April 14, 2020 public comment Regarding item 6f on the April 14, 2020, PoS
Commissioner's meeting 

Hello, I'm Bernedine Lune, resident of Federal Way and member of QSPS and 350
Seattle 
The large downturn in aviation over the last two months has an unknown timeline for
recovery. It does not seem the time to advocate for a $4 million contract for capital
improvements, even when no money is committed. Any actions you take to change or
improve the airport appears to be preparing it for more growth.
History shows that companies that depend on unlimited growth are not sustainable.
They can run out of resources, be overtaken by other businesses, or be harmful to their
own staff, customers, and the public. This happened to the tobacco and asbestos
industries, is currently happening to industries such as the oil and gas industries. And it
has already started with the airline industry. Noise and use of leaded fossil fuel for
small aircraft and pollution caused by jet engines are already having a negative impact
on the population and on the climate change. Biofuels are also not sustainable as a fuel
substitute with continued growth. 
To add to the issue of pollution and noise, some industries, such as Boom industries,
are looking to reintroduce supersonic flights as evidenced by the FAAs streamlining of
supersonic applications (see https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/airspace/faa-heads-toward-
development-supersonic-flight-regulations/ and personal comments submitted Aug 2019 to
FAA in response to the proposed changes) and an FAA Press Release on 3-30-2020
titled "Supersonic Aircraft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" to add landing and takeoff
noise standards for a certain class of new supersonic airplanes (see
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=24796&fbclid=IwAR2PYTz
RIHMAgyRdIrQGxR32itI4afov2QT2FZEhagsPrpW8OGfqPHhPejI 
Aviation needs to look for alternatives to increasing the number of flights. There are
many talented and innovative in the aviation industry and they could be asked to look at
ways to reduce the need for the flights. One web site 'www.aviationJustice.com' lists
several alternatives to flights, including: 
-    Teleconferencing, examples include Skype and Zoom (Zoom not Boom has been
suggested as a catchy phrase support Zoom) 
-    Express Buses 
-    High Speed Rail, including Hyperlink, as is being developed in the mid-west,
India, and China 
-    Amtrak  if as much money had been spent on Amtrak as on airports, runways,
etc. for the aviation industry, Amtrak would be safer and better used. 
-    Slow Travel

Rather than spending millions of dollars on further enhancements to SeaTac, you could
be using the money to plan for alternative methods of travel. The airport facilities have
the space and technology to become a hub for these different types of connecting
people. Just look at all that has happened to replace flights in just 1-2 months.
Business that currently support the airlines and change to also support the new
activities.

Posted on FAA Website in response to request to review FAA's proposed Special Flight
Authorizations for Supersonic Aircraft 
8-19-2019
Phillip and Bernedine Lund, Federal Way, WA 98003 
We are opposed to the FAA's proposed Special Flight Authorizations for Supersonic Aircraft.
By streamlining the application process for supersonic flight, the FAA is suggesting to that
developing supersonic flights is an acceptable endeavor. It is not. Excessive noise has already
been identified as one of the major health hazards in our modern world. Adding supersonic noise in
a testing phase is irresponsible. Instead, the FAA should be saying that supersonic flight should not
be undertaken. For this reason we are also opposed to removing the provision to "require public
protection from 'measurable' sonic boom." (See pg 30964, 2nd column.)
The NPRM for FAA-2019-0451 also states that aircraft "speeds slightly above Mach 1 are often the
least fuel-efficient and may have the most negative effects on an aircraft." The statement indicates
that you are more concerned about the well being of the aircraft than you are of the people who will
have to live with the noise and emissions from the 'least fuel efficient' flights.
The previous attempts at supersonic flight were not successful because there were directed primarily
at the wealthy. It seems that the FAAs streamlining of supersonic transport is aimed at making it
easier for development of transport that the majority of people will not be able to afford, but these
same people on the ground will have to pay for with exposure to excessive noise, further emissions,
and changes in climate.
The FAA has to be aware that aircraft flights are the fastest growing source of emissions contributing
to global warning. Rather than looking for ways to increase flights, the FAA should be working with
the Dept of Transportation to look at other modes of transportation. For example, trains can
transport people at 10% of the cost of aircraft. If as much money had been directed towards trains,
including hyperloop trains, we would be much further along with reducing transportation emissions.
Finally, we and our local communities no longer trust the FAA given the disaster of the FAA's
NextGen implementation. Starting about 3 years ago, we started to have flights over our house.
Using data the local airport has posted on its website, we find that in July 2019, there were 16,000
flights registered on a noise monitor 0.22 miles from our house. That is about 500 flights a day or 1
aircraft every 2 minutes for 16.5 hours a day. In addition, the FAA had not completed the
development of a new noise measure as directed in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization bill.
Overall the FAA has not been honest nor transparent with the public about the costs of flying, and it
is primarily the non-flying public that is paying the costs. 
cc: US Representative Adam Smith