I was invited here this afternoon, I understand, not as the Senate's expert on aircraft development or airport economics – but as the Senator who has spent the most time in airplanes and airports. Press accounts of my travel are frequently exaggerated – but it is true that for a large portion of the past few years airplanes and terminals have served as my office, living room, and bedroom. I think I have probably "logged" more air time than Sputnik II and John Foster Dulles combined. My political opponent can justifiably accuse me of being a Senator who is always "up in the air," or "with his head in the clouds," instead of his "feet on the ground."
But the facts of the matter are that the modern political campaign would not be possible without airplanes and airports. In both 1956 and 1958, I promised the National Committee of my party that I would be willing to speak on behalf of all promising Senatorial candidates. I should have known that we have no other kind. Apparently, they think my motto is: "Have text, will travel." I hope by the next election year we will have organized for our protection a Campaign Plane Users Association.
I am not here to prophecy the future of air travel. That kind of prophecy has proven long ago to be dangerous. A friend of the Wright brothers, Octave Chanute, forecast in the Smithsonian Institution's Annual Report for 1903 that there might be limited military use for airplanes – that they might even carry mail "in special cases" – but that they could never be useful as "commercial carriers."
But however difficult it may be to foresee the full dimensions of the air age, there can be little doubt that the metropolis of the future must have a well-equipped, well-designed, and well-managed airport. The fate of a city and its population may well depend upon the extent to which it is willing to devote its human and financial resources to airport development. If Boston is to grow and prosper, its citizens must meet this challenge of the air age. If Boston is to remain a hub of world commerce, its citizens must recognize the necessity for an accelerated pace of airport improvement. If Boston is to develop its full potential of leadership, it must have air transportation facilities second to none.
It was not too long ago, as time is reckoned in the affairs of men, when Boston was the unchallenged queen of the seas. Its busy harbor carried the products of a young nation to every port on the globe. In return, it received the goods of every foreign land. Many accidents of nature conspired to make Boston the natural center of this commerce. The same or similar forces can make the one-time queen of the seas the reigning monarch of the air age.
Boston, to begin with, is at the entrance to a rich hinterland. The Boston airport, moreover, has an ideal location in terms of access to the city and available space. Finally, and perhaps most important, Boston is as much as an hour closer to our most important customers in Europe than any other major eastern city. An hour in the jet age is a significant time factor
In short, we possess here in Boston the royal heritage and the natural endowments needed to establish this port as an undisputed leader of the air age.
But like any monarch or political leader, Boston must resist the temptation to rely upon history to maintain its leadership. Younger cities and aggressive communities are even now attempting to usurp her prerogatives. I would urge, therefore, that steps be taken to improve and expand the air facilities in the metropolitan area of Boston in three directions.
First, I notice that the ambitious ports to the south and west of Boston have utilized Federal grants much more effectively to increase their competitive standing than Boston. A few figures will serve to illustrate this fact. Between 1947 and 1958 the Boston airport used a little over two million dollars of Federal funds. During the same period of time, the New York International Airport used over 7 million dollars, the Newark Airport used $6,500,000, the Philadelphia airport used $4,000,000, Cleveland used $3,800,000, and Pittsburgh $4,200,000. Even Providence used more than Boston, for it took advantage of $2,500,000 of Federal funds.
Boston still has outstanding, under tentative agreements, grants of $1,200,000. I would hope that these funds can be used to meet the ever increasing demands for improved facilities that the new age of air travel requires. No airport, regardless of its present position, can ignore the accelerating trends in modern air transportation. If Logan International Airport will not or cannot meet the competition of other air facilities, it will inevitably become a secondary port, no matter what its natural endowments.
Second, I know you are all aware of the chronic unemployment crises that have plagued our state. Aviation is becoming a more and more important factor in our employment picture. In developing the airport in Metropolitan Boston and its maintenance shops, we can create a wide range of new job opportunities. Today it is estimated that there are 65,000 private and business planes and over 400,000 licensed private pilots in the United States. All must be maintained and serviced. In addition, maintenance of military planes by civilian business is a large and growing field for private enterprise. It is up to each local community in Massachusetts to see that this new and expanding industry which vitally needs this state's reservoir of skilled labor does not go to other sections of the country by default.
Third, unused airport facilities such as those at Squantum can and should be utilized. Even though Squantum is located in the midst of a residential community, which might not be suitable for a commercial or military airfield, it could be used as a maintenance depot. Although there would be comparatively little flight activity, full use could still be made of the area's skilled labor and idle facilities.
All of this requires local initiative, local ingenuity and local promotional activities. But there is an equally important requirement for Federal participation in these programs. As Chanute mentioned 55 years ago, the three uses of aircraft include military, mail, and commercial carriers. All three uses are affected with a national interest.
Under the traditional pattern of military invasion, the retreating forces always destroy their air facilities – and the invading army always begins building air fields as soon as it arrives. In a very real sense our airports are an essential part of our defense machinery. Supplies, equipment, arms and troops are dependent upon adequate airport facilities.
The Russians have long recognized that adequate civilian landing fields and facilities must accompany strengthening of military forces. They have applies vast sums to the support of civil aviation. Unlike the step-by-step progression of the United States from DC-3s to 4 engine transports, to turbo-props and jets, the Russians have leapfrogged into the jet age. We can no longer count on a year or more in which to counter an enemy attack – the first hours may well decide the course of any future conflict – hours in which additional airports cannot be suddenly built. The federal government cannot, therefore, ignore the present inadequacy of airport facilities.
Air mail, also, is a Federal function. It is particularly appropriate that I call attention to this fact today for this very day is the Fortieth Anniversary of the first air mail flight. It required a 24¢ stamp in those days to send a letter by air. While other prices have doubled, tripled, and doubled again, improved aircraft and improved airports have reduced the cost and increased the service for air mail. I hope that these trends are not now to be reversed.
It is an interesting footnote to history that the only person who made money on the first air mail flight was a Bostonian by the name of Rabey. He travelled to Washington to be first in line to buy the first air mail stamps. He purchased a sheet of 100 stamps for $24, and noticed that the airplane in the center was upside down. He took his sheet immediately to a philatelist in Philadelphia and asked $15,000 for it. As those of you who are stamp collectors know, those stamps have continued to have a fantastic history and far greater value.
The Federal government also has an important stake in the commercial airlines which Chanute described so pessimistically. This is recognized in the Civil Aeronautics Act, in the Federal Airport Act and in the various other legislative provisions designed to foster and improve commercial facilities.
Because I feel so keenly the necessity for Federal participation in airport development, I joined on Tuesday with several of my colleagues in the Senate to propose an extension of the Federal Airport Act to June, 1963. Under this Act the United States has produced the best national airport system in the world. If the Act is not extended the Secretary of Commerce will not be able to commit any Federal funds for airport construction after June 30, 1959. Our bill would bring the level of contract authorizations up to $100,000,000 per year, the maximum contemplated when the Act was first passed in 1946. Unfortunately, the Congress and Executive Departments have never approval a level of appropriation of that magnitude. But there is little doubt today that the revolution in airport facilities which the jet age will inaugurate can easily absorb this sum.
Although I respect the non-partisan character of this meeting, I think it important to point out that the Administration and some members of both parties oppose this extension on the ground that local communities should alone assume the burden of developing their air terminal facilities. This seems to me to carry the "do it yourself" fad a little too far. Local communities cannot, going it alone, keep pace with the growing volume of commercial air traffic. We cannot overlook the elemental fact that airport capacity must be kept in balance with airway capacity.
Assuming that the phenomenal growth in the use of the airways which is forecast by the Civil Aeronautics Administration occurs it is apparent that normal financial channels are completely inadequate to do the job that should be done. The jet age demands radically different airports. The grass runways that were suitable for the first air mail plane forty years ago – and even the 4,000 feet runways of a few years ago are completely antiquated already. We now talk in terms of 10,000 foot runways for jet airplanes. I am hopeful that this Conference can stimulate a little more imagination in our nation's airway concepts and a little less grass runway thinking.
I would also urge the adoption of legislation which combines in one agency full, coordinated control of air space. All of us, of course, were distressed by the recent tragic accident above Las Vegas. Yet the same conditions that made that accident possible still exist, for there is no one agency which can effectively control the allocation of air space. The Civil Aeronautics Administration, the Civil Aeronautics Board, and the military authorities each exercise a limited jurisdiction. No one of them has complete jurisdiction over the use of air lanes. It is, therefore, unfortunately possible that a military craft will be cleared to fly the precise altitude as a civilian plane – and the disaster at Las Vegas – that could have been prevented and could be avoided – could instead be repeated.
Twice before in our history this nation has witnessed the deterioration of valuable transportation facilities. Our proud merchant marine, once the envy of every foreign power, has been crippled. The railroads, a mainstay of commerce, now face their bleakest hour. Now we must decide whether to pool state, local, and federal efforts in a broad expansion of air transportation – or to allow that asset, too, to deteriorate. Faced with such a choice the answer should be obvious to even the most reluctant. For the impact of the jet age demands vision and courage. A few years ago, on the fiftieth anniversary of the first heavier-than-air flight, several teams of aeronautical engineers attempted to duplicate the original Wright Brothers' plane. They intended to celebrate the anniversary by flying such a machine. But the project was abandoned – abandoned because, the head of one such project said; "We just didn't think the confounded thing would fly." But 55 years ago it did fly – and two bicycle mechanics named Wright were able to accomplish what 10 modern engineers call impossible because they had the very characteristics that are demanded today.
The aircraft industry – despite the recession – is forging ahead with the greatest capital expansion program in its history. Conservative predictions call for a two-fold increase in the capacity of the nation's airports by 1975, and an even more spectacular increase in ground facilities dealing directly with passengers.
This sounds as visionary, as doubtful, as difficult, as that "confounded thing" the experts thought couldn't fly. But our future air travel requirements are not impossible of achievement either. It is up to each of you, as well as the Federal government to make it possible. And never let it be said that we cannot do it right here in Boston.
Source: Papers of John F. Kennedy. Pre-Presidential Papers. Senate Files, Box 901, "Boston College Seminar, Boston, Mass., 15 May 1958." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.