STATEMENT OF E. R. QUESADA, FORMER DIRECTOR, FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY

Mr. QUESADA. I have given to the committee a prepared statement and I must say at the moment that would be repetitious, though I was not aware of what you and Senator Tydings were going to say but what you have said would be repetitious in my own statement, so if you will permit me I would like to ad lib.

Senator SPONG. We will accept your statement in its entirety and you can take it from there and say what you will. (The prepared statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF E. R. QUESADA

I am grateful for the opportunity of appearing before your Committee today. The future of National Airport and its contribution to the orderly development of the Greater Metropolitan Area of Washington, which must by necessity include Baltimore, is and has always been a source of great interest to me.

In order to appreciate the aviation requirements of this great Metropolitan Area, one must realize that the Nation's Capital, and the surrounding area attracts travellers out of proportion to its population. Being the Nation's Capital, there is attracted to it, a disproportionate number of businessmen, diplomats, elected and appointed public servants, participants in the labor movement, tourists and other categories as well.

At the present time, National Airport accommodates a disproportionate share of that total, and I must add it does so to the disadvantage of those who travel by air to and from this great Metropolitan Area. The proximity of Friendship and Dulles Airports, which serve this area with comparable ease and efficiency, remains underused. At the same time, National Airport is obviously overused. This unfortunate condition is the result-at least in my opinion of uncontrolled evolution. If we could start anew, it is very doubtful if the present inequities would be encouraged or permitted.

National Airport, by its geographic location, makes it extraordinarily convenient. Its proximity to the inner core of Washington, D.C. is indeed unique. Evolution, but not wisdom, has caused it to grow to an unreasonable volume, when, at the same time, other airports, that are also conveniently located and unusually efficient, remain used far below their capacity.

This area needs a reappraisal of its aviation needs. That reappraisal, in order to be meaningful, must treat the area as a whole. All aviation facilities in this area must contribute to an orderly program essential to public needs. In measuring and responding to the future needs of this vast Metropolitan Area, we must husband our assets, some of which are unique by any standard. What was once called "Roosevelt Folly" is now an overcrowded, uncontrolled facility, serving the Nation's Capital.

It is certain at least to me that, if we should consider Friendship, National and Dulles collectively and assign basic missions to each, a most radical change would take place at National. There are many, and I am among them, that feel that National would serve the public best if it was confined to short haul inter-city service. I can assure your Committee that a decade ago, when I came to the Congress of the United States and sought funds for the construction of what is now Dulles Airport, it was not my intention that National would be permitted to continue to serve the public's needs with little regard to its capaciy and what appears to be no regard to the convenience and efficiency of Friendship and Dulles,

It is my fervent hope that this Committee, upon whom the people of this area so heavily depend, will use its influence to accomplish, by positive action, what has proven impossible by passive action.

To me, it seems unreasonable to embark now on a program involving hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds and apparently to perpetuate what has

proven to be inefficient and unnecessary. It is my firm conviction that the future role and use of National Airport is the key to an orderly aviation facilities program essential to the Washington-Baltimore area for the coming decades.

Mr. QUESADA. I am impressed that there is a general consensus so far, at least in these hearings, that the requirements of aviation facilities in the Greater Washington metropolitan area must be resolved on a coordinated basis. To attempt to resolve or bring improvement and solution to these problems by considering the three airports individually can only result in added chaos and added inconvenience to the public.

In viewing the requirements of our Nation's Capital, one must be very aware and critically aware of the fact that the Nation's Capital and its environment attracts visitors and air travelers to it out of proportion to its size.

The very nature of government and the vast business that is conducted here because of it, as well as tourism, creates a situation that is different from other cities or other areas of comparable size.

This must be borne in mind in bringing solution to this problem. In Senator Tydings' statement, which expressed my views perhaps better than I could myself, he made reference without emphasis, however, to the suggestion that some bring forward that we might close National Airport. That solution is to avoid logic. I find it difficult to comment on that.

The possibility of closing Washington Airport is so grotesque to me if for no reason other than it would deprive the Nation's Capital and the surrounding area with an asset that every city in the world seeks to achieve. The convenience of National Airport is unrivaled in any area that I can think of with the possible exception of Kansas City. To erase that convenience would be a disservice to the city and it would be a pity.

Having said that, I must add with emphasis, however, because of the closing of National Airport in my opinion does not need emphasis. It is a void of logic.

The fact remains that Washington Airport should not be permitted, at least in my opinion, to develop without regard to the requirements of the entire area. My wife has a solution that she applies to all or many of her own problems and I might say she does it with considerable

success.

When she has problems she seems to ignore them and they seem to go away, but that cannot be applied here, sir, in spite of my wife's experience.

We just have to find some way of bringing a reasonable and logical restraint to the uninhibited use of National Airport. I assure you that this cannot be accomplished by agreement with the airlines.

I might add here that I am a director of American Airlines. I am certainly not reflecting their views. As a matter of fact, I might be reflecting views contrary to American Airlines, I don't know, but the fact remains that one should not expect and certainly should not hope for the solution to National's problems to be reached by agree

ment among the airlines. The competitive instincts are such that this is not a hopeful solution.

If National Airport is permitted to develop in the future, as it has in the past, again I say there is no solution to the problem. A reasonable solution and perhaps the most logical solution which has been suggested by others is to set a limit of travel that carriers will apply to the use of National Airport.

It is most suited to what is most commonly referred to as shorthaul travel. Until that is actually applied, sir, I do not see how you are going to bring a reasonable solution to this problem.

It should be noted that approximately 30 percent of all air travel in the country is of the order of 300 miles. Very few people realize this. If Washington National Airport were restricted to some reasonable radius, its capacity then and under those circumstances is going to be severely taxed. Without such a restriction, it is going to be taxed and as a matter of fact, taxed beyond its capacity which is the case

now.

If such a solution were applied, whatever the method may be, it would certainly result in a different use of Friendship and Dulles. Washington's problem, in my opinion, cannot be resolved until someone has the courage to consider the requirement as a whole and use their courage to apply a reasonable standard to the use of each. Until that is accomplished, I do not see a constructive and progressive solution to our problem.

The committee knows, and if it does not know I will take the risk of repeating, that the aviation industry, and the air transportation industry in particular, is looking forward to a successful V/STOL aircraft, which means very short takeoff and landing.

When this is accomplished, and it is partially accomplished already, transportation between close city pairs that would connect the downtown area of one to the downtown area of another, is feasible.

When that is accomplished, the public is being rewarded and that can be accomplished. New York City is in the process of accomplishing it. Washington by a strange coincidence has already accomplished it. Washington now has a V/STOL aircraft that is close to the core of its city. It is practically the only city in the United States that does. I find nothing wrong and I certainly feel the public would be benefited if travel at National Airport were restricted to some reasonable radius.

It should be pointed out that the other two airports serving this area, Friendship and Dulles, are convenient to both Baltimore and Washington. Friendship is certainly convenient to Baltimore and one must realize that Baltimore and Washington are getting to be one vast metropolitan area. That is hardly deniable, so Friendship not only serves Baltimore but also Washington.

In serving both, or in serving each, it does so under a standard of convenience in terms of travel time that is comparable to John F. Kennedy in New York, O'Hare in Chicago, and the San Francisco Airport in San Francisco. With all of the airports of the country and the world it compares favorably.

Dulles compares very favorably with the airports of the country and of the world. It has an access highway that provides a convenience that is unique for any place in the world. There is no place in the world that has an access highway-confined to the use of the airport21 miles long. You can travel that distance at great speed and great safety and, hence, time because time is the factor.

Dulles Airport is unusually convenient. I have to admit when it was designed and located, and I must say I was a party to this, it was anticipated that a bridge would cross the Potomac River upstream, Key Bridge. When that is accomplished Dulles Airport will be within less than 30 minutes ground travel time of the Statler Hotel on 16th Street, and that is something that very few cities can boast of. You can't get to International Airport from 42d Street and Lexington Avenue in 30 minutes.

Senator SPONG. I take it you are speaking of the Three Sisters Bridge. That is a subject we will not dwell on this morning, but I am inclined to agree with what you say.

Mr. QUESADA. It was anticipated there would be a bridge upstream. Washington and the vast metropolitan area is extraordinarily served by excellent facilities. I must say in the same breath the distribution between the airports needs a reappraisal, and I would hope that this reappraisal would result in a more rational use of National Airport. The solution is to make an arbitrary limit on the radius that the aircraft operate under and will be permitted to travel.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much. You have stated that Washington National's share of traffic is disproportionate. To what extent would you say this is true?

Mr. QUESADA. If my memory serves me correctly, Washington National has about two or two and a half times as much passenger traffic as Dulles and Friendship combined. An adjustment to make Washington National Airport supply about one-third of the traffic in the entire area-passenger traffic-and the remaining two-thirds to the other airports by competitive elements or rational allocation.

Short-haul traffic is about one-third of the total traffic. If a reasonable restraint were placed it would result in about one-third the total going to National.

Senator SPONG. In your formal statement this disproportionate share you said that National accommodates is to the disadvantage of those who travel by air. Would you care to elaborate upon that?

Mr. QUESADA. I would welcome it because it gets to the core of what I am really trying to say.

Washington has this unusually convenient airport. The public measures the convenience of the other two by the standard that Washington National Airport has established. The public does not know, however, that they would be better served in many cases, if not most, by having the service they want at Friendship or Dulles. Because it might take them 15 minutes longer to go to Friendship, than it takes to go to National the net result is that their time to get to their final destination might very well be longer and very often is longer.

27-254 0-70-pt. 1—2

No. 1, by virtue of the very congestion that exists at National, very often their departure is delayed, though they may be in the airplane. Their departure is delayed because the airplane they are eventually going to board is delayed in landing. And then they may be delayed because the ability of the airport to which they are going is restricted. The public without knowing it is often inconvenienced by going to National and they would be better served if they went to Friendship or Dulles, assuming that the service that they want is there. A person going to Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, Miami, in many cases, might be better served if that traffic originated from Friendship or Dulles. Senator SPONG. Thank you.

In speaking of the overuse of National Airport you said that this condition is the result of uncontrolled evolution. I would like to hear from you on that.

Mr. QUESADA. I was alluding to that when I referred to my wife's inability to solve her problems.

National Airport has achieved a tremendous volume of traffic that is now characterized by its use because of the elements of competition. All of the airlines want to use it. Furthermore, sir, they are permitted to use it. I wish to assure this committee that when I was administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency and came to the Federal Government for vast Federal funds, it was not my intention that the Washington National Airport would be able to grow by the influence of the competition between the airlines.

That was not my intention. It was my intention to exercise some restraint on its use which I now note is lacking. I hope that at least answers in part your question.

Senator SPONG. Yes; it does. You have already touched upon this but I would like you to wrap it up. In thinking of the future of these three airports on a regional basis and, of course, you have told us that is what you envision National should be in the future, but would you relate for us what you conceive to be the basic missions of Friendship, of Dulles, and of Washington National?

Mr. QUESADA. May I approach them in the reverse order?
Senator SPONG. Approach them any way you wish.

Mr. QUESADA. I would conceive of the basic mission of National Airport to serve the public by providing them with an origin which is of short-haul length. I don't want to assume the role of saying precisely what that radius shall be. I would suggest, however, something in the order of 300 to 500 miles. National Airport should be confined to that basic purpose, to provide to the public a convenient and frequent service to city pairs that are within 300 to 500 miles of Washington.

Senator SPONG. That would be short-haul intercity service that you spoke of?

Mr. QUESADA. That is correct, short-haul intercity service. It should look forward to providing that service to the downtown area of the other pair of the city pairs.

Let us today visualize in the not too distant future a person who could conveniently travel from National Airport to downtown Pitts