AN ACR MD80 FLC RPTS THAT THEY REQUESTED TO USE AN AVAILABLE RWY BASED ON THE WINDS AND ACFT PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS. THEIR INITIAL REQUEST WAS DENIED DUE TO NOISE RESTRS. WHEN THE FLC INSISTED; THE TWR CTLR ADVISED THAT THE ACR WOULD RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE CITY AND A CITY VEHICLE QUESTIONED THE NEED FOR RWY 17.

Narrative

WINDS AT ABQ WERE RANGING BTWN 160V210 AT UP TO 10 KTS. WE CLOSED OUT 700 LBS HVY PLANNED AT MAX PWR. RWY 8 WAS THE RWY SELECTED BY ATC FOR DEP. IT ALLOWS FOR NO TAILWIND. AS THE WINDS WERE VARIABLE TO GIVE BOTH RWY 8/26 AN EQUAL CHANCE OF TAILWIND; I ASKED FOR (IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY AND PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT) RWY 17. THE CTLR INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS 'NOISE SENSITIVE.' IN SHORT; I SAID THAT MY NEARLY 150 PAX; LAP BABIES; JUMP SEAT RIDERS; AND CREW DEPENDED ON ME AND THAT 20000 LBS OF JET-A FUEL FURTHERED MY PREMISE. SHE AGAIN REPLIED THAT IT WAS 'NOISE SENSITIVE.' I ASKED IF IT WAS CLOSED AND WOULD SPEAK TO THE TWR SUPVR. AFTER A FEW MINS WE GOT TAXI CLRNC AND THE ADMONITION THAT THE COMPANY WOULD GET A PUNITIVE LETTER FROM THE CITY. AS WE SAT AT THE END OF THE RWY; A CITY VEHICLE QUESTIONED MY COMMAND DECISION AS CAPT OF A COMMERCIAL JETLINER USING BASIC AIRMANSHIP RULE ONE -- ALWAYS USE A HEADWIND WHEN AVAILABLE. IF ABQ GETS A LETTER OF ANY KIND I WANT A COPY SENT TO ME DIRECTLY. SHOW ME IN THE FAR/AIM WHERE SAFETY AND THE PIC'S FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY ARE SUBORDINATE TO NOISE ABATEMENT PROCS. HOW CAN AN ATC FACILITY BE SO ENTRENCHED IN THEIR MYOPIC LCL VIEW OF OPS DENY ANYONE THE USE OF A WIND FAVORABLE AND TERRAIN FREE RWY?