a magnificent job.

Mr. Lankford. Thank you.

Mr. Williams. I have no questions.

Mr. Springer?

Air Springer. I do not know whether you were here yesterday when 

Mr. Halaby testified. Were you here at tha t time ?

Mr. Lankford. No, sir, I was not.

Mr. Springer. I do not know whether you were here yesterday when 

to one of Mr. Friedel’s questions that, he thought there would be 

some loss of passenger service in and out of Friendship immediately 

after Dulles International Airpor t was opened.

And he said that at the time tha t Friendship first came into being 

there was some loss at Washington National. Through the years 

this evens out, apparently.

Now, his statement, as I understood it, was in simple terms this, 

that he felt that when Dulles Internatio nal Airport first came into 

being, there would be a loss both to Washington and Friendship, but
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 1 3 3

that ultimately that would be recouped and all three of them would 

grow.

Now, my question is simply this: Have you talked with them 

sufficiently to have any knowledge whereby you can verify that statement ?

Mr. Lankford. No. I believe tha t in our February 14 meeting 

tha t this was essentially what Mr. Halaby said, and from what I can 

gather, with air traffic growing, there will be ultimately a need for all 

three airports and possibly a fourth one—we do not know—because 

air traffic is growing every day.

The difficulty that we will encounter is tha t in the Washington 

metropolitan area, and a grea t portion of tha t being in my district, 

Prince Georges County which I think the gentleman is familiar 

with, and Montgomery County, tha t is physically closer to the city 

of Washington than it is to Baltimore, and people not familiar with 

the area, coming into this metropolitan part, would naturally take a 

ticket on an airline to Washington, not realizing that an airline certified to serve Washington, according to Mr. Halaby, will have to go to 

Dulles which is completely on the other side of town, across the river, 

and way off in the woods somewhere.

And so this will serve to the detriment of the flying public. It is 

misleading th at they should have to go to an airport on the other side 

of town when they could go to Friendship Internationa l which would 

be within a half hour of a great mass of people and within a half hour 

of a growing indu stria l complex, particularly in the fields of electronics and research and development firms which are utilizing this 

area to the east of Washington more and more every day.

Mr. Springer. Is it your thought, Mr. Lankford, tha t with the 

Federal Government operating these two airports, and with Friendship operating under its own separate authority, that preferences will 

be given merely by virtue of the setup to Washington and Dulles 

Internatio nal Airport?

Mr. Lankford. Well, again, 1 will go back to the February 14 

meeting that we had with Mr. Halaby and Mr. Boyd and, in all fairness to Mr. Halaby, he said he did not set up Dulles A irport, that he 

inherited it. And I feel sorry for him.

He has my deepest sympathy. But he said that it is his job to put 

it on a paying basis.

As my colleague, Mr. Friedel, said, I want to be very careful of 

my words. I am sure tha t a man of the integrity and caliber of Mr. 

Halaby would not take unfair advantage.

However, it is his job to make Dulles Airp ort pay i f he can, and unconsciously he is going to do everything he can to make it pay.

Mr. Springer. You think he is going to try to make Dulles In ternational as attractive as possible ?

Mr. Lankford. li e will get all th e business into Dulles tha t he possibly can.

Mr. Springer. Now I come to the meat of the question.

Is it your position and Mr. Friedel’s, and the other members of the 

Maryland delegation, that if you have an independent tripartite body 

which, in essence, has control of all three airports that you will get 

a fair shake under those circumstances?

Mr. Lankford. Well, no, that is not the intent of this bill.
134 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

This bill sets up an Airpor ts Board completely divorced from the 

FA A to manage Dulles and Washington National. It does not include Friendship.

Friendship has its own board which operates it, created by Baltimore City.

It is our contention that if this bill passes, the Washington NationalDulles complex, and the Frie ndship Airpor t would then be competing 

on an even basis without the weight of the FAA, CAB, and the U.S. 

Government behind one of them, you see.

Air. Springer. And that would be true if Dulles would be financed 

by the Federal Government?

Air. Lankford. This is true, and do not forget this, that it is serving the Federal city.

It is serving the city of Washington and the Fede ral Government 

contributes to the financing of the city o f Washington.

Baltimore financed and has contributed to the financing of Fr iendship International.

Air. Springer. You are not contending, are you, tha t the city of 

Washington contributed anything to the Dulles A irport?

Air. Lankford. I did not say the city of Washington. I said th at 

the Federal Government contributes to the city of Washington, which 

is the Federal city, the seat of government.

Dulles Airp ort was theoretically put there to serve the city of 

Washington. Therefore, it should be on the same basis as Baltimore 

City’s airport, Friendship.

Mr. Springer. Tha t is all, Air. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. Thank you very much, Air. Lankford.

Air. Lankford. Thank you very much.

Air. Williams. The next witness is our colleague from the State of 

Alaryland, the Honorable George II. Fallon.

Air. Fallon.

STA TEMENT OF HON. GEORGE H. FALLON. A RE PR ES EN TA TIVE 

IN CONGRESS FRO M TH E STA TE OF MAR YLA ND

Mr. F allon. Air. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear here this morning.

I would like to tell the committee that I am in favor of H.R. 10471, 

because I feel tha t a reg ulatory agency not be in a position where there 

would be a continuing cloud of suspicion due to the pursuit to regulate, 

and that it could be tho ught by a lot of people, especially the people 

who are interested in this bill, tha t they could use persuasive powers 

due to the regulations that they are in a position to hand down, to 

persuade airlines to give up the ir stations in Baltimore and to make 

the Dulles Airport pay.

Now, I have a telegram this morning from people in Baltimore th at 

I would like to read. It is just a very short on e:

Suggest Government subsidy void to financially depressed commercial airlines 

if they can afford 280-percent increase landing Chantilly.

It does seem strange, if we are to subsidize an airline to pay a larger 

subsidy so that they can pay a higher cost i f they transfer over to 

Dulles Airpo rt. AVe feel th at Baltimore has gone to a lot of expense 

over the years.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 135

I think there first was a $15 million bond issue to build this airport, 

and it has only been in the last year or so tha t they have been able to 

come out of the red due to the foresight of building these long run ­

ways to take of the jetplanes, and they have given the type of service 

that the people in Maryland want, the people who ride airplanes.

We feel Qiat Maryland should not be considered a part of the section th at would cater to Dulles when they are much closer in time and 

travel to the Baltimore or Friendship Airport. Mr. Chairm an, I have tried to sum it up as closely as possible to just 

how the members of the M aryland delegation feel about this thr eat to 

what we th ink is one of the safest and outstanding airports in the 

country.

Mr. Friedel (presiding). Well I want to compliment the dean of the 

Maryland delegation, Congressman Fallon, for his very precise 

statement.

You realized tha t there are quite a few other witnesses, and so you 

got ri ght to the meat of the thing.

I want to thank you very much.

Mr. Springer?

Mr. Springer. Mr. Fallo n, would you read that telegram again, 

please ?

Mr. F allon (reading) :

Suggest Government subsidy void to financially depressed commercial ai rlines if they can afford 280-i>ercent increase landing C hantilly.

Mr. S pringer. Who signed tha t ?

Mr. F allon. W. B. Epp ler, 12 Bly wood Road, Baltimore, Md.

Mr. Springer. How much percent did you say ?

Mr. F allon. What?

Mr. Springer. How much percent ?

Mr. F allon. 280-percent increase.

Mr. Springer. I know how deeply the gentleman is interested in 

the proper maintenance of F riendship Airport. Has there been any 

thou ght given to the prop er identification, throu gh some kind of an 

investigation, of the fact that the people on th at side of the town can 

get to the airport quicker than they can to, we will say, Dulles I nternational Airport, or is it the feeling of your delegation tha t the flights tha t go out are going to be more and more varied at Dulles I nte rna ­

tional than they are at Friendship ?

Mr. F allon. Well, of course, the people of Montgomery County 

and Prince Georges County, and this northeast section of Washington 

have now been using the Friendship Airpor t because of the flights 

tha t they have going out of there and coming in.

If those flights are transferred there is no use advertising that they 

can get the flights. If the flights move, the people are going to move.

Mr. S pringer. All right. Now, let’s take it as of the present time.

Is it the gentleman’s feeling that the flights that go out of Washington, go out of Friendship, are substantially comparable as far as 

service is concerned ?

Mr. Fallon. Well, of course, the flights tha t I am talking about 

mainly now are the jet flights.

There is no place in th is area where you can get a jet flight except 

Baltimore, at Friendship, and if those flights are moved, naturally, 

the people are going to move with the flights and-----
136 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Mr. Springer. Now, how many flights are there in and out, approximately, of Friendship in 24 hours?

Mr. F allon. I really could not tell you.

Mr. Springer. How many jet flights?

Air. Fallon. Je t flights? I do not have the information. The 

only ones I know about are the ones T use.

I think there is somebody here who represents the aifport board, 

who can give you the number cf flights of passengers.

Air. Springer. Can you stand up and identify yourself if you have 

that information ?

These are jet flights I am speaking of.

Air. Baker. I am George Baker, Jr. , representing the Airp ort 

Board of the Department o f Aviation of the City of Baltimore.

Fifty-five a day.

Air. Springer. A total of-----

Air. Baker. A total of 55.

Mr. Springer. Now to the gentleman from Maryland again:

Is it your fear or your feeling tha t a substantial portion of these 

55 flights is likely to be transferred to Dulles ?

Is tha t your problem ?

Air. F allon. Yes. I have heard speculation th at half of the flights 

may be transferred to Dulles, not because it would be more efficient, 

not because it would be near the people who use the flights, but because 

they want, to make the Dulles Airport as near self-supporting as 

possible.

Mr. Springer. Now, just this last question: By setting up the Board 

in the Brewster bill, is it your feeling that under that kind of an 

arrangement you would get a fairer deal than you would if it is 

retained in the FAA, either as at present or by the formation of the 

Corporation recommended by Air. Halaby?

Air. F allon. Well, I wouldn’t say that we would get—I would think 

any Board would give everybody a fair deal. That would be the type 

of people that would be selected for that Board.

But this would also move or remove the cloud of suspicion th at a 

regulatory agency can force an airline to move from one airport to 

another because the same people land in airports all over the country 

and, as was used, I think with very mild language, with persuasive 

methods.

Mr. Springer. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Springer. I believe tha t is all.

Mr. F riedel. Air. Devine ?

Air. Devine. Jus t one question. Other than the meeting of February 14, and its indication tha t the jet service would move to Dulles, 

do you have any other evidence, concrete or otherwise, of any coercion 

or influence exerted by the FAA on any airline?

Air. Fallon. I think it was Mr. Halaby who said that he would do 

everything in his power to see tha t the Dulles Airpo rt would have or 

would get business.

Air. Devine. You have talked to no airline people who have indicated this?

Mr. F allon. No.

Air. Devine. Than k you.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 137

Mr. F kiedel. Thank you, Mr. Fallon.

Mr. Fallon. Thank you. In addition to my brief comments, I 

have a prepared statement in support of Air. Brewster’s bill, which I 

shall appreciate your including in the hearing record.

Mr. Friedel. Your prepared statement may be included at this 

point in the record.

Mr. F allon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Fallon follows :)

State m ent of H on . G eorge II. F al lo n, a R ep res en ta ti ve in Con gr es s F rom

t h e F our th D is tr ic t of t h e Sta te of Mar yl an d

Mr. Chairma n and members of the subcommittee, in the intere st of the ai r­ trav eling public, th e Fed era l Aviation Agency should be relieved of responsibility for the operation of the Washin gton National Air port and the Dulles Inter na­ tion al Airport. This should be done not only for the convenience of the public hut also for the good of the Agency. H.R. 10471 will accomplish this end in a most sati sfactory manner. A five-member Board would be created, whose sole resp onsibility would be the operation of these two airports. This Board would be an independent agency and und er such a body the Washington National and Dulles Intern ational Air ports would be placed in the same position vis-a-vis the 

FAA as all other airports. A regulatory agency should not have the respons ibility of developing and ope rati ng the facilities which it is designed to regulate. The principal functions of the FAA a re to regulate ai r commerce to promote its development and safety and fulfill the requ irem ents of national defense; to promote, encourage, and develop civil aerona utics; to control use of the navigable airspace of the United Sta tes in the intere st and efficiency of both civil and milita ry ope rati ons; to consolidate resea rch and development relating to ai r navigation facilities, and the installatio n and operation of such facilit ies; and to develop and operate a common system of ai r traffic control and navigation for both civil and military air craft. The agency is charged with fostering sound economic conditions and coordinating ai r tra nsporta tio n to promote efficient service by air carriers at reasonab le charges witho ut un just discriminatio n, undue preference or advan ­ tage, or unfair or des tructive competitive prac tices, to assure sound development of air transp ortation which is properly adapted to the needs of foreign and domestic commerce, the pos tal service and national defense, and regulating ai r commerce in a manner to best promote development and safety. The FAA is thu s prim arily a reg ula ting agency and not an operating agency. Separation of responsibility for ope rati ng the National Cap ital air ports from the admin­ istrat ion of the FAA would assure more efficient operatio n of Washington National and Dulles Internatio nal Airports and more careful atte ntio n to ai r 

traffic and safety matters by the FAA. A regulatory agency should not be in a position such as to permit any of its actions to be suspect. Removal of responsibilities from the FAA to an inde­ pendent board for the operation of the Washington National and Dulles In te r­ national Airp orts would remove any grounds for accu satio ns that the FAA uses its regulatory power to persuade airlines to use Dulles rather than Fri end­ ship Airp ort for service to the m etropolitan are a aro und Washington and Ba lti­ more. The airlines which must negotiate with the Agency with respect to operations at Dulles Air port must also negotiate with the FAA respecting their operation s at all other airports. If they incur the displea sure of the Agency their operations in the entire country could be jeopardized. So long as the FAA owns and operate these facilities, which it also regu lates, there will be room for suspicion th at Dulles is being undu ly favo red and enjoys un fai r competitive advanta ges by virtue of ownership and operation by the Federal Government. The city of Baltimore built Friendship Airport at a location which is suitable for serving the ai r tra nsporta tio n needs for the ma jority of the people in the area. Most of the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan population is nearer Frie ndship tha n Dulles. Service geared to the convenience of the tra ve ler would requ ire service thro ugh Friendship A irport. The problem of certific atin g airl ines to serve Washington and Baltimore should be resolved on a reg ula tory basis and not with reg ard to competition between Dulles and Friend ship Air­ ports. The larg e je t airplanes cannot operate from Wash ington National Air­ port and service has been provided thro ugh Friendship . When Dulles Inter-
138 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIR POR TS

natio nal goes into operation la te r thi s year it will be des ignated as the air po rt 

thr ough which airl ines mu st serve Washington. Many air lin es would pre fer 

to conti nue at Frie ndsh ip wh ere the costs to them are much lower tha n the 

proposed fees at Dulles. The air lin es are at a dis adv ant age in nego tiatin g with 

the FAA concerning charges as compared with the ope rati ng agencies for oth er 

air po rts. FAA is not an ordin ary air po rt ope rato r and is immune to local 

politica l pressure often enl iste d by the ind ust ry to av ert unw anted air po rt 

charge increase s. Airlin es ar e forced to go alo ng with ai rp or t oper ators on any 

increase s in fees or charges a t ma jor traffic generating point s. Airlines are not 

in position to openly oppose compulsory use of Dulle s as a term inal for Was hingto n ai r service. Some 50 per cent of the con tracts of air lin es with air po rts 

exp ire this year and high er fees at Dulles may lead to hig her fees at others, 

with citie s looking to airp or ts as revenue prod ucer s as a way to avoid ex tra 

taxe s.

Many municipal officials say th at air po rts mu st be put on a self- susta ining 

basi s with revenue sufficient to esta blish reserves for fu tu re replac ements and 

bett erm ents . Communities can not be expected to vote bonds to add to runways, etc. Runways can not be made self-sufficient but mai nten ance facilit ies 

can be a nd term inal s are rea lly moneymakers. Airl ines produce the ma rke t for 

oth er air port revenue and should only pay costs which cann ot be recovered any 

oth er way. Earnings should be such th at futur e growth could be provided from 

this source. Unless the re is traffic in and out of the airp or t the re will not be 

reve nues to opera te the faciliti es. The city of Baltimore, which owns and 

ope rates Frie ndship Airport, can not condone pre fer ent ial tre atm ent to Dulles 

Inter na tio na l on the basi s th at the Fed eral Governm ent owns and manage s the 

la tte r. Friendsh ip Air por t at perio ds of peak traffic at pr ese nt is only operatin g 

at 50 percent of avail able capacity.

If ar bi tra ry action is tak en to requ ire airl ine s to use Dulle s Airp ort for all 

Washin gton traffic, r equ irin g je t operations to move to Dulles, this action would 

be ar bi tra ry and con trary to th e aut hority granted the regulat ory agency. To 

prec lude the possibility of any such action, or suspicion of such action, the 

ope rati on of the Dulles In ter na tio na l Airpo rt, along with the Washin gton Natio nal Airi>ort, should be place d in the han ds of a Boa rd as provided by 

H.R. 10471, which would be ent irely indep enden t of the FAA except for the 

reg ula tor y autho rity which th at agency exerci ses over all ai r transp ortation 

servi ce an d all air ports in the country.

Mr. F riedel. I th in k we will call on Mr. Geo rge Baker , of the 

A ir port Bo ard of the Dep artm en t of Av iatio n of the City of B al timore, an d he is also repr es en tin g the ITon. Har ol d Gr ad y, mayor of 

Ba lti mor e City.

Mr. Baker.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE BAKER, JR., ON BEHALF OF THE AIRPORT

BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION OF THE CITY OF

BALTIMORE, MD., AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR OF

BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. Baker. Mr. Fr iede l, an d mem bers of the com mittee, I ap pr ecia te this op po rtu nity to ap pe ar before you tod ay.

I am presentin g th is sta temen t on be ha lf of t he A ir port Bo ard of 

Ba ltimore Ci ty in the abse nce of Mr. Ch arles P. Crane, its ch airman, whose absence fro m th e hearings is caused by a com mitment of 

several mo nth s’ st an ding to serve as chairma n of a grou p of 25 bus inessmen who are visit ing va rio us Eu rope an cities to stimula te in te rna tio na l trad e and seek fir sth an d inform ati on con cer nin g develop ­

me nts in the E urop ean E con omic Comm unity.

O ur ai rp or t board , sp eaking fo r the mu nic ipa l officials of B al timo re and in behalf of trad e associations, reside nts, an d busin essmen 

no t only in the Ba ltimore metr op oli tan are a bu t also in the centr al
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 139

section and Eastern Shore of Maryland, strongly recommends divorcing from the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Agency the operat­ ing control of Washington National A irport and Dulles In ternation al Airpor t at Chantilly, Va. We do not believe th at the Federal Avia­ tion Agency has any more business operating an airport than the Interstate Commerce Commission would have in operating a railroad. We do not believe H.R. 7399 will accomplish this end and, con­ sequently, we respectfully oppose its enactment for this reason and also because it provides channels for beclouding uneconomic financial results incident to the operation of Dulles A irport by the FAA con­ tra ry to the intent of Congress in appropriatin g funds for that project. We recommend enactment of H.R. 10471, introduced by Maryland 

Congressman Brewster, but would like to see the measure amended in the manner that will be explained by the next speaker, Mr. Grimm. These amendments in nowise alter the basic objective of Mr. Brew­ ster’s measure, but we believe would strengthen its purposes and enhance its effectiveness. It seems appropriate to explain why our board and the interests whom it represents recommend so strongly relieving the Federal Aviation Agency of the operating control of airports and permitting tha t organization to concentrate its activities upon the extremely vital basic functions for which it was formed, namely, devising, effecting, supervising, and enforcing safety of air travel and the equipment 

and facilities pertinent thereto. We submit that the growing volume and complexities of air travel alone justify the exclusive concentration of the Federal Aviation Agency toward preventing repetition of commercial airplane acci­ dents such as those whose fatalities have appalled the public and 

whose causes are seldom fully explained by the FAA. The Agency has not, in our opinion, shown itself qualified to plan, design, or manage airports. To amplify, the Agency, durin g the 9- year period 1950-58, resisted all efforts to lighten the traffic over­ load at its Washington National Airport by perm itting some of its flights needed to serve persons and businesses in and around Baltimore and contiguous areas to use Friendship Airport. During tha t period hundreds of thousands of Baltimoreans and other Marylanders were forced to travel to and through Washington for even the most elemental a ir service. The present inadequacy—notwithstanding some additional service at Friendship beginning early in 1961 as a result of CAB hearings initiated by Baltimore interests—is evidenced by the fact tha t there are only 38 daily flights between Friendship and New York as contrasted with 206 daily flights between Washington National and 

New York. The situation tha t existed during the 9-year period is disclosed by 

comparison of passengers throu ghpu t at the two airports: From 1950 to 1954, total air passengers served through the Wash­ ington National Airpo rt ranged from 1,600,000 to 3,100,000 annually, whereas the total number served through Friendship Internatio nal Airpor t ranged from 136,000 to 305,000. During the period from 1955 to 1958 the total number ranged from 3,600,000 to 4,800,000 annually for the Washington National Airport and from 327,000 to 388,000 

for Friendship Intern atio nal Airport.
140 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

The highly deleterious effect of denying reasonable service to B altimoreans and Marylanders through Friendship Airpor t may be 

traced to a retardation of air travel development in this area which 

is now being corrected since advent of commercial je t planes in 1959. 

Inasmuch as Washington National A irpo rt was not designed to handle 

large jet planes, all such traffic is being routed through Friendship, 

whose runways were designed to handle the present maximum size 

jets and even larger planes when they become available. It is pertinent to note the rapid ly developing traffic at Friendship since the 

beginning of 1959.

The total number of air passengers a t Friendship during 1959 was 

541,000. In 1961 it was 1.136,000. '

A projection of the traffic of the first 3 months of 1962, on the ratio 

basis of the preceding year, indicates a passenger throughput of nearly 

1,900,000 in 1962. While such a figure absorbs only a portion of 

Friendship ’s capacity, rumors have been rife of traffic near-misses at 

Washington National, and many travelers have expressed disinclination to land or d epart from t hat airport because of “stacking up,” 

“baggage delays,’* and other hazards and inconveniences.

Nothing in this recital, in our opinion, reflects creditably on the 

ability of the Federal Aviation Agency to control and manage airports. Nor does the deplorable record of tha t organization in the 

projection, design, or construction of Dulles Internationa l Airport of 

Chantilly, Va. Located on the outer periphery of a circle enclosing 

the 4 or 5 million population in the Washington-Baltimore metropolitan complex, it cannot possibly serve residents of both cities. For 

residents in the eastern section of the Nation’s C apital, and in those 

populous suburban areas of Maryland to the north and east of Washington, it would be an unnecessary waste of ground travel time to 

use Dulles instead of Friendship.

To illustrate, recent ground travel test runs by bus, limousine, and 

private automobile have been made from points in the Washington 

area to Friendship and to Chantilly, Va., over the best available routes 

in each case. The tabulated times for the Virginia airport make allowance for use of the as yet uncompleted access road instead of slower 

routes presently available. Further, it should be noted tha t the 15- 

minute tri p from terminal building to planeside by “mobile lounge” 

at Chantilly is not required at Friendship where passengers enplane 

and deplane immediately adjacent to the terminal building. Results 

of the test runs from various points, adjusted to a “planeside” basis 

by adding to ground travel times, 20 minutes for time in the terminal 

building at each airport,—purchasing tickets, confirming reservations,
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 141

et cetera—and 15 minutes for mobile lounge travel at Chantilly not 

required at Friendship, are:

Travel time to Friendship Airport and Chantilly, Va., from various points in

the Washington area

[I n minutes]

To planeside a t—

Friend ship Cliantilly,Va.

65 110

40 121

52 121

57 120

54 128

57 130

75 111

70 85

From —

Mo unt Rainier__________ ____________________________ Cheve rly_______________________________________ ____

Seat Ple asa nt_______________________________ _________ Hy att sville___________________________________ ____ —. Riverdale ._____ ______________________________________

College P ar k_________________________________________ Silver Spring--------------------------------------------------------------

New bus term inal, 12th and K Sts. N W„ Washington, D. C__

Saving in 

time to 

planeside at 

Frie ndsh ip

tf

81

69

63

74

73

36

15

It may be observed that these savings in time to planeside at 

Friendship relate to heavy road traffic periods which generally occur 

at the same time as the greatest demand for air service.

We also have them for nonpeak road traffic periods.

Fo r airline companies, an unnecessary expense would result if they 

were coerced into tra nsferring their flights from Friendship to Dulles 

merely, as Mr. Halaby has said publicly, “because Dulles is the 

National Capital’s airport.”

Mr. Halaby has reported that aircraft landing fees of 42 cents per 

1,000 pounds of weight have been set for Dulles, of which 12 cents 

is for use of the mobile lounge, and tha t the airlines “will certainly 

sign” contracts at tha t price. That is nearly three time the 14% cents 

charge at Friendship. In fact, the charge for the mobile lounge at 

Dulles of 12 cents is only 2% cents less than th e total charge at Friend ­

ship. For ticket office space in the terminal building, the FAA is 

said to be asking $12 pe r square foot per year which is 2* 1

/, times the 

comparable rental at Friendship.

I don’t think anyone could make more clear the harmful effect of 

the FAA operating airp orts than did Mr. Halaby himself at a press 

conference a few months ago when, as reported in Nation’s Business, 

February 1962, he said tha t if the airlines prefer to continue using 

existing airports “there are various ways in which they will be persuaded” to move to Dulles. And to furthe r point out the difference 

between the FAA and an independent agency operating airports, he 

sa id :

“They are tr ying to trea t me just like any other airpo rt owner, and 

they can’t get away with it. This is a thre at.”

Mr. Halaby told you yesterday that no undue pressure would be 

used to force airlines to shift to Dulles. I would merely answer that 

by this question : “Does an uncaged lion have to roar to frighten you?”
142 NATIONAL CAP ITAL AIRPOR TS

Let me hasten to add tha t I use the lion by way of analogy to the 

FAA running airports, and not personally to its director. One of 

the jobs of the operator of Dulles, or any other airport, is to attract 

business, and no matter how hard the FAA might try to be fai r it 

would still be an uncaged lion, by virtue of its dual and conflicting 

roles.

The attitude of the FAA in this matter is further illustrated by 

recent letters written by the Agency's General Counsel. Fo r example, 

in one of them, to the CAB, dated Jan uary 26, 1962, the FAA’s 

Counsel sta ted:

* * * we re sp ec tful ly re qu es t on b eh alf of th e A dm in is tr ato r of th e Fed er al 

A vi at io n Ag enc y, th a t th e Civil A er onau tics Boa rd not ify Bra ni ff A irw ay s, Inc ., 

th a t th e B o ard ’s ap pr ov al of th e us e of Fri endsh ip In te rn ati o n al A ir port by 

B ra nif f A irw ay s, Inc., fo r je t flight s se rv in g W as hi ng to n is lim ited to th e pe rio d 

unti l Dul les In te rn ati o n al A irport is i n op er at io n.

Our board believes there is nothing in this highly partisan and 

uneconomic pattern which tends to support the belief tha t the FAA 

should be authorized to manage airport operations.

As a matter of fact, it is our understanding that the Congress was 

led to believe, by what have proved to be misleading and erroneous 

estimates of air traffic growth, that a third airport Dulles would 

be required to serve the Washington-Baltimore complex by the midsixties.

For a fur the r viewpoint on the unwisdom of diluting FA A’s attention to its highly important safety responsibilities, one should review 

tha t Agency's almost unbelievable series of changes, revisions, and 

delays which have cost the Federal Government so enormously in 

proceeding with the Dulles project. The grossly inadequate estimates 

of cost, repeated appeals to Congress for financial rescue, and the u ltimate design which has evoked so much criticism from the airlines 

which will be called on to use Dulles, certainly offer no supp ort for 

allowing the FAA to negate the impartiality of its reg ulato ry powers 

and obligations and to “own” and manage or improperly influence use 

of the same class of facilities as those which they are sworn to regulate 

fairly and equitably for others. As Mr. Phil Swatek, public relations 

chief of the FAA stated last February, “There isn’t anybody in our 

Agency, the FAA, who thinks we ought to have this much leverage on 

the airlines and still be running an airpo rt.”

In closing, let me add this. We ask no special favors, as Mr. Friedel 

has already told you. We are not afraid of competition from Dulles 

if the competition is kept on a fair plane. But if the airlines have 

to deal with the FAA they have their operations throughout the entire 

country in jeopardy. It is not fair competition for a Government 

agency, by occupying dual and conflicting roles, to force, or shall we 

say “persuade,” airlines to accept unnecessary financial burdens, or to 

impose on the public unreasonable inconvenience through neglecting a 

nearby airport, fully capable of giving adequate service a t low rates, 

in order to force the use of a more remote facility, improperly located, 

enormously expensive, and not needed for perhaps another decade.

The Air por t Board is deeply grateful for your giving me the opportunity of presenting this statement. We will be glad to supply any 

further information tha t you may desire.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 143

Mr. Williams (presiding). Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Mr. Friedel ?

Mr. F riedel. I want to thank you, Mr. Baker. We have other witnesses and I was presiding at the time and I called you out of line 

because I thought tha t there would be pertinent questions as to the 

driving time to Dulles.

I want to thank you for your very, very, very fine statement.

Mr. Baker. Thank you very much.

Mr. Williams. May I inquire as to this: This information on the 

driving time to the two respective airports, is that based on the highways as they are now constituted ?

Is that correct ?

Mr. Baker. No, sir, they are based on the highways to Friendship, 

as they now exist, but allowance was made for the new super highway 

tha t you will have to Chantilly.

As a matter of fact, we used a bus company, the Baltimore & Annapolis Bus Co., and the airline limousine people, and they managed to 

get on the new expressway to the extent that it was completed.

And these times represent what it would take when the new expressway is completed to Chantilly.

Air. Williams. In other words, these are projected times?

Air. Baker. Yes, sir.

Air. Williams. Air. Devine ?

Air. Devine. No questions.

Air. AYilliams. Thank you, Air. Baker.

Air. Baker. Thank you.

(The following le tter was submitted by Air. Baker as a supplement 

to his statement:)

Cit y of B altim ore, 

Depar tm en t of Law ,

Baltimore, Md., May 9,1962.

Ho n. J ohn Bell W il lia m s,

Chairman of Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics, Committee on

Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington, B.C.

Dear Mr. Ch a ir m a n: F ir st of all, I wo uld like to again th ank you fo r th e

opport unit y of perm it ti ng me to te st if y la st T hurs day on beh al f of th e ci ty of 

B al ti m ore an d th e B al tim ore A ir port B oa rd in op po sitio n to H.R. 7399 an d in 

fa vor of H.R. 10471.

T here are a few addit io nal m att ers th a t I wou ld lik e to add to my testim on y.

Sp ecifically , I wo uld lik e to co m m en t on tw o po in ts m ad e by th e Hon or ab le Alan 

S. Bo yd in hi s testim on y la st F ri day, to c all your co m m itte e’s att enti on to a consti tu ti o n al po int, and to pre se nt th e po sitio n of th e B altim ore A irport Bosird on 

th e su gg es tio n m ad e by th e S ta te avia ti on co mmissio n re la ti v e to th e ap poin tm ent of a Pre si denti al S tu dy Co mm iss ion . I tr u s t th a t yo u will not ob je ct to 

my w ri ti ng th is le tt er and w ou ld ap pr ec ia te your in cl ud in g it in th e reco rd as 

a su pp le m en t t o my tes tim on y.

T he tw o po in ts m ad e by Mr. Bo yd to w hi ch I re fe r a re : F ir st , th a t air li nes 

ce rtif ic at ed to se rv e W as hin gt on w ill be re qui re d to do so out of Dulles A irport 

an d th os e ce rtific at ed fo r B alt im ore wi ll us e F ri endsh ip A ir p o rt ; an d, sec ond, 

th a t th e tr av el in g pu bl ic w ill m ak e th e de cision as to w heth er to use D ulles or 

Fri en ds hi p.

The firs t po in t co mpl etely be gs th e qu es tio n. P ri o r to 1959, ov er 90 per ce nt 

of th e fligh ts ne ed ed to se rv e th e "W ashing ton-Ba ltimore comp lex were sc he dul ed from W as hi ng to n N ational A irp or t. T h at gre at d is p ari ty of tra ffi c co uld 

not be ju st ifie d th en ev en th ough W as hi ng to n N at io nal A ir port w as mor e co nve ni en t th an Fri en dsh ip to th e m ajo ri ty of pe op le in th e W as hi ng to n- B al tim ore 

are a. Clear ly th ere wou ld be no ju st ific at io n fo r now sh if ti ng th e traffic to 

D ul le s A irpor t by des ig nati ng it as W as hi ng to n tra ffic, sinc e Fri en dsh ip A ir port 

is m or e co nv en ient th an D ulles to th e m ajo ri ty of pe op le in th e lY ^shing ton-
144 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

B alt im ore are a. In fa ct , it has be en dem ons trat ed by te st ru n s th a t from th e 

ne w bu s te rm in al a t 12 th and K S tr eets NW., W as hi ng ton, th e tim e to pl an es id e 

a t D ul le s A irport (ev en al lo w in g fo r th e new ac ce ss ro ad ) is 15 m in ut es long er 

th an th e tim e to pl an es id e a t F ri endsh ip A irpo rt, and th e tim e to p la ne side from 

ci ties in Mon tgo me ry Cou nty and P ri nce Ge org es Cou nty ra nge from 36 to 81 

m in ute s lo ng er to Dulles A ir port th an to Fri endsh ip A irport . Th e qu es tio n 

th en , is w hat air port w ill be des ig nat ed fo r fli gh ts ne ed ed to se rv e thos e pe rson s 

in so uth er n an d w es te rn M ar yl an d, nort hern W as hi ng to n and oth er are as wh o 

will fin d it mor e co nv en ient to use Fri endsh ip th an Dulles. Mr. Bo yd did no t 

sa y th a t se rv ice wi ll be pr ov id ed fo r them th ro ug h Fri en dsh ip , an d th e in fe re nc e 

is th a t he pl an s to se rv e th em th ro ugh W as hi ng ton. I wou ld su gg es t th at Mr. 

Bo yd be as ke d to st ate un eq ui vo ca lly w het her th e tr av el in g pub lic will be serv ed 

a t t he m os t co nv en ient a ir port .

Mr. Boy d’s sec ond po int, th a t th e tr av el in g pu blic w ill m ak e th e decis ion as to 

w het her to us e Fri en ds hip or Dul les, also fa il s to to uc h th e issu e. If th e pu blic 

co uld m ak e th e decis ion we a re co nv ince d th a t Fri en dsh ip wou ld keep mo st of 

th e flig ht s it now ha s be ca us e, as m en tio ne d be fore, F ri en dsh ip is more co nv enie nt th a n Dulles to th e g re ate r num ber of th e tr aveli ng pu blic in th e Baltim or eW as hin gt on com plex. B ut th e pu bl ic wo uld ha ve a ch oice of air port s only if 

eq ua l flig ht s we re av ai la bl e a t both a ir p o rt s; ot he rw ise, th e pu bl ic m us t eit h er 

us e w hi ch ev er air port ha s an avail able fligh t, or tr avel by oth er means. Sin ce 

th e air li n es wi ll no t find it ec on om ically fe as ib le to dupli ca te se rv ices a t ea ch 

air port , th ey will select on e of th e a ir port s. It has a lr ea dy been mad e cl ea r th a t 

th e air li n es will no t ha ve free do m of choic e if th e FA A oper at es D ulles Airp or t.

P ast his to ry ce rtai nl y in dic at es th a t th e de sire s of th e tr aveli ng pu blic were 

no t se rv ed w ith th e FAA contr ollin g W as hi ng ton N at io na l A irport , alth ou gh th e 

FA A an d it s A dm in is tr at or are c har ged by law w ith th e dut y of th e “promotion, 

en co ur ag em en t, an d de ve lopm en t of civ il ae ro nau tics .” P ri o r to 1059, F ri endsh ip A ir p o rt w as almos t idle a nd it s mod ern te rm in al bu ildi ng w as of ten re fe rr ed 

to as a ma us oleu m. H un dr ed s of th ou sa nd s of B al tim ore an s were fo rced to 

tr av el fo r ev en the mos t el em en ta l se rv ice to th e W as hi ng to n N at io nal A irpor t 

which w as then , an d is to an ev en g re ate r ex te nt now , so co ng ested w ith fligh ts 

th a t co m pla in ts o f stac ki ng an d ba gg ag e de lays are com mo n. The gros sly inad equ at e a ir se rv ice a t Fri endsh ip an d th e re se ntm en t of o u r peop le ov er being 

fo rc ed to los e tim e an d un de rg o e xp en se in go ing t o W as hi ng to n ha ve b een larg ely 

in st ru m enta l in re ta rd in g th e de ve lopm en t of a ir t ra vel in th is are a. Yet it was 

not. u nti l th e ad ve nt of jet se rv ic e fo r wh ich the ru nw ay s a t W as hi ng to n N at io na l 

A irport w er e in ad eq ua te th a t an y flight s were tr an sf err ed to Bal tim or e.

A fu rth e r fa ct to he co ns id er ed in co nn ec tio n w ith II .It. 7399 is th at th er e 

m ig ht w ell as a de lic ate const it uti onal qu es tion inv olv ed. In as su m in g the powe r 

to re gula te an in du st ry the F edera l Gov ernm en t m ust do so in a m an ne r th a t 

do es no t di sc rim in at e ag ain st an yon e in th a t in dust ry . I t wou ld seem to be 

beyo nd qu es tion th at th e m er e po ss es sion of br oa d re gula to ry po wers ov er the 

av ia tion in dus try, in cl ud ing air li n es an d air ports, w hile a t th e same tim e opera ti n g air p o rt s in co mpe tit ion w it h oth er air p o rt s wou ld, by it s ve ry nat ure , 

giv e ri se to di sc rim in at io n ev en th ou gh no ov er t acts or th re a ts sh ou ld be ex er ­

cis ed by it.

In co nc luding , I wo uld lik e to sta te th a t th e B al tim or e A ir port Boa rd doe s no t 

ag re e w ith th e s ug ge sti on of the S ta te a via tion c om miss ion th a t as an alt ern ati ve 

to im m ed ia te ac tio n on II.R . 10471, a P re si denti al st udy co mmiss ion be ap po inted 

to pla n de ve lopm en t of carr ie r se rv ic e a t the th re e air p o rt s in th e Baltim or eW as hi ng to n ar ea . For th e re as ons al re ady st ate d by me and oth ers at the hea ring s, we th in k it is im pe ra tive th a t th e FA A be ta ken ou t of th e bu sine ss of 

opera ti ng air ports, re ga rd le ss of w h at pl an s an y st udy co mmissio n m ig ht pr opo se f or de ve lopm en t of a ir s er vice .

Ver y tr u ly you rs,

George W . B ak er, J r.,

Mr. W illia ms. Ou r next witness will be Mr. Karl Grimm, on behal f of th e Association of Commerce.

Mr. Grimm .
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIR PORTS 145

STATEM ENT OF KA RL GRIMM , ON BE HA LF OF TH E ASSOCIATION 

OF COMMERCE, BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. Grimm. Thank you. I have a very short prepa red statement on behalf of the Association of Commerce which 1 would like to read, and then I would like to make a few additional comments in light of the several questions that 

have been asked here this morning. My name is Karl J. Grimm. I reside at 5001 West Hills Road, Baltimore, Aid. I am transportation director of Baltimore Associa­ tion of Commerce, Baltimore, Aid., and appear here by direction of the association’s executive committee to state the position of the association on ll.R. 7399 and II.R . 10471. Baltimore Association of Commerce is the principal business or­ ganization in the city of Baltimore and has its office at 22 Light Street in Baltimore. Fo r more than 20 years the association has maintained an aviation department, under a full-time director, for the purpose of promoting aviation services for the city and the Baltimore metropoli­ tan area. During that time it has actively participated in numerous proceedings before the Civil Aeronautics Board in support of more adequate service for the people of the city, through the city’s harbor 

field, and now Friend ship International Airpor t. The association is concerned tha t the opening of Dulles Int ern a­ tional Airp ort may result in the diversion of flights now adequately serving Baltimore and Washington through Friendship, with result­ ing inconvenience to the traveling public and at increased expense 

to the airlines. Our staff has made a thorough study of both II.R. 7399 and II.R. 10471. At a meeting of the executive committee of the association, held on Alay 1, 1962, the committee directed me to state the following 

position with respect to these bills: (1) Baltimore Association of Commerce endorses section 2 of II.R. 10471, which provides for the creation of a five-member Board, ap­ pointed by the P resid ent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and responsible only to Congress, fo r the future operation of 

Washington National and Dulles Internatio nal Airports. (2) Baltimore Association of Commerce opposes II.R. 7399 in its entirety, because the Corporation therein proposed to be created would be subject to the direction of the Administrator, Federal Aviation 

Agency. 3. Baltimore Association of Commerce recommends tha t II.R. 10471 be amended by the addition of a new section providing, in substance, tha t the entire cost of the acquisition and construction of Dulles In ter­ national Airport be amortized out of operating income from that airport only, after payment of expenses of operation and maintenance, within a reasonable period of time, to be fixed in the discretion of the 

Congress.

Tha t ends the prepared statement. AVe were quite interested in the testimony of Air. Halaby yesterday in which he indicated his intention to amortize approximately $73 million of the cost of Dulles A irpo rt over a period of 30 years. AAre
146 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

think that is a very laudable objective and strongly urge that such a 

provision actually be written into the statute so th at there is no misunderstanding about it, and there is no opportunity for any future 

Administrator to change his mind about it.

There have been some questions asked with respect to this question 

of coercion or persuasion, and I think that a brief statement of what 

the situation is with respect to the jet services that are now using 

Baltimore might be helpful in apprising the committee of the manner 

in which that pressure could be exercised.

At the present time, as you know, all jet service for Baltimore and 

Washington is being handled at Friendship Airp ort. The airlines 

operating those flights have filed with the Civil Aeronautics Board 

what are known as airport notices, in which they announced their 

intention to provide jet service for Washington throu gh Friendship 

Internationa l Airport.

The CAB has approved each application as it has been filed, and 

I do not believe that there are any flights now utilizing Friendship 

which are not protected by an airp ort notice of this kind.

We have reason to believe that if the airlines are left to their own 

devices that they would prefer to allow those airport notices to stand 

and to offer service for Washington and Baltimore both through 

Friendship Airport.

As I say, CAB has approved those airport notices, hut it can readily 

be seen that there is an opportunity there to attem pt to persuade the 

airlines to withdraw those airp ort notices so that then the only airport tha t they could use to offer jet service to Washington would be 

the Dulles Airport.

W eb ave already seen one instance in which there has been an effort 

made to bring pressure of that kind. That is when Braniff Airlines, 

which is actually not certified to serve Baltimore, filed an airport 

notice of this kind, and the FAA strongly urged the CAB to make it 

clear to Braniff Airlines that this airport notice or permission to use 

Friendship would be limited only to the temporary period until Dulles 

opened, and that then Braniff would be forced to withdraw that notice 

and move to Dulles.

I cannot urge upon the committee strongly enough our feeling that 

some provision should be p ut in any bill which is passed, governing 

the operation of the W ashington airports, a provision requiring amortization in some fashion of the cost of construction of Dulles A irport 

over a reasonable period of time.

We are very grateful to have had the opportunity to present our 

views, and we wish to thank the committee for that privilege.

Mr. Williams. Than k you very much, sir. I have only one question tha t I would like to ask you, and that is with respect to recommendation No. 3 made by you in your testimony.

It would appear tha t you are recommending, in addition to the 

enactment of H.R. 10471, t ha t the cost of acquisition and construction of Dulles International Air por t be amortized out of the operating 

income from th at airpo rt only.

Mr. Grimm. Yes, sir.

Mr. Williams. In other words, you are suggesting tha t there be 

no interconnection between Washington National and Dulles?
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 147

Mr. Grimm. That is correct. We feel tha t both airpo rts should 

stand on their own bottoms.

Mr. Williams. Well, if tha t is the premise of your statement then 

what is the purpose of setting up a Board to operate the two airports?

Mr. Grimm. Well, as I personally conceive the Brewster bill, it 

would set up this Board for the purpose of operating the two air ­ ports under the basic enabling legislation of 1940, which established Washington National and which the FAA is now operating it under, and the act of 1950, authorizing Dulles Airp ort, under which the FAA will administer that a irport under the existing law. And I think tha t it appears to be the intent of the Brewster bill tha t this basic enabling legislation would still stand and the Board 

would be governed by each statute. And we feel that both of the enabling statutes are more or less selfsufficient for the purpose.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Friedel ?

Mr. Friedel. No questions at all. I just want to thank you. We 

will be watching the CAB about these certificated airlines.

We will watch them very closely.

Mr. Grimm. We are watching them very closely, too, Mr. Friedel.

Mr. Devine. No questions.

Mr. Williams. Than k you very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Rudolph Drennan, representing the M aryland Aviation Commission. I am advised by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Friedel, that Mr. Drennan has very graciously agreed, in order to assist in expedit­ ing these hearings, to permit his statement to be included in the 

record in its entirety.

Is that correct, Mr. Drennan ?

Mr. Drennan. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Williams. We appreciate that very much.

Incidentally, the bells have already rung for a quorum in the House, and we would like very much, if possible, to conclude this phase 

of the hearings this morning. So, on behalf of the committee, I would like to express our appreciation to you for your assistance.

Mr. Drennan. That is all right.

Mr. Williams. There being no objection, Mr. Drennan’s statement, 

along with an excerpt from the report on Friendship International Airpor t by the special study commission, appointed by Governor Tawes at the request of the legislature, will be included in its entirety 

in the record at this point. (The statement of Mr. Drennan together with the excerpt referred to 

follo w:)

Sta tem ent of Sta te Avia ti on Co m m is sio n of Maryl an d

Thi s st ate m ent of po si tion is pr es en te d by th e S ta te Aviation Co mmiss ion of M ar yl an d an d co nc urr ed in by th e follo wing mem be rs of th e Fri en dsh ip In ­

te rn ati onal A irpo rt S tu dy Co mm ission of th e S ta te of M ary la n d : And rew Heu be ck . Jr. , se cr et ar y, B oa rd of Publ ic W orks. Sta te of M ar yland . Ja m es J. O'D on ne ll, di re ctor . S ta te Pla nn in g D ep ar tm en t. S ta te of M ar yland .
1 4 8 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

James G. Rennie, director, Department of Budget and Procurement, State 

of Maryland.

Russell II. McCain, executive assistant to the Governor of the State of 

Maryland.

Charles B. Allen, chairman, State Aviation Commission of Maryland.

The two bills being considered by your committee have been reviewed in 

detail by the State aviation commission and the members of the Friendship 

International Airport Study Commission referred to hereinabove.

H.R. 7399, cited as the “National Capital Airports Corporation Act of 1961”, 

simply creates an instrum entality of the Federal Government, defines its duties 

and powers and designates tha t the Corporation under the direction of the 

Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency shall own and operate the Washington National Airport and such other federally owned civil airports in the 

District of Columbia or its vicinity as may be transferred to the Corporation 

under this act.

H.R. 10471 cited as the “Washington Airports Act of 1962” establishes an 

agency of the United States to be known as the Washington Airports Board. 

This act recognizes that there should be a distinction between the regulatory 

and management responsibility in the operation of federally owned civil airports. It creates the appropriate Board and defines its duties.

It is the considered opinion of the two groups represented in this statement 

tha t first consideration must be given to the recognition of the fact that scheduled commercial air carrier service should be developed for the entire BaltimoreWashington complex. In contemplation of the future and ultime growth of air 

carrier transport service in this complex, it is absolutely necessary to consider 

the three major airports which will serve the area for the foreseeable future, 

namely, Washington National Airport, Washington International Airport and 

Friendship International Airport,

It is also the considered opinion of the two groups represented in this statement tha t consideration must be given to the tremendous responsibility that all 

those concerned with these airports must have for the huge sums of money 

which have been invested by the Federal, State, and municipal governments and 

by the private interests in the operation of airports and the related industries.

This group concurs in the feeling of many tha t there should be a definite 

distinction between the regualtory and management responsibility concerning 

the operation of the two airpo rts designated as beng those designed to serve 

Washington alone. However, the group is of the definite opinion tha t you cannot divorce the responsibility for the control of the programing, scheduling and 

planning for the air traffic service to the Baltimore-Washington complex without 

giving full consideration to the three airports, rath er than just the two.

Any program, however, designated for the distribution of present traffic and 

for the ultimate growth of air traffic in the Baltimore-Washington complex must 

of necessity give full cognizance to the many factors which affect the air carrier 

service to those air traffic markets lying within the Baltimore-Washington complex. These factors include such important element:- as population distribution ; 

accessibility, with particular emphasis on access time rath er than distance; 

present and forecasted future origin and destination of air passengers; coordination of airspace use and activity, with particular emphasis given to the safety 

aspect of such use both for the present and for the future; the economics of air 

carrier service from the standpoint of not only airline operations but also from 

passenger convenience and service; and other similar functions which relate to 

the ultimate development of the three airports which are capable of serving the 

Baltimore-Washington complex presently and for many years in the future.

It is furthe r the opinion of this group that the elements which control the 

present programing and scheduling of air carrier service in the BaltimoreWashington complex should be void of the competitive aspect of the operation 

of the three airports; however, they should be based upon those factors heretofore cited which will create adequate service to the complex as well as fulfillment of passenger safety, demands, and convenience.

In order to realistically establish the foundation for the ultimate safe development of air carrier service in the Baltimore-Washington complex, we respectfully recommend that this committee table, for the time being, the two bills 

under consideration and in lieu thereof request the President of the United 

States to appoint a study commission to be termed “the Baltimore-Washington 

Air Carrier Survey Commission.” The makeup of this Commission, it is sug-
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 149

gested, should be the Ad minis trator of the FAA, the Chairman of the CAB, a member of the House of R eprese ntatives Committee on In terstate and Foreign Commerce, a representativ e of the Sta te of Maryland, a rep resentative of the Sta te of Virginia, a rep res entative of the city of Baltimore, a represen tative of the government of the Dist ric t of Columbia, a representative of the domestic air carriers and a rep res entative of the U.S.-flag intern ational air carriers. The duties of this study commission should be to analyze the present air ca rrier service demands for the Baltimore-Washington complex; to estab lish the patte rn of growth for the foreseeable futur e of the air traffic service into the Baltimore-Washington complex ; and to recommend th e ba sis for service to the three air ports serving the complex; such basis to serve as the found ation for the ultimate growth of th e three a irp or ts u ntil such time as additio nal airport facili­ ties may be required. The study commission should rep ort its findings to the Pre sid ent of the United States, including recommended method and plan for the proper control and development of air car rier service into the Baltim ore-W ashington complex. While we feel very stro ngly as we have sta ted that the first consideratio n should be given to the entire Baltimore-Washington complex, we nevertheless feel ju st as strongly th at the operation of the air ports in Washington must be separa ted from the reg ula tory bodies, i.e., the FAA and the CAB. It is ju st not logical for an operato r of an airp ort, or any other public utility, to be the au thority in making rules and regulations for himself and all others in the 

industry. Gentlemen, we app reciate very much the opportu nity to come before you to express the position of th e State Aviation Commission of Maryland, and members of the Friendsh ip Inter natio nal Airport Study Commission of the Sta te of 

Marylan d whose names appea r in this statement.

E xtract From Report on F riendship I nternational Airport by the Special

Study Comm issio n Appointed by Governor Tawes, at th e Request of th e

Legislative Council

In consideration of the future a ir traffic service to Baltimore through Fri end­ ship, no review of the problem could be fru itf ul witho ut giving full cognizance to the entire Baltimore-Washington complex. In app raising this overall complex, certain imp ortant elements have come to the attention of the commission. These 

are set forth below: (1) For the immediate future there will be three air po rts serving commercial ai r traffic in the region, namely Friendship, Washington National, and Wa shington Internatio nal. (2) Estimated traffic which served as a basis for development of Wash ington Intern ational Airport by the F ederal Government, indicate d a total enplaned pas­ senger volume of 8.834,000 passengers for the Baltim ore-W ashington complex by 1075. In order to ope rate the three air ports w ith financial success, and maxi­ mum efficiency and convenience to the public, it is the opinion of the commission th at a realistic and reasonab le pattern for ai r ca rrier development in the Ba ltimore and Washington are as must be initiated. (3) The airspac e requ irem ents for the Baltimore-Washington complex are critical and will become even more so in the imm ediate futu re. In addition to the airspace problems of the thre e air ca rrier airp orts, the condition is fu rth er aggravated by the location of Andrews A ir Force Base and other m ilitary a irp ort 

facilitie s close by. (4) The airspace problem furth er indicate s the immediate need for basic planning and prog raming of traffic serving the Baltimore and Washington are as for the present, as well as for the future, in order to estab lish a patte rn which will perm it the proper future development in a safe and efficient manner. The safety aspect o f air ca rrier operations is all- imp orta nt and cannot be overlooked in any sensible eva luation of the public’s needs for air service. (5) In the development of the future air service to the Baltimore and Wa shington area s, the economics of air travel must be given full consideration. These economics involve th e le ngth of air carri er route structure , the time of trave l, the service rendered, and the economy of air po rt operations. (6) Planning and programing for the ai r ca rrier service development mu st tak e into consideration the two basic markets involved. The W ashington ma rket is of a singular na ture being the center of the Nation ’s governmental act ivity ;
150 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

whereas, the Baltimore market represents the larger volume of population and is 

also the industrial center of the whole Baltimore-Washington complex.

It has been concluded that a detailed program is required for the development 

of a ir carrier service to the Baltimore-Washington complex, and the area which 

it can best service. This program must he designed for the safe, economic, 

and efficient growth of the air carrier traffic. It is further concluded that this 

program should be based upon a detailed survey and report prepared by qualified 

experts in the field of aviation. It is recommended that such a survey and report 

be prepared which will establish a reasonable and logical pattern for the development of air carrier service to the Baltimore-Washington area. This report must 

consider the following basic elements of the problem : analysis of the air carrier 

market, including origin and destination studies of present traffic; the service 

areas, air cargo requirements and potential, the economics of air route structures 

and airline operations as affected by the geographical location of the airports, an 

analysis of the airspace problem insofar as it affects the development of air 

traffic in the Baltimore-Washington complex, all other elements of a similar 

nature which will affect the safe development of air carrier service during the 

growth of the traffic from the present to such time as saturation is reached.

Mr. Williams. Our last witness this morning is Mr. William 

Boucher.

STATEMENT OF WILL IAM BOUCHER i n , EXECU TIVE DIRECTOR, 

THE GREATER BALTIMORE COMMITTEE, BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. Boucher. I will be very quick, Mr. Chairman, and I will not 

even sit down.

We are here to support the Brewster bill. We are here to advise 

the committee that, in our opinion, there is, by the very nature of the 

present operation, coercion.

There has been coercion exercised upon the airlines to move from 

Friendship to Dulles.

To my personal knowledge th e airlines have represented to us repeatedly that they did not desire to move; tha t they do not consider 

there is a market for three a irpo rts a t this time, and that if they move 

it is because the power of the CAB and the FAA coerced and forced 

them to move.

Thirdly , we believe th at the time has now come fo r Balitmore and 

the FAA and the CAB to stop fighting. The time has now come for 

us to look at this as a regional airp ort problem as the best way to 

serve the interest of the public, and if we can move from the enactment of the Brewster bill to the consideration of a regional airport 

board, the public, who after all are the only ones we should really consider, can best be served.

Thank you.

Mr. Williams. Thank you very much.

Mr. Devine?

Mr. Devine. If Mr. Boucher has specific evidence of coercion by 

the FAA I wish tha t he would at some future time submit it for the 

record.

Mr. Boucher. I would be glad to do th at; yes, sir.

Mr. Grimm. It was the intention of Mr. Baker to present, as attachments to his statement, suggested amendments to the Brewester 

bill incorporating the recommendations that are made.

I am told tha t they have not been submitted to the committee, and I 

would like the privilege of submitting them for the record within the 

next day or so by mail.
NATIO NA L CAPITAL AIR POR TS 151

Mr. Williams. The record will be kept open for a reasonable length 

of time following the conclusion of these hearings, and if there is no 

objection I am sure we will be happy to receive them.

Mr. Grimm. We will also submit to the committee a copy of a letter 

from th e General Counsel of the FAA to the Civil Aeronautics Board 

with respect to this Braniff situation.

Mr. Williams. The committee will be very happy to receive it.

(An excerpt from the letter mentioned above may be found on 

p. 142.)

Mr. Williams. Mr. Brewster?

Mr. Brewster. With the Chairm an’s permission. I would also like 

to submit for the record a copy of a letter from the General Counsel of 

the FAA to Mr. Boyd, of the CAB, with reference to the use of Dulles 

and Friendship by Eastern , whereby the CAB is directed tha t the 

FAA will not certificate Eastern to use Baltimore afte r Dulles has 

been completed.

Mr. Williams. Let it be received for the record.

(The letter referred to appears on p. 165.)

Mr. Brewster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. The committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock, when we have scheduled Chairman Boyd, of the Civil 

Aeronautics Board, and Mr. Carlton C. Massey, representing the 

county executives of the F airfax government, F airfax , Va.

Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, I have the proposed amendments if I 

may submit them now.

Mr. Williams. Ju st submit them to the reporter and they will be 

made a part of the record.

(The amendments referred to follow:)

Statement of George W. Baker, Jr.

The following proposed amendments to H.R. 10471, 87th Congress, 2d session, 

introduced by Mr. Brewster, are suggested for consideration. References to 

lines and pages are to the official print of the bill:

(1) Strike th e symbol “ (c )” (line 7, page 3) and inse rt in lieu thereof “Sec. 3.”

(2) Strike sub parag rap hs (d ), (e) , and (f) of section 2 (line 17, p. 3 to line 4, 

p. 4) and s ubs titu te the fo llowing:

“Sec. 4. In the exercise and performance of its powers and duties und er thi s 

Act, including the determ ination of rates and charges for use and services, the 

Board shall consider th at it is in the public interest to operate each airport 

transfer red to it by or under this Act, on a self-sustaining business basis, consisten t with sound com mercial p ractice and with due rega rd to all costs and intere sts 

on the Government’s investm ent: Provided, Tha t, for the air port constructed 

under the Act of September 7, 1950 ( 64 S tat. 770), fees, rentals, and user charges 

shall be fixed in such amoun ts that the Board, beginning on Ju ne 30, 1964, and on 

June 30 of each y ear the rea fter, shall pay into the Tre asu ry of the United States 

out of such income only, an amount sufficient to amortize, on or before June 30, 

1994, the entire cost of acquiring land, construction and main tenance for said 

airport, as expended for such purposes f rom appropriations of th e Congress prior 

to Jun e 30, 1964, with int ere st thereon from the effective date of each appro pri ation.”

(3) In lieu of sub paragraph s (d), (e ), and (f ), section 2, (line 17, p. 3 to 

line 4, p. 4), insert the following:

“Sec. 5. In addition to the duties and powers conferred und er the Act of 

Jun e 29, 1940 ( 54 Sta t. 6S6), and the Act of September 7, 1950 ( 64 Sta t. 770), 

both as specifically amended by this Act, the Board shall have the following 

general duties and p ow ers:

“ (a) To adopt, amend, and repeal bylaws, rules, and regulations gove rning 

the conduct of its business and the performance of the powers and duties gra nte d 

to or imposed upon it by law ;
1 5 2 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIR POR TS

“ (b ) To ad op t, al te r, an d us e an official seal, whi ch sh all be ju dic ia lly 

no tic ed ;

“ (c ) Sub je ct to th e civ il se rv ic e and clas sifica tion laws, to ap poin t an d fix 

th e co m pe ns atio n of such officers and em ploy ees th a t m ay be nec es sa ry to carr y 

ou t th e duties ve ste d in and im po sed up on th e B oa rd under th is A c t;

“ (d ) To ac ce pt gi ft s or do na tions of serv ices, or of pr op er ty , re al , pe rson al, 

or mixed , ta ng ib le or intang ible, m ad e in ai d of any of th e purp ose s he rein 

au th o ri z e d :

“ (e ) I t sh all mak e an annual re p o rt to th e Con gress on or bef or e Ja n u a ry 15 

in each yea r, which re port sh al l co nta in det ai le d in fo rm at io n w ith re sp ec t to 

th e wor k pe rf or m ed by th e B oa rd d u ri n g th e pr ec ed in g fis cal y ear. ”

(4 ) Se ctio ns 3, 4, an d 5 sh ou ld be appro pri at el y re nu m be re d as sections 6, 

7, an d 8.

(5 ) D el et e su bpar agra ph (b ), se ct io n 5, (lin es 8-12, p. 6).

(6 ) Ad d th e fol lo w in g:

“Sec. 9. Thi s Act sh all be co ns tr ued in par i m ate ri a w ith (a ) th e Ac t en titled 

‘An Act to pr ov id e fo r the adm in is tr ati o n of the W as hi ng to n N at io nal Airp or t, 

an d fo r oth er pu rp os es ’, as am en de d, ap pr ov ed .Tune 29, 1940 ( 54 S ta t. 68 6), an d 

(b ) th e Ac t en titled ‘An Act to auth ori ze th e c on stru ctio n, pr ot ec tion , op er ation, 

an d m ai nte nan ce of a pu blic a ir p o rt in or in th e vic in ity of th e D is tr ic t of 

Colum bia', a s am en de d, a pp ro ve d Sep te m be r 7,1 95 0 ( 64 Sta t. 77 0) .”

The ba sic pu rp os es of th e pr op os ed am en dm en ts a re : (1 ) To w ri te into the 

sta tu te th e pr ev io us ly ex pr es se d desi re s of th e Mem bers of Con gress in de ba tes 

an d co m m itte e re port s on appro pri ati on bi lls fo r th e D ul les A irport , th a t th e 

U.S. T re asu ry be re im bu rs ed fo r th e en ti re cost, w ithi n a re as onab le pe rio d of 

tim e, o ut of inco me fro m its o pe ra tion s, pl us t he s ta te m en ts in c om m itt ee he ar in gs 

on su ch bi lls by Gen er al Q ue sa da and Mr. H al ab y ex pr es sing th eir co nc ur re nc e 

in t his d es ir e as a g en er al p ri n cip le ; an d (2 ) to p ro vide th a t so fa r as fin an cin g is 

co nc erne d, W as hi ng to n N at io na l A ir p o rt an d th e Dulles A irport sh all be tr ea te d 

as s ep ara te en tities .

Th e firs t pu rp os e is ex pr es se d in th e pr op os ed s ec tio n 4. It is be lie ve d th a t by 

Ju n e 30, 1964, th e traffic tr en ds a t D ulles A irpor t will be adeq uat el y es tablishe d, 

an d th a t th e 30 -yea r pe riod of am ort iz ati on th ere aft er is sufficie nt.

The seco nd ba sic pu rp os e is ac co m plishe d in p a rt by pr op os ed se ct io n 4, th e 

am en dm en ts to th e W as hi ng to n N at io nal A irport Ac t an d th e act au th ori zi ng 

Dulles A irpo rt, se t ou t in se ct ions 3 an d 4 of th e or ig in al bi ll (H .R . 101 71) , an d 

th e pr op os ed am en dm en t ad din g se ct io n 9 to th is bill. Th e net effect wo uld be 

th a t th e B oa rd will be go ve rn ed by II .R . 10471, an d in addit io n th e act of 

Ju n e 29, 1940, go ve rning W as hin gto n N at io nal A irpo rt, an d th e a ct of Sep ­

tem be r 7, 1950, go ve rning Dul les In te rn ati o n al A irpo rt. I t is be lie ve d th a t th e 

tw o la tt e r ac ts , as specifically am en de d by H.R. 10471, are appro pri ate fo r the 

pu rpos e.

Se cti on 4 (b ) of H .R. 10471 (lin es 8 -12, p. 6 ), re ad s as fo llo ws :

“ (b ) The pr ov isions of th is Act sh all not af fe ct an y pr oc ee di ng s pe nd ing 

be fo re th e A dm in is tr ato r of th e Federa l Aviatio n Agenc y a t th e tim e th is secti on 

ta kes eff ect, but an y such pr oc ee di ng s sh al l be co nt in ue d be fo re th e W as hi ng to n 

A irpo rts B oar d.”

Thi s w or di ng will ha ve th e effect of tr an sf err in g to th e W as hi ng to n A irport s 

B oa rd all pr oc ee di ng s be fo re th e A dm in is tr ato r of th e F edera l A vi at io n Agency 

ha vi ng to do w ith al l m att ers w ithin his ju ri sd ic tion hav in g noth in g to do w ith 

th e oper at io n of th e tw o air p o rt s invo lv ed in th is b ill, and fo r th is re as on shou ld 

be de leted.

Th e re m ai nin g su gg ested am en dm en ts ca n be te rm ed “h ou se ke ep in g” am en dmen ts.

Mr. Baker. I would also like to submit a photostat of an article 

from “Nation’s Business” which I quoted and which Mr. Halaby 

quoted.

Mr. Williams. You mean as an appendix to your testimony?

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir, and also a photostatic copy of an article in 

The Sun of February 15, 1962, covering the meeting between the 

Maryland Congressional delegation and Messrs. Halaby and Boyd.

Air. Williams. Let them be received in the record.
NATIONA L CAPITAL AIR PORT S 153

(The photostats referred to follow:)

[F ro m N ati o n ’s Bus iness, F eb ru ar y 1962 ]

Thi s Is a Threat

Few Fed era l officials have eve r made the va st differenc e between Governm ent and p riv ate ope ratio n of a business qu ite so clear as has Najeeb B. Halaby. The Fed eral Aviation Agency, which Mr. Halaby heads, is buildin g Dulles In ­

ter na tio na l A irpo rt 27 miles from Washington, D.C. Since this air po rt is to serv e the Nation’s Capital, no pennies have been pinched. Originally est imate d at $85 million, the t ota l cost is now figured a t $110 

million. Dulle s will also diffe r fro m most other air po rts becau se the Government, thro ugh the FAA, will re tain full operating control. After 11 year s of planning, discussion, and construction, it ’s expected to open in October. Mr. Hala by thus finds him self a land lord who will soon have a luxu rious property fo r rent, but no ten an ts signed up. Any other build er would hav e to get busy seeking prospects, adv ertising ren tal 

rat es, and negotiat ing with anyone inte rested in the space. Mr. Hala by instead demanded that airlines serv ing the Wash ington are a tell him how much term ina l spac e they would ren t. The air lin es complied by agree­ ing on how they would spl it up the available space but, so fa r, have n ot committe d themselves because they don ’t know wh at they would hav e to pay for it. The 

FAA has neve r su pplied d efini te figures. Mr. Halaby , descri bing air lin e negotia tors as “arm ored gladiators ,” has in­ sist ed he would d eal only wi th top company officials. Fur the rmore , if the airlines pr efer to contin ue using exi stin g airp orts , “the re are var iou s ways in which they 

will be persu aded” to move to Dulles. Mr. Halaby ’s attit ud e is fami lia r to co untle ss busin essme n who m ust deal wit h Fed era l agencies or become entan gled in their reg ula tor y processes—w het her in 

agricultur e, comm unications, or an airpor t. Fo r those who mig ht not be fam iliar wit h the differe nces between the way 

Govern ment a nd business oper ate, Mr. H alab y e xp lain s: “They are trying to tr ea t me just like any oth er air po rt owner, and they can ’t 

get away with it. This is a th reat.”

[F ro m Th e Su n, Fe b. 15, 1962 ]

J ets Will Go to Chantilly, Agencies Say—FAA, CAB Heads Tell

Marylanders Friend ship Will Lose

(By Stephen E. Nor dlin ger)

Washington, Fe brua ry 14.—The two top Fed eral avia tion autho rities empha tica lly sta ted toda y th at airl ine service to Was hing ton will be thro ugh the new int ern ational ai rp or t a t Chantilly. Va., star tin g thi s fall. The autho riti es told officials from Balt imo re th at Frie nds hip Inter na tio na l Airp ort will not serve any longer as Washin gton ’s ai rp or t for je t traffic. The warning came from Najeeb E. Hala by, Adminis trator of th e Fed eral Avia­ tion Agency, and 2\.lan S. Boyd, Cha irma n of the Civil Aero nautic Board.

CONGRESSMEN, OFFICIALS TOLD

They spoke at an info rma l hea ring called by Mar ylan d's seven Congressmen to dete rmine the imp act on Frie nds hip of the new air po rt, scheduled to open in 

October. In atte nda nce were M ayor Grady, Cha rles P. Crane , cha irm an of the Baltim ore Airport Board, and representativ es of b usines s intere sts in Baltim ore. The hearing, marke d by several sha rp, heat ed exchanges, took place in the Interst ate and Fore ign Commerce Committee room in the new H ouse B uilding.

FRIEND SHIP AIDED BY JET S

Friendsh ip, 8 mile s from Baltimo re and 27 from Washington, has benefited considerably since the adve nt of the c ommercial je t age in 1959, becau se je t ca r­ rie rs were not allowed to land at the rela tive ly small Was hington Na tional Air-
154 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Baltimore’s airport, which suffered economically in its first years, became 

Washington’s airport for jet service. Its business boomed.

The Congressmen and Baltimore officials and business leaders fear now that 

the new airport, known unofficially as Dulles International Airport, 32 miles west 

of Washington, will divert a large slice of jet traffic from Friendship.

FEARS GET OFFICIAL BACKING

In large part, these fears were substantiated at today’s hearing by the Federal 

officials.

Mr. Halaby and Mr. Boyd left no doubt they felt strongly tha t the airlines 

would prefer to use the new airport in serving Washington.

“Friendship is not Washington’s airp ort,” Mr. Boyd declared.

“There will be a loss to Baltimore when Dulles opens. Service to Washington 

is going through Chantilly.”

“Do you think this is going to happen despite the fact tha t Friendship is 

closer to Washington, and more economical for the airlines?” Representative 

Lankford asked.

“Yes,” Mr. Boyd replied.

He said Dulles “will be the best airport in the Nation, the safest and 

with less fire hazards and noise. It will have better runways and better communication and navigation systems.”

Mr. Boyd and Mr. Halaby mentioned the prestige value of Dulles as “gateway 

to the Nation’s capital.”

Both men stated tha t the airlines serving Washington would be encouraged 

by the Dulles management to use the new airport, which will be operated by 

the Federal Aviation Agency.

DENY IT WILL BE COERCION

Under close questioning, they denied tha t the Federal agencies would coerce 

airlines to divert traffic to Dulles from Friendship.

Some of the Congressmen suggested that the agencies might use their regulatory power as a means of favoring Dulles, which cost the Government $105 

million to build.

“You are going to encourage them to use Dulles and you’ve got the means to 

do it,” Mr. Lankford charged.

“Not really,” Mr. Boyd answered.

“as obje cti ve as w e c a n”

“Well, Mr. Halaby does.” He denied this.

“I don’t think the CAB will force the airlines to go to Chantilly,” Mr. Boyd 

said.

“ w il l be be st in n a tio n”

“We hold no brief for any par ticu lar airport. We a re completely dedicated 

to the public service and try to be as objective as we can.”

Mr. Halaby said his agency would not use its regulatory power “to the advantage” of the new airport.

The Civil Aeronautics Board regulates airline service. The Federal Aviation Agency supervised other aspects of commercial airlines and in addition 

owns Washington National and Chantilly Airports.

Mr. Halaby said he would “do anything” to separate his regulatory function from his job as landlord of the two airports to avoid charges of favoring 

his own projects.

He denied published reports that quoted him as stating that because of his 

Federal role he was not to be treate d as any other airport owner.

This statement, reportedly made last December in New York, was taken 

to mean tha t he was threatening the airlines to make them use Dulles 

Airport.

Mr. Halaby said he meant that the airlines had “not been willing” to reserve space at Dulles Airport because they were trying to bargain for lower 

rates.

“None of them as yet have committed themselves to use the airport,” he 

said. “We are negotiating with them now. We don’t have a fee set as 

yet.”
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 1 5 5

TA W ES SE ND S ME SSAG E

Governor Tawes sen t a message to the hea rin g sta tin g he hoped th at the Dulles mana geme nt would use only “fa ir competitiv e meth ods” to at tr ac t 

airlines. Mr. Boyd and Mr. Ha lab y told the Congressm en th at the airl ines and not the Fed eral agencie s would decide wh at airp or t was most beneficial to serve 

Wash ington . Mr. Boyd said an air lin e could not aband on service a t Fri end ship witho ut 

approva l of the CAB a ft er a public hearing. Mr. Crane, the air po rt boa rd chairma n, noted th at it tak es less time to driv e to Frie nds hip than to Dulles and th at the rat es to the airl ine s to use Fri end ­

ship ar e lower.

MAYOR NOT DISCOURAGED

After the hear ing, Mayor Grad y said he was not discouraged. He said he would bend every effo rt to prev ent the air lin es from discontinu ing service to 

Baltim ore. All of the Ma ryla nd Congressmen except Re pre sen tative Johns on attend ed the hearing. Also presen t were rep resentativ es of the Balt imo re Association 

of Commerce and the G reate r B altim ore Committee. Senator Beall sen t his execu tive secreta ry. All the members of the airp or t 

boar d atte nde d the meeting.

Mr. Baker. Than k you.

Mr. Williams. Tha nk you very much.

The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o’clock tomorrow 

morning. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 

at 10 a.m., F riday, May 4,1962.)

NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

FRID A Y , MAY 4, 196 2

Houseof Representatives,

.'Su b c o m m it t e e on T ra n spo rta tio n a nd A er o n a u tic s of

t ii e C o m m it t e e on I nterst ate a nd F orei gn C om m erce,

Washington, D.G.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

1334, New House Office Building, Hon. John Bell Williams (chairman 

■of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. Williams. The committee will be in order.

We have a statement from Congressman Garmatz, which will be 

placed in the record at this point.

(The statement of Mr. Garmatz is as follows:)

Statem ent of II on. Edward A. Garmatz, a Representative in Congress F rom

ti ie State of Maryland

Mr. Ch air ma n and me mbers of the Subco mm ittee on Tra ns po rtatio n and Aero­ nautics , because othe r comm itm ent s prev en t my ap pe aring befor e you per son ally, I wish to sub mit the follow ing sta temen t in supp ort of II.R. 10471, introdu ced by my colleague, Da nny Br ew ste r, to tr an sf er ce rtain ad m in istrat iv e res ponsi ­ bil ity for the o peration of Wa shi ngton Na tio nal Airpo rt an d Dulles In te rn at io na l Airp or t from the A dm in istrat or of the Fe de ral Av iation Agency to a Washin gto n 

Airpo rts B oard. It is difficult fo r me to com pre hen d how the FAA can perfo rm its official du tie s in an im pa rti al ma nner, an d at the sam e time, op erate as ow ners of Na tio nal an d Dulles A irports. Some basis for my apprehensio n is fou nd in the sta temen ts ma de by the Ch air man of the Civil Ae ronauti cs Bo ard and the Federal Aviation Adm inistra tor th at je t traffic now using Friend sh ip In te rn at io na l Airp ort would be div ert ed to Du lles Ai rport. The y stat ed the ai rlin es wou ld be “encouraged” to use Dulles an d em phasized the “pr estig e” value of th e new airp or t. I am convinced th at the wo rd “pr essu red” would be a mo re ac cu rate descrip tio n of th e method to be used to di ve rt the traffic, an d both age ncies hav e the me ans 

to do this. The choice of ai rp orts they will use, is a m at te r fo r th e airli ne s to ma ke, an d should be based on the nee ds of the ar ea fo r the service, the economy of ai rlin e 

an d ai rp or t operatio ns an d th e safe ty asp ects. In so far as nee ds of th e Ba ltimo re ar ea fo r servi ce are conc erned, th e fa ct th a t passe nger ar ri val s an d de pa rtu res in 1961 inc reased 52 percent over 1960, 

an d more tha n dou bled th e to ta l in 1959, is eviden ce th at the business is av ailable 

if the a irl ines will f ur ni sh t he serv ice. Congressional au th or izatio n for constru cti on of Du lles pro vides for am or ti­ za tio n of the debt with in 25 yea rs. Becau se of some of the un usual and cos tly feat ur es included in its const ruc tion, such am ortiz ation will gr ea tly increa se th e fees to th e ai rlin es usi ng the new ai rp or t. W ith the financ ial difficu lties th e lines ar e now havin g, and the need to op erate as econom ically as possible to pro vide the bes t servi ce a t the lowest possible cos t, it is difficult to un de rstand 

how they could p ay th e high er fee at Dulles. Since the beg inn ing of opera tio ns at Fr iend sh ip Ai rport, a ca pital im prove­ men t pro gra m ha s been mainta ine d by th e Ba lti more City Ai rport Bo ard an d imp rov em ent s ar e co ns tantly being ma de to me et th e exp andin g nee ds of the

157
158 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIR POR TS

se rv ic e an d to pr ov id e ev er y po ss ib le sa fe ty fe a tu re fo r th e pre se nt an d fo re ­

se ea bl e fu tu re , an d it is seco nd to no a ir p o rt in th e c ountr y in th is rega rd .

I be lie ve th a t needs fo r a ir se rv ic e ca n be st be met w he n th e air port s are 

on a co mpe tit ive ba sis an d fli gh ts are sche du led to air i»orts of fe rin g th e gre at es t 

co nv en ienc e an d lowest pr ic es to th e p ub lic an d g re ate st econom y to th e ar line s. 

Ther e sh ou ld be no o th er cr it er io n.

No F edera l agency sh ou ld be in a po sitio n to co erce air li nes to us e one air p o rt 

in pr ef er en ce to an ot he r, an d to pre ven t su ch po ssible ac tion , I believe th a t 

th e tw o Fed era l air port s sh ou ld be op er at ed by an in de pen den t agency, no t 

a F edera l re gu la to ry ag en cy . Ther ef ore , I st ro ng ly ur ge th a t fa vo ra bl e ac tio n 

be ta ken on H.R. 10471 by y our co mm itt ee a t an ea rl y dat e, so th a t th e 

Hou se and Sen ate will ha ve an opport unity to co ns id er it duri ng th is ses sio n.

Mr. Williams. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Carlton C. 

Massey, representing the county executives of Fairfa x government, 

Fairfax, Va.

STATEMENT OF CARLTON C. MASSEY, COUNTY EXECUTIVE OF 

FAIRFA X GOVERNMENT, FAIRFA X, VA.

Mr. Williams. Do you have a written statement ?

Mr. Massey. I hope you will permit me to speak w ithout a written 

statement.

I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you at this pa rticular time, because it is difficult for us to get free on either Wednesday or Thursday.

As you have indicated, I am Carlton C. Massey, county executive 

of Fairfax County, appearing here on behalf of the board of county 

supervisors, the governing body of that county.

The governing body has directed me to appear and discuss with 

you very briefly the position of that body with respect to its wishes, 

concerning the access road to the Dulles Airport.

From the very beginning of consideration of this particular location 

for this airpo rt, our governing body has expressed its desire to cooperate with any Federal agencies involved in the acquisition of 

property, the planning of the location, the planning of the access, and 

the planning of such facilities as sewage disposal, and any other 

elements important to this type of installation.

In the early stages we had representatives of the then CAA meet 

with our board and discuss the tentative thinking relative to this 

airport location. Our board offered the services of our planning staff 

and planning commission, in order that we find the best possible location in the metropolitan area, and have cooperated since that time.

When we came to the matter of an access road, our board has 

agreed with Federal officials that this road should be primarily a 

specific-purpose road for transportation from this airport to the 

other airp ort and to downtown Washington.

For that reason we have not insisted that this road have frequent 

interchanges with local roads in the community. In some instances 

the board has been somewhat in disagreement with residents of the 

community, who have felt that access should be made at more 

numerous points.

One reason our board has taken this position is that durin g the 

early discussions it was pointed out that while the main lanes of 

this road would be highly limited for this special-purpose use, the 

Government was acquiring sufficient right-of-way to permit future
NATIONAL CAP ITAL AIR POR TS 159

construction of side roads which could be used for local traffic and 

carrying this traffic to the interchanges which would be constructed.

This theme did not end with the original discussion, but has been 

reiterated quite recently. As a m atter of fact, on Ju ne 17, 1961, Mr. 

Halaby wrote to Senator Byrd statin g:

Nev er th el es s, th ere is an alt ern ati v e to co nsider. We ha ve ac quir ed enou gh 

righ t-of -w ay to per m it const ru ct io n o f a loc al traffi c ro ad , an d w ill co op er ate 

fu lly w ith th e S ta te of V irgi ni a in an y pl an fo r utilizi ng th is rig ht-o f-way .

We are not quite sure what it is that the Federal Aviation Agency 

proposes in H.R. 7399, which gives very broad authorization to transferring this highway right-of-way and its facilities to some other 

agency. We, of course, have heard that it may go to the National 

Park Service. We realize that the National Park Service has as its 

major objective park areas and scenic areas with which we are in 

full accord. We also feel that this particular road or any other road 

has ample opportunity to be developed for full traffic use without 

detracting from its scenic value, and without making it incompatible 

for tha t purpose. Today we are simply requesting that whatever 

authorization is given in connection with the bill before you, or with 

any other legislation perm ittin g the tran sfer of this access road, tha t 

it carry with it a continuance of the policy which has been established 

from the very beginning, has been reiterated since that time on other 

occasions, which policy is that there is sufficient right-of-way available 

to permit the construction of oth er roads which could be used by local 

residents and by traffic going to and from the interchanges which are 

now being provided on this access road.

I think it is not necessary to point out to you that the construction 

of not only the a irport itself but of this roacl has had and will have a 

tremendous impact on the surrounding jurisdictions, Fairfax County 

and Loudoun County, primarily. We have been willing to assume 

tha t impact with such assistance as appears appropriate from the 

Federal Government. This road itself will, in effect, separate one 

portion of the county from the other with little or no access between 

those two areas. Persons who were neighbors 2 years ago, who could 

walk down a short distance to visit, are now removed miles from each 

other by virtue of this road, which has no crossing other than at its 

interchanges, and two or three under- or overcrossings of local roads.

We feel this is a reasonable request, and again, in conclusion, repeat 

tha t at this time we urge that the policy of perm itting the areas 

within this right-of-way not essential for the specific traffic be continued to be made available to the Commonwealth of Virginia, or to 

any other agency in a position to construct and maintain local service 

roads.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is all I have to say.

Mr. W illiams. Mr. Massey, how much right-of-way was acquired ?

Mr. Massey. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairm an—and I am 

sure tha t there are people here who can tell you—tha t the minimum 

width is 400 feet. That is my recollection.

Mr. Williams. That is the minimum ?

Mr. Massey. Depending upon the terrain, I am sure.

Mr. Williams. Did Fairfax County or the State of Virginia contribute anything to the acquisition of this property ?
160 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Mr. Massey. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Williams. It is your position tha t a portion of the right-ofway should be reserved and made available to Fairfax County and 

the State of Virginia for the purpose of building an access road 

parallel to this highway ? Is that correct ?

Mr. Massey. That is correct. And it is further our position and 

our feeling that it has always been planned with this in view.

Mr. Williams. It is your feeling that, in spite of the assurance 

tha t you have had from the FAA that if this road is placed under the 

Interior Department or the National Park Service, th at the right to 

build an acess road will be denied ?

Air. Massey. Well we have no information specifically to that effect ; however, newspaper articles and quotations have indicated to us 

tha t possibility. And knowing the desire of this Agency, we would 

be concerned about that. All we are concerned with is that if they 

should be the recipient of this property, tha t they accept this same 

general condition which has been our understandnig from the beginning.

Air. Williams. Who would maintain the road, the access road?

Air. AIassey. It would be our assumption th at this would have to be 

a State highway and maintained and controlled by the Virginia Department of Highways.

Air. Williams. On tha t assumption, would it be necessary for the 

local government, whether it be Fairfax County or the State of Virginia, to purchase a portion of this right-of-way from the Federal 

Government?

Air. Massey. I don’t believe so. I think there is an illustration of 

how t ha t has happened in the past, and I don’t know the details; I 

am sure someone from the FAA can tell you. The State has constructed a State highway throu gh the airp ort property at State expense, and cooperating, probably, with the Federal Government, 

which has been maintained by the Commonwealth of Virginia. And 

I don’t believe title was transferred to the State, though I am not 

positive of that.

Air. Williams. It would be a rather unusual situation for the State 

to build a highway on Federal property and be responsible for maintaining that highway; wouldn’t it?

Air. AIassey. I agree with yo u; I think it would be somewhat unusual. But I see no reason why arrangements could not be made—or 

either transfer the title.

Air. Williams. Even if it was necessary for the State of Virginia 

to purchase a portion of this right-of-way, as I understand from your 

testimony, this would not be objectionable to you or to the State of 

Virginia ? Of course, obviously they would prefer to have that rightof-way donated to them.

Air. AIassey. I am not in a position to speak for either the State or 

the county with respect to the purchase of the right-of-way, except to 

reiterate again that I feel th at th at policy has been fairly well determined, at least by informal expressions of representatives of the Federal agency.
NATIONAL CAP ITAL AIR POR TS

Air. F riedel. Mr. Massey, I personally wouldn’t object | 

selling the right-of-way for the building of an access 

particular county of the State of Virginia. I do think ft 

be 10 percent in common with the Highway Act where 

90 percent. I think in fairness it wouldn’t be much of an obligaT 

on Virginia and it would be helping the community, at least, to use 

this access road. And I w’ould have no objection, providing that there 

would be some remuneration made for the land and the State of V irginia builds tha t access road, not the Government

Mr. Massey. Again, you are speaking on a subject that I can’t 

speak on, because I don’t know. But our own request is that it be left 

available for negotiations and for future disposition equitable to both 

agencies.

Air. Williams. Thank you very much, Air. Massey.

Air. AIassey. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Air. Williams. Our next witness is Hon. Alan S. Boyd, Chairman 

of the Civil Aeronautics Board.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN S. BOYD, CHAIRMAN, CIVIL 

AERONAUTICS BOARD

Air. Williams. Air. Boyd, do you have a prepared statement?

Air. Boyd. Yes, I do, Air. Chairman, a very short prepared statement. With your permission, Air. Chairman, I would like to read my 

statement into the record.

Air. Chairman and members of the committee, the Board appreciates 

this opportunity to present its views regarding H.R. 7399, a bill to 

create a National Capital Airports Corporation, and H.R. 10471, a 

bill to tran sfer the responsibility for operation of Washington National Airp ort and Dulles Internatio nal Airport from the Administra tor to a Washington Airports Board.

Although the exercise of jurisdiction over airports in the Washington area is a function of the Federal Aviation Agency, the Board is 

vitally interested in this matter because safe and adequate airports 

are an essential part of the air transportation system which the Board 

has the duty to encourage and develop in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.

For many years the Washington National Airport has been successfully operated by the FAA and its predecessor, the CAA. When it 

became apparent that a second airport w ould be needed in the W ashington area to handle the increase in traffic, the responsibility for constructing and operating this facility was also entrusted to the Administrator. We believe the administrative and operational experience 

which the FAA has acquired over the years is an asset of great value 

and tha t it would be unwise to transfer the function of operating the 

airports in the Washington area to an entirely new group, particularly 

at this time when the facilities at Dulles Internationa l Airp ort are 

about to be placed in operation. The Board therefore is opposed to 

the enactment of H.R. 10471.

H.R. 7399 w’ould provide for ownership and operation of the federally owned airpo rts in the Washington metropolitan area by a N ational Capital Airports Corporation which would have autonomy and

S4674— 62— pt. 2------ 7
162 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

yet would be under the direction of the Administrator of the FAA. 

The Administrator has testified in support of this bill and has set 

forth the reasons why it would be preferable to IT.R. 10471. We agree 

generally with the testimony presented by the Administrator in support of H.R. 7399 and recommend enactment of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. Thank you.

Do you feel that the legislation, IT.R. 7399 as presently drafted, is 

satisfactory, or does the Board have any suggestions for amending it?

Mr. Boyd. No, sir, we feel it is satisfactory as now drafted

Mr. Williams. As I understand it, the Board really exercises no 

jurisdiction in this m atte r whatsoever?

Mr. Boyd. This is a matter of Board interest rather than Board 

jurisdiction.

Mr. Williams. I see. The only possible role tha t the Board might 

play in connection with this airport insofar as I can determine at this 

time might be an unofficial or ex parte role in connection with the 

funneling of airline traffic to the airport. Would the Board have 

anything to do in connection with that ?

Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir. We have the authority to designate the air ­

ports to be served by the common carriers.

Mr. Williams. It is my understanding that a statement was made 

some time ago by either Mr. Halaby or you or both to a group of 

Maryland people, at which time assurance was given, if you want to 

call it assurance—in Maryland they would probably call it. a thre at— 

that all jet traffic ticketed to Washington would be channeled into 

Dulles; is that correct ?

Mr. Boyd. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just to be sure I am saying the 

same thing now I said then, I would like to read into the record a 

couple of paragraphs of a statement.

Dulles is a Washington airport, and when it becomes operational 

the carriers who are required to serve 'Washington by this certificate 

will be required to serve 'Washington through Dulles. They cannot 

serve 'Washington through Baltimore. This does not mean that Baltimore will not continue to receive adequate sendee. The Board has 

undergone a long proceeding on the question of service to Baltimore, 

and will continue to require that the needs of Baltimore be met.

There are two problems involved which should be clearly delineated 

insofar as the interests of Baltimore and Friendship are concerned. 

One is the need of Baltimore for air service. This the Board will 

assure to the best of its ability. The other is the desire of Baltimore 

to be Washington's airport. This we cannot accomplish.

Mr. Williams. As I understand it, the purp ort of your statement 

was to the effect that the jet operations ticketed for Washington 

would be carried out of Dulles?

Mr. Boyd. I th ink t hat is correct.

Mr. Williams. For example, if I were in New’ Orleans and I decided to come to Washington and I bought a ticket for 'Washington, 

then I would land at Dulles?

Mr. Boyd. Yes.

Mr. Williams. On the other hand, if I were in New Orleans and 

bought a ticket for Baltimore, then I would take a flight that went 

into Baltimore?
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 163

Mr. Boyd. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Friedel.

Mr. Friedel. The distance from Dulles to Washington is 30 miles. When you speak of Baltimore you are speaking of Friendship. Friendship, I think, is about 12 or 15 miles from Baltimore. It is only 31 miles from Washington, and it is just a mile farther than 

Dulles. I would like to ask this one question: Does the Board permit service to Dallas and to Fort Worth at either Dallas or Fort Worth?

Mr. Boyd. In a number of cases we do. I don’t know tha t this is true in every case, but I do know tha t in a number of cases it is, specifically with regard to B raniff and American, in those cases I am 

certain that is the case. (See p. 175 for supplemental information furnished by CAB Chairm an Alan S. Boyd in a letter to Chairman John Bell Williams, 

dated May 21, 1962.)

Mr. Williams. What was that question ?

Mr. Friedel. In other words, there is Dallas and Fort Worth; are 

the airlines certificated to go to Dallas or Fort Worth, or either one, 

or hot h ?

Mr. Williams. If you land at Dallas you would land at Love, and 

if you go to Fort Worth, you would land at Amon Carter?

Mr. Boyd. That is right. But what Mr. Friedel is talking about, I believe, is that they have authorized service in tha t general area in terms of Dallas-Fort Worth. So that the carriers can serve the area by either operating through Fort Worth or operating through Dallas 

or operating through both cities* airports.

Mr. W illiams. There is no circumstance, though, whereby a person 

would buy a ticket from Washington to Dallas, where he would be 

oarrie I to Fort Worth ?

M r. Boyd. ()h, no.

Mr. Williams. Except, of course, bad weather conditions or some 

other reason ?

Mr. Boyd. That is right.

Mr. Williams. But under normal operations-----

Mr. Boyd. He goes where his ticket specifies.

Mr. Williams. From Washington to Love Field—if a person 

bought a ticket to Fort W orth he would land at Amon C arter?

’> ,v n q'lv-o is correct.

Mr. Friedel. Do you contend tha t the Board has powers to amend 

the regulations now in effect at Friendship and force them to go to 

Dulles?

Mr. Boyd. Do we have the power to revoke the airpo rt notices now 

in effect? In one particu lar case, yes; I can say that, with some 

assurance, we do, in the case of Braniff Airlines.

Mr. Friedel. If you certificated them for Washington, they could 

use Friendship until Dulles is completed ?

Mr. Boyd. Braniff has no certificate authority to serve Baltimore; 

tha t is correct.

Mr. Friedel. Until Dulles is completed ?

Mr. Boyd. Authorized, permitted by the Board temporarily to 

serve Washington through Friendship.
164 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Mr. F riedel. Yes, but where the other airlines-----

Mr. Boyd. The other airlines, so far as I know, there is no—I may 

be wrong about this, but I have no present knowledge that the airpo rt 

notices involving service at Friendship provide for service at F riendship to serve Washington; all the other carriers in Friendship have 

certificate authority and responsibilities to serve Baltimore as well as 

certificate responsibility to serve Washington.

(See p. 175 for supplemental information furnished by CAB 

Chairman Alan S. Boyd in a letter to Chairman John Bell Williams, 

dated May 21,1962.)

Mr. Friedel. Baltimore and Washington ?

Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir.

Mr. F riedel. As a coterminal ?

Mr. Boyd. Not necessarily. We are ge tting into terms of art here 

when we start using the word “coterminal.” Some of them are coterminal, some of the certificates provide for service to Baltimore as 

an intermediate point.

Mr. Friedel. What about Newark and New York, people wanting 

to go to Newark, La Guardia, or Idlew ild; are they certificated for 

New York or either one of these airports ?

Mr. Boyd. Aly impression is that they are certificated for New 

York. I think tha t in the vast majority of cases the certificates were 

issued before, certainly before Idlewild was in operation, and possibly before Newark was in operation. Most of the carriers serving 

New York have been in there for many years. Now, whether this 

would make any difference I don’t know.

Mr. Friedel. My information is that they are certificated just to 

New York—anyone of the three airports, outside of the jets—go to 

LaGuardia.

Air. Boyd. Yes, sir.

Air. Friedel. Air. Chairman, I would like to make a statement first.

Air. Chairman, at the close of the hearing yesterday my colleague, 

Congressman Brewster, filed for the record a copy of a letter which I 

think should be called to the attention of the committee, because it 

very definitely bears out the contention of the Alary land delegation 

tha t heat, and a lot of it, has been turned on the airlines to force them 

to move their jet flights from Friendship to Dulles. This letter was 

from the General Counsel of the FAA to the Chairman of the Civil 

Aeronautics Board which, as we all know, has almost life-and-death 

powers over the commercial airlines.

On AVednesday I thought we had assurance from Air. Ilalaby tha t 

the FAA would not put any pressure on the airlines. He did not say 

it exactly that way, but I got that impression.

The letter Congressman Brewster put in the record yesterday is 

worse than pressure. In this letter the General Counsel of the FAA 

says quite frankly that if the airlines do not move jet flights to Dulles, 

they would be taken before the judge—that is, the CAB, Air. Boyd.

The letter does not make any claims that the flights should be 

changed for reasons of safety or for public convenience and necessity. It merely says that use of Friendship Air por t to serve the 

Washington area is “unsuitable.” Unsuitable to whom? Not to the 

public, not for public convenience and necessity, but unsuitable to the 

FAA.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 165

Now, bear in mind, as was pointed out yesterday, tha t in a recent 

meeting with the Administrator, the Maryland delegation was told 

that residents of Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties would be 

considered to be in the Washington area. Tha t is almost ridiculous. 

It was considered at the time when we had the Washington National 

Airport, and they drew the line between Friendship and Washington, 

but now with Dulles, which is 30 miles farther away, they still use 

the same line through Prin ce Georges and Montgomery Counties, even 

though they actually are a lot closer to Friendship than Dulles any 

way you figure it, in mileage or driving time.

Let me read this letter to you and see what you think of it. I am 

not going to read the full letter. This was a letter to Mr. Boyd, 

Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D.C., on 

March 5, 1962. And I am going to read the last paragraph.

Mr. Williams. Who signed th at ?

Mr. Friedel. It was signed by Daggett II. Howard, General Counsal. [Reads:]

Copies of this let ter will be mailed today to Ea ste rn Air Lines, Inc., and to the 

pers ons upon whom the ai rp or t notice was served, as shown on the enclosed list, 

in ord er to app rise them of the Adminis trator’s opposition to the use of Ba ltimore Frie nds hip Air por t to serve Washington, D.C., af te r Dulles Inter natio nal 

Airpo rt goes into ope rati on on or about October 1, 1962. The Administrat or 

rese rves the rig ht to for ma lly object to the use of the Balt imo re Friend ship Air ­

po rt by Eastern Air Lines, Inc., for its jet flights, and to request a hearing in 

connection ther ewi th, in the even t it should become nece ssary for him to do so. 

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

F ederal Avia tion Agen cy, 

Washington, D.C., March 5, 1!)62.

Hon. Alan S. Boyd,

Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : We have obtai ned a copy of the air po rt notice date d 

Fe bru ary 23, 1962, th at was filed with the Boa rd by Ea ste rn Air Lines, Inc. This 

notice, filed pu rsu an t to section 202.3 of the economic regulation s, sta tes th at 

Ea ste rn Air Lines, Inc., propose s to serve Was hington, D.C., with je t ai rc ra ft 

thro ugh th e use of Fri end shi p Airport, Baltimore, Md.

The use of an ai rp or t ne ar Baltim ore, Md., to serv e Washington, D.C., is unsuitable and, as you know, Congress has aut hor ized the cons truction of Dulles 

Int ern ati on al Airport to serve Washing ton, D.C. This ma jor air po rt will be 

completed on or abo ut Octobe r 1, 1962. We have no objecti on to the use of the 

Balt imore Friend ship Air por t by Eastern je t flights serv ing Wash ington unt il 

the opening of Dulles Inter natio nal Airport . However, the air po rt notice 

filed by Eas tern does not lim it the proposed use of the Balt imore air po rt to this 

tem pora ry period ; and the Boa rd’s ap prov al of this notic e m ight be construed by 

Eas tern as aut horization to serve Wash ington , I).C., thro ugh the Bal timore air ­

por t even a fte r Dulle s Inter natio nal A irpo rt goes i nto ope ration.

For these reasons, we respe ctful ly reque st, on beh alf of the Admin istr ato r of 

the Fed eral Aviat ion Agency, th at the Civil Aero naut ics Board noti fy Ea ste rn 

Air Lines, Inc., th at the Boa rd’s ap prov al of the use of the Baltimor e Fri end shi p 

Airp ort for je t flights serving Washingto n is limited to the period unt il Dulle s 

Int ern ati on al Air por t is in operation. This clari fication will enable Ea ste rn 

Air Lines to avoid ent eri ng into long-term lease s or oth er commitm ents at the 

Baltimo re air po rt thr ough a mis understanding of the effect of the ai rp or t noti ce 

procedure .

Copies of this le tte r will be mailed today to Ea ste rn Air Lines, Inc., and to the 

person s upon whom th e air po rt notice was served, as shown on the enclos d list, 

in order to app rise them of the Ad minis trator ’s opposition to the use of Ba ltimore Fri end ship Ai rpo rt to serve Wash ington , D.C., after Dulles Intern ationa l 

Airp ort goes into ope ration on or abo ut October 1, 1962. The Ad mi nis trator 

reserv es the rig ht to formally object to the use of the Balt imore Fri end shi p Air8467 4—62 —pt. 2-
166 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

port by Eastern Air Lines, Inc., fo r its jet flights, and to request a hearing in 

connection therew ith, in the event it should become necessary for him to do so. 

Yours very truly,

Daggett H. Howard, General Counsel.

Mr. F riedel. Now, Mr. Chairman, if they want any proof that there 

is pressure being brought, this clearly brings it out.

I can understand the problem that was dumped into the lap of the 

FA A as to Dulles Airport. And I know Mr. Boyd was connected with 

the CAB at the time. It was inherited. And it involved a lot of bad 

guesses. But we are worried that because you have this white elephant 

you are going to make Friendship Airport the scapegoat of this whole 

problem.

Now, we do expect f air competition, and nothing more, and we don’t 

want any pressure to be brought on the airlines to force them to use 

Dulles.

You are saying th at you can make them go to Dulles. Won't you 

have to consider the public convenience and necessity and safety 

rather than just, merely say that, “we want you to go to Dulles because 

we have got this big, beautiful, spacious airport, the safest airport in 

the whole world, and the most costly airport in the whole world”—just 

because you have inherited this, or the FA A has, that we are going to 

he the scapegoats in this thing? It is not fair, and I am hoping the 

CAB does not force these airlines against their wishes and against the 

public convenience and necessity to go to Dulles.

This is the crux of the whole thing.

Mr. Boyd. May I say, Mr. Friedel, tha t we did receive the letter 

you referred to from Mr. Howard. So that you can have the complete picture, I would like very much to read the response tha t I sent 

to Mr. Howard.

Mr. F riedel. I would like to have that for the record.

Mr. Boyd. This is a letter dated Jan uary 31 with reference to 

Braniff airlines which was our—and this represented our definitive 

response to the FAA.

Mr. F riedel. Pardon me a minute. "When I said May 3, 1962,1 was 

in error. I don’t know the date of this letter. It is not dated.

Mr. Boyd. There have been several letters. But this letter of 

Jan uary 31 was in response to the first letter tha t Mr. Howard wrote, 

and we gave a definitive response at that time. Our other responses 

have been to refer the FAA to this letter. [Reads:]

J anuary 31.

This will acknowledge your lette r of the 26th concerning air po rt notice filed 

by Braniff Airways, Inc., on December 28, to serve Washington by the use of 

Friend ship for jet flights. Your lette r states the Ad ministrator does not object 

to the temporary use of Friend ship by Braniff. but requests th at such permission 

be limited to the period until Dulles Intern ational Airport is opened.

Und er the Board regulations, an air port notice becomes effective 30 days after 

filing, unless the Board within th at period takes an effective action to prevent it 

from going into effect. From the present situatio n the Board has determined, 

prior to receiving your letter, th at it should take no action and that the notice 

should be perm itted to become effective at the expiration of the prescribed 30- 

day period. We have, nonetheless, reviewed that determ ination in the light of 

your letter. As you know, Fri end ship is the only jet air port available to serve 

the city of Washington. Fu rth er, Friend ship at present is used by o ther ca rrie rs 

for je t operation s to Washington, and the airport notices of those carrie rs were
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 167

not subject to any limitation. Und er those circumstances the Board finds no 

basis for prohibitin g Bra niff’s air po rt notice from becoming effective, or for 

imposing any limitation on the use of Frie ndship as a fac ility to serve 

Wash ington.

Should questions arise concerning the manner in which Wash ington will be 

served following the opening of Dulles, the Board possesses adeq uate power 

und er the act to deal with any problem that may arise, and to take such action 

as may be necessary.

This is our position, Mr. Friedel.

Mr. Friedel. On just the Braniff airlines? I was referring to 

Eastern.

Mr. Boyd. This is our position with reference to all of these a irlines, this is the stated position. And I would like to point out that, 

in this case tha t you referred to about Eastern and the one about 

Braniff, and there has also been a letter from the FAA about Northeast Airlines, the Federal Aviation Agency is in the same position 

with the Board as any other party, the FAA has a definite interest 

in the thing, as do the airlines, as do the city officials of Baltimore 

and the officials of the District of Columbia. Now they wrote and 

urged a certain course of action. And the Board didn’t accede to 

their request, as we often don’t accede to requests from parties. But 

the FAA and the Board have similar interests. We are not under 

any control or supervision of the Federal Aviation Agency, however. 

And we exercise our independent judgment. I thin k the ultimate 

answer is th is: The Board by philosophy and under the requirements 

of the statute is permitted to see that Baltimore has adequate service. 

And this we will do within the powers of the statute. The service 

to be provided to Baltimore is going to be what the traffic demands. 

The same will be true of service at Dulles. The airlines are not going 

to go out and put flights through Dulles unless there is traffic there. 

And they are not going to leave Friendship as long as they have got 

traffic to fill up those airplanes.

Mr. Friedel. And there is nothing under the law which says you 

can force them to do t ha t if they don’t want to g o; is that it ?

Mr. Boyd. Except the things that the chairman was talking about 

earlier; they cannot sell a ticket to Washington and you land at 

Baltimore.

Mr. Friedel. When you speak of Baltimore, don’t forget, Dulles 

is not Washington; it is 30 miles away; it is in Virginia.

Mr. Boyd. This is a decision I had nothing to do with making, Mr. 

Friedel.

Mr. Friedel. If you say that Dulles is presently in Washington, 

then Friendship is in Washington, too. It is ridiculous to say tha t 

if they want to go to Washington they must go to Dulles.

Mr. Boyd. All I can say, Mr. Friedel, is tha t I sympathize with 

you. But you are talk ing before a court tha t has no power to resolve 

tha t issue, that was done by a higher power.

Mr. Friedel. When they say they want to go to Washington, they 

probably mean the Washington area, and it could just as well mean 

Friendship.

In questioning Jud ge Durfee, then Chairm an of the Civil Aeronautics Board, about service to Washington through Friendship in 

hearings before this committee in 1957, I got the impression th at the
168 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Board, was encouraging the airlines to serve Washington through 

Friendship. He said:

The Board would encourage and look with fav or upon any airl ine th at found 

that it could reschedule its flights so as to name the Friendsh ip Airp ort a coterminal with Washington. In desig natin g a rou te or certificating an airl ine 

over a route, we do not specify the airp ort. We say, “Chicago to Wash ington.” 

We stat ed tha t we are ready to designate the Frien dship Airpo rt an d have designated it as a coterminal for such airlines as might volunt arily themselves find 

it expe dient to reschedule flights—change from Washington to Friendship.

Do you know of any reason why the completion of the new Washington airport should make a change in the Board’s position?

Mr. Boyd. Of course, that is another thing tha t transpired before 

I was here. And I am not really tryin g to duck that, although maybe 

I should, because I find I can create enough of my own troubles w ithout getting into others that I had nothing to do with. But I will 

say tha t if that testimony was true in 1957, it came about before the 

Congress had made the decision to build an airport to serve Washington.

Mr. F riedel. No, it was in 1957 t hat they appropriated the money, 

it was all in the works at tha t time. The airp ort was authorized in 

1950.

Mr. Boyd. There would be an opportunity—clearly, Judge Durfee 

was right, if a carrier wants to file an application to serve Washington through Friendship, it would be entitled to file the application, 

there would be a hearing, and the matter would be resolved.

Mr. Williams. Will the gentleman yield at th at point?

Mr. F riedel. Yes.

Mr. Williams. In such a circumstance would passengers desiring 

to go to Washington through Friendship be ticketed to Baltimore or 

ticketed to 'Washington?

Mr. Boyd. Of course, I would think tha t they would have to be 

ticketed to Baltimore. Now, this is a horseback opinion, but Friend ­

ship, for whatever reason? is known as Baltimore’s airpo rt, it is not 

known as Washington’s airpo rt. You have the geographical affinity 

there which makes Friendship, in relation to Baltimore, about the 

same as Amon Carter in relation to either F ort Worth or Dallas. But 

in tha t case, in Fort Worth, for example, w’here Amon Carter lies 

halfway between the two cities, the tickets are sold to Fort Worth if 

people are going to Amon Carter, because it is Fo rt Worth’s airport, 

it was built with Fort Worth money and Federal money, and it is 

operated by the city of Fo rt Worth.

Mr. Friedel. What happens when people want to go to New York 

and land at Newark, they are ticketed to New York ?

Mr. Williams. I have always found tha t when I buy a ticket to 

New York they ask me if I want to go into Newark or if I want to 

go into Idlewild. And you buy your ticket on a flight tha t is going 

into the field that you desire to go into.

Mr. Friedel. Right. Th at is what I want, for them to take the 

same stand. If they want to go into Dulles, fine; or if they want to go 

into Friendship, fine. And if they would do the same th at they did 

years before they even built Dulles, and still keep the same lines in 

effect that are running throu gh Maryland, and say tha t is the Washington area, fine. Now, if you change your line, a lot more people
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 169

will want to come to Friendship, if you actually say that is W ashington.

Air. Boyd. I don’t know about the change in the number of people, Mr. Friedel. But we are dealing with a large metropolitan area, and we have got airports on two sides of the town, the city, of the com­ munity. And obviously, it is going to be closer for some people to go to Friendship, and it will be closer for other people to go to Dulles. 

I can’t help that.

Air. Frif.del. Tha t is all right. I call tha t fair competition. But to say that anybody th at wants to go to Washington must go to Dulles, 

tha t is the point that I am objecting to.

Air. Boyd. I don’t understand that I have made any such state­ ment. What I have said is tha t if people want to go to Friendship, they buy a ticket to Baltimore. If people want to go to Dulles, they 

buy a ticket to Washington.

Air. F riedel. Suppose they want to go to Fr iend ship to go to Wash­ ington, which is closer for some of them, what happens then ?

Mr. Boyd. I don’t know.

Air. Friedel. In a great many instances you are going to find it much quicker, better driving time, and less mileage by landing at Friendship to come to Washington than you will find landing at 

Dulles.

Air. Boyd. I must agree with you on that. It is going to be up to the traveling public. That is the gist of the situation. As I understand it, the fact tha t the airlines have reached an agreement with the FAA on landing fees doesn’t commit them to land so many airplanes at Dulles, they are going to put the airlines where the business is. And if the traveling public wants to go in or out of W ashington throu gh Friendship, that is the ir business, because they are paying for the 

ride.

Air. Freidel. If a carrier now serving Washington or Friendship under an airport notice were to withdraw their notice and file a new notice announcing the ir intention to serve Baltimore through Dulles 

would such a notice be approved by the Board ?

Air. Boyd. Yes, sir. (See p. 175 for supplemental information furnished by CAB Chairm an Alan S. Boyd in a letter to Chairm an John Bell Williams, 

dated Alay 21,1962.)

Air. Friedel. As being in the public interest ?

Air. Boyd. Yes, sir.

Air. Friedel. Then how will it be the other way, when they want 

to serve Washington through Friendship?

Air. Boyd. That is the existing situation.

Air. Friedel. And you are not going to change that ?

Air. Boyd. I have no knowledge of any action we will take, with the exception of Braniff. I don’t mean to say tha t we will not in the future undertake some action, but we have no present intentions of 

doing so.

Air. F riedel. What would be the guidelines if you did ?

Air. Boyd. I don’t have any idea, I am just leaving myself a loop­ hole in case something comes up, because we haven’t given this any 

thought.
170 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Mr. Friedel. Would the public convenience and necessity be considered ?

Mr. Boyd. Surely. The public interest is our criterion.

Mr. Friedel. And it won’t be because you have this big, beautiful, 

expensive airport?

Mr. Boyd. Tha t enters into it.

Air. Friedel. That is what we are worried about.

Air. Boyd. I think it is obvious, Air. Friedel, tha t where you have 

got a new facility, and the question is raised as to whether or not it is 

in the public interest to stay where they are or to use the new facility, 

then that new facility does definitely come into consideration.

Air. Friedel. But do you intend to have any checkers ask people 

when they get off—not when they arrive at Dulles, but after they get 

to their destination in Washington, D.C.—to find out whether they 

would rat her go to Dulles or Friendship ?

Air. Boyd. No, sir.

Air. F riedel. They won’t know until they get to Dulles and find out 

what a long distance it is away from Washington. And the road will 

not be complete, I think, until 1968.

Air. Boyd. We run our surveys, what we call origin and destination surveys, but we don't ask our people where they are happier 

traveling to, that is getting into airline management. And we have 

to keep clear in our mind tha t a regulatory agency is not running an 

airline, we are regulating, they have got the management and management responsibilities to serve the public within the framework of 

their certificates.

Air. Friedel. What did your survey show? You said you made a 

survey.

Air. Boyd. We do this constantly.

Air. Friedel. What is the running time from Dulles, say, to the 

Sta tler Hotel ?

Air. Boyd. I don’t have any idea. Air. Halaby testified the other 

day, I believe, that he would take an average of 50 minutes. But we 

don't do this on running time, we merely try to find out on a sampling 

basis, we have to do it on sampling. At regular periods we check 

ticket stocks, and we check on occasion individual passengers, ask 

them to fill out a questionnaire, where did you come from and where 

are you going. This gives us our information on traffic flow. Traffic 

flow is what we are interested in. Our certificate proceedings primarily are utilized to find out where people want to go and how they 

want to travel.

Air. Friedel. We had a statement yesterday giving the driving time, 

I don't know whether I have it here or not—we have a statement here 

from Air. Baker on behalf of the Airport Board of Baltimore City. 

And I want to read this.

Rec en tly te st s by bus, limou siue s, an d pri vat e au tom ob ile s ha ve bee n ma de 

from po in ts in th e W as hi ng to n are a to F ri en dsh ip an d to C han tilly ov er the 

be st av ail able ro ut es in ea ch ca se. The ta bula te d tim e fo r th e V irgi ni a air port 

m ad e al lo w an ce for th e us e of th e as yet un co mplete d access ro ad s in st ea d of th e 

slow er ro ute s pr es en tly av ai la bl e.

Now, that was taken into consideration. Now. they use Alount 

Rainier, Aid., to drive to Friendship, and take 65 minutes; to drive to 

Chantilly would be 110 minutes—15 minutes longer; and Cheverly,
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 171

Md., would take 40 minutes. It would take 121 minutes to Ch an tilly- 81 minutes longer; to Hyattsville, 57 minutes; 120 minutes to Chan­ tilly—63 minutes longer; to College Park, Md., 57 minutes; 130 minutes to Chantilly—73 minutes longer. To Silver Spring, Md., would take 75 minutes to Friendship, 111 minutes to Chantilly—36 

minutes longer. And they give others here. I give here one I think is very good. The new bus terminal, 12th and K Streets NW., it is 75 minutes from there to Friendship; 85 minutes to Chantilly. It takes you 10 minutes longer from the bus station. They went over there, and they "ive the best times available, the best routes available. And they observed that even after the new expressway is completed—tha t is the time that it will take. It takes much longer than that now to get to 

Chantilly. Now, will the public be considered as to public convenience and 

necessity in driving time ?

Mr. Boyd. We try to consider all facets of public interest, Mr. Frie- del. In a minor way we have the same problem that you do in Con­ gress. We have to balance out a lot of different interests, and we try in our decisions to balance them out in such a way tha t it will be the best for the greatest number of people. Our judgment is not infallible, but we, I think, can say without any great fear of con­ tradiction, that we are extremely conscientious about this, we reach the stage where we have to make decisions, and we make them and we make them with good will toward our fellow man and everybody 

involved.

Mr. F riedel. Do you know how long it took us to get the adequacy - 

of-service case concerning Friendship resolved ?

Mr. B oyd. Yes, I know how long it took you. But I will say this: If you will look at that record you will find that it was a very bitterly contested thing. And if you will look fu rth er at the Federal Aviation Act, you will find tha t the Civil Aeronautics Board has no statutory criteria on which it can hang its hat, we had to develop criteria through implication as we went along. And believe me, this is not an easy thing 

to do.

Mr. F riedel. I agree w ith you on that. But it proves, now that we are getting more service and nights out of Friendship, that the airp ort business has picked up tremendously. I am not only counting the jet 

flights.

Mr. Boyd. I think that is true. We were fully in accord that the service to Baltimore was inadequate. And as I recall, we insisted on additional service being placed in there between Baltimore and var­ ious other markets. And some of the courts felt we didn’t have the power to do what we ordered. And I am happy to say th at the courts agreed th at we did have the power to do it. And tha t is why, I think, that the folks in the Baltimore area, where they are concerned about air service, should have a little faith in the Board. Now, I can see th at if any flights were moved from Friendship tc Dulles, this is going to have a bearing on the revenue of Friendship Airport. But this is a different thing than adequate air service to 

Baltimore and its surrounding area.

Mr. Williams. Will th e gentleman yield ?
172 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Mr. F riedel. Yes.

Mr. Williams. Th e figu res th at the g entlema n ju st g ave, I noticed , 

were all fro m points in th e no rth ea st part o f W ashing ton to Frien dship, north ea st or north we st W ashing ton.

Mr. F riedel. Th e la st one I use d was no rthwest.

Mr. Willia ms. By the sam e token, if you took po ints in Fai rf ax 

Co unty, or points in Arlin gt on County, or points in certa in pa rts of 

No rth we st Wash ing ton , you would g et the r everse of those figures. I 

can un de rst an d the pro ble m th at M arylan d faces. An d it is indeed 

a pe rplexing prob lem. B ut I wou ld presum e th at if I were in New 

Orlea ns, D alla s, F ort W or th , o r Los A ngeles, th at I w ould b uy a ticket 

to Wash ington , th at yo ur schedules wou ld more or less determ ine 

wh ethe r I w ent into B altim ore or went in to Dulles. F or i nsta nce, if I 

wa nte d to get to W ashing ton by noon an d there is a flight leavin g 

Kan sas City at 9 o’clock go ing to Ba ltim ore , I wou ld certa inly tak e 

th at in preferenc e to a fli gh t lea ving at 11 o’clock g et ting into Dulles 

at 1 :30. And I would th in k t hat th at would p robably be the governing factor, to a lar ge e xte nt in the way the people will be tick eted to 

th is are a.

Mr. F riedel. That is ju st my point, Mr. Ch air ma n. Now, if I 

wan t to g et a flig ht to Los Angeles, I go to Fr iend sh ip . I f they tak e 

off some of these jet flig hts an d pu t them into Dul les, it takes me 40 

minu tes to ge t fro m my hom e to Fr iend sh ip, and it wou ld tak e me 2 

ho urs to ge t to Dulles, I wo uld eit he r have to go by tr ai n or get the 

lim ousine here. Th is ha pp en ed b efore we had a ch arter. We co uld n’t 

get th ro ug h flig hts to Chicago, we could n’t ge t th ro ug h flights to 

Miami Beach. We ha d to come ove r to W ash ington to get a flight. 

And we came over by tr ai n or we d rov e over. Now, we do have ade ­

quate service to Miami B eac h, th ro ug h fligh ts. I t is a jet flig ht. And 

I am wo rri ed wh eth er they are going to take th at fligh t away and 

send it to Dulles. Los An geles, I go ou t there three or fo ur time s a 

year. And now, if the y take the flig hts away and sen d them over to 

Dulles ------

Mr. Botd. Mr. Friede l, I th in k, wh eth er you believe it or not, the 

air lin es are in business to ma ke money, and the y make money by 

going where the pas sen ger s wa nt to go.

Mr. F riedel. Fin e. I was told th at the air lin es do no t wa nt to go

to Dulles. I know one ai rlin e th at lost a lot of mony las t yea r, and 

they cla im th at it will cost them a million do lla rs more a y ea r to ope rate 

if they have to go to Dulles.

Mr. B oyd. I don’t doub t th at .

Mr. F riedel. An d the y are goin g to h ave some flig hts at Fr iend sh ip 

an d some at Dulles. I t is go ing to cost them a million do lla rs a yea r, 

and they are losing money. I can’t see an airli ne doing th at unless 

pressure was broug ht on them .

Mr. Boyd. I don ’t t hink it was qui te th at simple, beca use you have 

go t dif fer ent thi ngs involve d. A lot of the air lines, fo r example—I

guess all of the airli nes se rving L os Angeles have just ha d t o move into 

a new ter minal opera tion wh ich costs them a great dea l more money. 

But I c an ’t just say, here it costs some $200,000 an d over there $1,200,- 

000, therefore it is c osting them $1 million m ore, because, fo r one thing , 

at D ulles the y have go t a u niq ue situatio n where the ai rc ra ft will lan d 

and have very short tax i dis tan ce to th ei r pa rk in g ram p and a very
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 173

short taxi distance to their takeoff runway. The inform ation I have 

is th at it costs between $37 an d $58 per minute to taxi a j et aircraft. 

Now, this adds up over a period of time to a great deal of money. 

And you do not have tha t situation at Friendship. Friendship is a 

wonderful airport. And I feel very safe and happy flying in and 

out of Friendship. But from the standpoint of costs, when United 

or TWA or any of the rest of them land on a runway, they go zooming 

at a mile and a half and they taxi back, and sometimes they have to taxi 

a mile or a mile and a half to get out to the takeoff runway. This is 

costing them money at the rate of $37 to $58 pe r minute, depending on 

how fa r—what type of air craft they have. So the difference in cost 

cannot be taken as an absolute proposition.

Mr. Friedel. Let me ask you one question here. Will the Board 

have the common rate to Washington-Baltimore the same as they had 

for Dallas and Fo rt Worth ?

Mr. Boyd. I don’t know, I can’t tell you that. It hasn’t come up, 

to my knowledge, so I can’t give you an answer.

Mr. F riedel. I can see anyone coming up from New Orleans going 

to Dulles; of course, it would be further to go to Friendship. But if 

they are coming from Boston and land at Friendship, it would be 

much cheaper than to land at Dulles.

Mr. B oyd. It is cheaper. Of course, you get back into this drawing 

a line, and tha t is why I can’t answer you. As I stated earlier, the 

Fo rt Worth Amon Car ter field is directly in the middle between 

Dallas and Fo rt Worth. And I can see why that would be common 

rated, I think. And whether this a similar situation, a situation with 

sufficient similarity, I just don’t know.

Mr. Friedel. I just want to ask you one question. Do you know 

how many airlines now serve Washington and Baltimore through 

Friendship Airport?

Mr. Boyd. How many serve both Washington and Baltimore?

Mr. Friedel. Through Friendsh ip.

Mr. Boyd. Serve Washington through Friendship ?

Mr. Friedel. Yes.

Mr. Boyd. I think all of the airc raft operating jets serving W ashington through F riendship on the jet flights, that would be American, 

Delta, Northeast, TWA—I don’t know whether National has a jet 

into Friendsh ip or not.

Mr. F riedel. United does.

Mr. Boyd. United does. I believe on the international side Pan 

American and BO AC operate their Washington service through 

Friendship.

Mr. F riedel. And they serve Europe and Puerto Rico, I know, out 

of Friendship.

Mr. Boyd. And, of course, currently Braniff is also serving Washington through Friendship.

Mr. Friedel. I s there any way that you can force the airlines to 

transf er flights from Friendship to W ashington or Dulles? Is there 

any way, considering the public convenience and necessity ?

Mr. Boyd. No, I don’t thin k so, not in that light. I will tell you 

what we can do, is to force, to use tha t word, the airlines to provide 

adequate service from Washington through Dulles. Now, this would 

not be forcing them to take flights out of Friendship, but as an eco-
1 7 4 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

nomic proposition, I would say tha t if the airlines conceive tha t 

certain of their services in Friendship now altogether are prim arily for 

the use of Washington traffic, they would then move some flights.

Mr. F riedel. Could you do this without showing th at the service is 

needed in Washington to Dulles ?

Mr. Boyd. No, we have hearings, we would have to have a hearing— 

we don’t have any authority to act in an arbitra ry manner, and I 

would hope that we wouldn’t do so even if we had such authority.

We take actions on the basis of a record.

Mr. F riedel. In the hearings in 1957 it was pointed out tha t in New 

York area the Board did not designate the airports, but only designated New York as a terminal, leaving it up to the airlines to pick any 

one of the three airports in the area.

Is th at still the same situation with reference to New York ?

Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir.

Mr. F riedel. Then why can’t the same rule be applied to the W ashington-Baltimore area ?

Mr. Boyd. It is possible to do so.

Mr. F riedel. It is possible to do so; I hope so.

Th at is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Boyd, you wouldn’t mind if we had Mr. Karl Grimm—he is 

with the Baltimore Association of Commerce, Baltimore City—file an 

answer to your statement for the record.

Is that all right, Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. Williams. Surely.

Mr. Boyd. I am sorry, I didn’t understand you. Whatever you 

want to do is all rig ht ; I didn’t hear you.

Mr. Friedel. Mr. Grimm of the Association of Commerce of Baltimore City would like to answer your statement.

Mr. Williams. The record will be kept open for a reasonable length 

of time.

Mr. Boyd. Surely.

(The following letter was received from Mr. Grimm dated May 14, 

1962:)

Baltimore Association of Commerce,

Traffic and Transportation Bureau,

Baltimore, Md., May H, 1992.

Ho n. J ohn Bell Will iam s,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics,

Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Williams: I appre ciate the opportunity which you gave me to comment for the record on beh alf of all Baltimore intere sts on the testim ony which 

Hon. Alan S. Boyd, Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board, gave your committee 

on May 4, 19G2, in the hea ring on H.R. 7399 and H.R. 10471.

I refer particularly to the colloquy between Mr. Boyd and Hon. Samuel N. 

Friedel, which begins at the bottom of page 170 of the typ ewritten print, continues on the following page, and is as follow s:

“Mr. Friedel. If a carrier now serving Wash ington or [through] Frien dship 

under an air port notice were to withd raw their notice and file a new notice announcing the ir intention to serve Baltimore through Dulles, would such a notice 

be approved by the Board?

“Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir.

“Mr. F riedel. As being in the public i nterest?

“Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir.”

Pa rt 202 of the Economic R egulations of the Civil Aero nautics Board governs 

the situation to which Mr. Boyd refers. Section 202.3 requires, in essence, that 

if a holder of a certificate of necessity and convenience desire s to serve regularly
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 175

a point which the holder is otherwise authorized to serve regularly, through an airport not then regularly used or authorized to be used by the holder to serve such point, an airport notice must be tiled with the Board. This notice must be filed with the Board at least 30 days prior to the intended use, and must be specifically approved by the Board before it becomes effective. Service of the notice must be made upon certain interested parties as required by the section, and the right is given these parties to file protests. If the Board finds, either because of these protests or on its own motion, tha t the proposed use may ad­ versely affect the public interest, i t issues a show-cause order to the applicant. It then relies upon evidence produced by the applicant and the protestants as to whether or not the use proposed will adversely affect the public interest. Pre­ sumably the disappointed par ty has the right under the Administrative Pro­ cedure Act to court review of the Board’s decision (see City of Dallas v. C.A.B.,

221 F. 2d 501, cert, den., 348 U.S. 717). In stating tha t the Civil Aeronautics Board would approve an airport notice announcing a carrier’s intention to serve Baltimore through Dulles International Airport as being in the public interest, Mr. Boyd prejudges the issue. It is B alti­ more’s firm contention tha t in no case could the obligation of a carrier to serve Baltimore under its certificate be fulfilled through the use of Dulles Inte rna­ tional Airport and still be in the public interest, particularly if it be contended, as Mr. Boyd implies on page 171, th at the use of Friendship Airport to fulfill an obligation to serve Washington is not in the public interest. I will not impinge upon the time of your committee to demonstrate such an obvious fact. As I stated in my former testimony, it is in situations such as these tha t pres­ sure can be brought upon airlines to move existing flights from Friendship to 

Dulles, even though they do not desire to do so. We recognize that the Board has the power to require the carriers to provide adequate service for Baltimore and are grateful to it for its past decision in this respect. However, if the carrier s are to be permitted to fulfill their Baltimore obligations by using Dulles International Airport, this power becomes illusory 

in the extreme. I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Boyd in the hope that he may 

clarify this situation for us.

Yours very truly, Karl J. Grimm, 

Transportation Director.

Mr. Friedel. I want to thank you, Mr. Boyd. Don’t believe t hat 

I feel bitter against you. I blame it on your predecessor, and please 

don’t feel that I am overzealous. But the port of Baltimore is the 

lifeline of the State of Maryland, and we are very much interested.

Mr. Boyd. I can say, sir, we appreciate your problem, sir. And we 

appreciate very much the opportunity to appear here and testify. And 

thank you very much.

Mr. Wiliams. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.

(The following letter was supplied by CAB Chairman Alan S. 

Boyd to Chairman John Bell Williams fo r clarification of the record.)

Civil Aeronautics Board, 

Washington D.C. May 21,1962.

Hon. John Bell Williams,

Chairman, Subcommittee on 'Transportation and Aeronautics, Committee on In­ terstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear John : On May 4, 1962, I appeared before your subcommittee and testi­ fied with respect to II.R. 7399 and H.R. 10471 relating to a National Airports Cor­ poration and Board. After reading the transcript of the hearing I have noted several respects in which my testimony should be corrected or supplemented. I wish to request, therefore, tha t the following corrections or explanations be accepted and made a part of the record. (1) At page 155 of the transcript, I was asked whether the Board permits “service to Dallas and to Fort Worth at either Dallas or Fort Worth,”’ and responded that in a number of cases we do. I am advised tha t in most instances the carriers are certificated to serve both Dallas and Fort Worth as separate points. A check of our airport files shows tha t in these cases all U.S. carriers serve Dallas only through Love Field, and For t
176 NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS

Worth only through Amon Ca rte r Field. The only ca rri ers which serve both 

Dallas and Fo rt Worth throug h a single air po rt (Love Field) are Compania 

Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A., a Mexican c arr ier which holds a perm it naming Dallas and Fo rt Worth as coterminal points, and American Airlines on its Mexican 

rou te which includes the dual point “Dallas-Fort Worth.” In addition, one U.S. 

ca rrier is certificated to serve D alla s-F ort Worth (to be served through the Amon 

Ca rte r A ir Field), and of course renders service only to th at a irp ort on tha t segment of its operation.

(2) On page 156, line 11, the reference to “Dulles” should be changed to 

“Da llas”.

(3) On page 157, line 9, “Washington” should read “Braniff.”

(4) On page 157, lines 15-21, in speaking of air port notices, I stated tha t, 

with the exception of Braniff, the airport notices involving service at Fri endship do not provide for service at Frie ndship to serve Washington, since such 

ca rri ers have certificate au thority to serve Baltimore as well as Washington.

I am advised th at with th e introd uction of je t service for the purpose of serving 

Washington through Friend ship, air port notices were filed by the carrie rs specifically requesting the use of F riendship for the purpose of serving Washington.

(5) On pages 170-171 I was asked the following que stio n: “If a carrier now 

serving Washington or Fri end ship under an air po rt notice were to withdraw 

th eir notice and file a new notice announcing their inte ntion to serve Baltimore 

through Dulles, would such a notice be approved by the Board?” I replied in 

the affirmative.

As Mr. Grimm of the Baltim ore Association of Commerce has pointed out in 

his lette r to you dated May 14, 1962, this answer is obviously incorrect, and I 

can only assume that I misu nderstood the question put to me. My testimony 

throug hou t demonstrates, I believe, that it has been my position that Friend ­

ship is the Baltimore airport, and also that the Board inte nds to provide for 

ade qua te service to Baltimore. It is obviously difficult if not impossible to 

imagine a fac tual situ atio n in which the Board would be able to find tha t, notwithstandin g the continued availability of Friendsh ip, Dulles could be used in 

lieu of F riendship for the purpose of serving Baltimore.

(6) A number of questions were asked concerning the tick etin g of passengers, 

and I am not certain that my responses are c lear in the context of the questions 

and the discussion. The guid ing principle, I believe, is th at after an air port 

has been approved by the B oard a s a n ai rport serving a p artic ular city, passengers 

tick eted to or from th at city may be carried to or from the airport in question, and such passengers shou ld not (absent some emergency) be carried to 

or from an airport not approved as an airport serving th at city. In app ropriate 

fac tual situations, however, this principle does not preclude an airpor t from 

being approved to serve more than one city, nor does it preclu de two or more 

air ports from being approved for the purpose of serving one city.

Sincerely yours,

A lan S. B oyd, Chairman.

Mr. Williams. I have a letter from S. G. Tipton, Air Transport 

Association, which will be placed in the record at this point,

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Air T ra ns po rt A ss ocia ti on, 

Washington, D.C., May 2,1962.

H on. J o h n B el l W il l ia m s,

Chairman, Transportation and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Committee on InterF°r e i9n

 Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,

D ea r M r. Ch a ir m a n : We ap preciate the opportu nity to comment on H.R. 7399, 

a bill to create the National Airpo rts Corporation, to provide for the operation 

of the federally owned civil airports in the District of Columbia or its vicinity 

by the Corporation, and for oth er purposes, and on H.R. 10471, a bill to tra ns ­

fer cer tain adm inistrative responsibility for the operations of Washington Nation al Airport and Dulles Inter natio nal Airp ort from the Administrat or of the 

Federal Aviation Agency to a Washington Airports Board, and for other 

purposes.
NATIONAL CAPITAL AIRPORTS 177

During hearings held by your subcommittee on H.R. 7399 in the 1st session of the 87t h Congress, Mr. J. D. Dura nd, then sec reta ry and assis tan t general counsel of the Air Tr an sp ort Association, testified at leng th in pres enti ng the 

views of the scheduled a irline s on thi s proposed legislation. The views of the associa tion and its member airlines wit h respe ct to H.R. 7399 are sub sta ntially the same as thos e prese nted to the subco mmittee las t Jul y by Mr. Dur and . We would not wish to prolong the pre sen t hea ring s by res tating 

our position. When Mr. Duran d testif ied, he proposed seve ral ame ndments to the bill which ar e requ ired if the ful les t uti lization of Dulle s In ter na tio na l is to be realized and the intere sts of the air lin es and other air po rt ten an ts are to be adeq uately 

protected. The se amendm ents, tog eth er with our reas onin g the refo r, are set for th in the attached copy o f Mr. Du rand ’s testimony. We resp ectf ully urge upon the commit tee the inco rpor ation of thos e amendments into H.R. 7399. In concluding his testimo ny last year with resp ect to H.R. 7399, Mr. Duran d 

sta ted (p. 50 of the pr int ed h earin gs) : “The air line ind ust ry fee ls th at ther e is much me rit in an inco rpor ation bill. 

We a re no t opposed t o in corp oration. “We do feel th at the pre sen t bill is unsatisfa ctory. It needs to be amend ed to make cle ar certa in rig hts and obligations of the ten an ts and rights and obli­ gations of the FAA with reg ard to fees and charges, to the end th at fees and cha rges will be reas ona ble and th at the air po rt will be used to its ful les t 

ext ent .” With respec t to H.R. 10471 (to provide for oper ation of the Wash intgon are a air po rts by a Wash ingto n Air por ts Bo ard), we have found it difficult to form u­ lat e comments th at would be usefu l to you r subcomm ittee. The proposal for a Board-type operatio n is sta ted in such broa d and gen eral term s th at we have been unable to conclude wh at net effect it w’ould have on the oper ation s of the 

air po rts and our r ela tions ther eto. It is our view th at any proposed change in adm ini str ati ve responsibility for thes e air por ts should st at e in specific de tail the term s of tra nsf er, toge ther with the operatio nal obligatio ns and limi tations of au thor ity of the new agency. Plea se be assure d of our contin uing desi re to be of service to you and your 

subcommittee.

Very tru ly yours,

S. G. T ip t o n .

Mr. Williams. Th at concludes the hearings on this legislation in 

the present schedule.

The committee will adjourn.

(Whereupon, at 11.20 a.m., the committee adjourned.)