Future of Aviation A dvisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Aircraft Company Wichita, Kansas

1 Public Announcement

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) , Office of the Secretary of Transportation, told the public of this Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) Subcommittee on Financing meeting in a Federal Register notice published June 1 6 , 2010 (75 FR 34202 ).

Subc ommittee Members in Attendance

Name Affiliation (s) Jack J. Pelton
, ( Subcommittee Chair ) Chairman, P resident
, and

Chief Executive Officer Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna)

Severin Borenstein 1 Professor Haas School of Business
, University of California
, Berkeley Thella F. Bowens 1 President and

C hief Executive Officer San Diego County Regional Airport Authority

John Hennigan ( Designated Federal Offic ial (DFO) ) Federal Aviation Administration

Jaqueline Knights (alternate for Mr. Williams) Attended for Mr. Williams The Williams Capital Group, L.P.

Joseph Kolshak Attended for Mr. Glenn Tilton United Airlines Steve Litty 1 ( Alternate DFO) DOT

Daniel McKenzie 1 U.S. A irlines

R esearch A nalyst Hudson Securities , Inc.

Stan Van Ostran Attended for Mr. Regalado Metropolitan Nashville Airports Authority

Committee Members Not in Attendance

Name Affiliation (s) Raul Regalado President and

Chief Executive Officer Metropolitan Nashville Airports Authority

Glenn Tilton Chairman, P resident, and

Chief Executive Officer UAL Corporation ( United)

Christopher Williams Chairman, Founder, and

Chief Executive Officer The Williams Capital Group, L.P.

1 By phone.Future of Aviation A dvisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Aircraft Company Wichita, Kansas

2 Other Person s Present

Name Affiliation (s) Chris Brown United Airlines Michael Derrick PAI Consulting Jens Hennig General Aviation Manufacturers Association Melissa Rudinger Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Robert Stangarone Cessna Aircraft Company Gordon Thomas 1 Cessna Aircraft Company Ashleigh de la Torre National Business Aviation Association

B ACKGROUND AND W ELCOMING R EMARKS
This is the record of the first meeting of the Subcommittee on Financing of the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee ( FAAC ) , a federal advisory committee formed pursuant to and subject to the require ments of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

.
M r

. Jack Pelton
, Subc ommittee Chair
, Cessna, called the meeting to order at 12:56 p .m. He welcomed the sub c ommittee members and members of the public in attendance, and opened the meeting by introducing the members of the subcommittee

.
M r

. John Hennigan read the formal statement required under FACA, and then turn ed the meeting back over to M r

. Pelton to open substantive discussion.

D ISCUSSION

M r

. Pelton outlined the subcommittee ’s agenda. He began by rev iewing the purpose of the FAAC and the five main areas of concern for the committee. He noted that f inancing was one of th ose five areas, and this subcommittee was formed in response. He not ed there w as background material on aviation system funding and financing of airports from the initial meeting of the FAAC that should be reviewed by the subcommittee members . Mr

. Pelton stated the main task of the subcommittee is to identify three to four topics regarding aviation financing issues that can be present ed to the FAAC as potential actionable items for the Secretary of Transportation. He reminded the subcommittee that the Secretary was interested in near

- term actions, but stated that long

- term issues should be considered as well. Mr

. Pelton stated his be lief that many of the financing issues are long term, and cautioned the subcommittee not to become overly focused on immediate issues. He explained the purpose of the subcommittee is to identify key financing issues affecting the industry and to bring the m to the FAAC for action. He then noted that the final goal for the subcommittee was to have its work completed in time for the FAAC’s final meeting December 15
, 2010.Future of Aviation A dvisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Aircraft Company Wichita, Kansas

3 Mr

. Hennigan reviewed the meeting schedule for the FAAC, stating that meetings would oc cur July 14
, 2010
, in Atlanta, Georgia, and August 25
, 2010
, and October 20
, 2010
, in locations yet to be determined. He stated that there w ould be a total of five FAAC meetings, two to four of which are to be used to compile and consider recommendations from the subcommittees

. He added the final meeting in Washington, DC
, December 15
, 2010
, would be a report out to the Secretary of Transportation . He reminded the subcommittee that a report would be written, and stated it was critical to have recommendat ions to the Secretary in December. Mr. Pelton reminded the subcommittee that notices for its meetings must be published in the Federal Register at least 2 weeks before the date of the meeting , and each subcommittee meeting should take place at least 2 wee ks before the next FAAC meeting.

Mr

. Pelton reviewed public comments the subcommittee received, stating that submissions had been received from the Air Line Pilots Association, International; Air Transport Association; Airports Council International

– Nor th America; and United Airlines , along with a report on the airline industry from Mr. Daniel McKenzie , Hudson Securities, Inc

. He also noted a submission from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association was received just before the meeting, and it would be posted to the docket and distributed to subcommittee members. Mr

. Pelton asked if all subcommittee members had received the public comments. Ms

. Thella Bowens , San Diego Regional Airport Authority, stated she had not received copies of the comments from Daniel Mc Kenzie or the Air Transport Association. Mr

. Pelton took an action to ensure Ms. Bowen receive s the comments.

Because of the length of the documents submitted by the commenters, they were not reviewed at the subcommittee meeting. Mr

. Hennigan reminded the subcommittee of the importance of the public comments, and stated that even though some may be duplicates of those sent to other (or all) subcommittees
, there were some comments direct ed specifically to the individual subcommittees. He furthe r stated that the public comments contained valuable information, and they would need to be discussed by the subcommittee. Mr

. Pelton agreed and stated the subcommittee should have enough time to review them by the next meeting and would work to address t he comments then

.
Mr

. Hennigan emphasized that all subcommittee members would have access to the FAAC SharePoint site, and going forward, this would be the central location for sharing documents among members. He reminded subcommittee members that procedu res for accessing SharePoint were in the summary document provided by Ms

. Pam Hamilton, FAA, the Designated Federal Offic ial for the FAAC. Mr

. Michael Derrick
, PAI Consulting
, provided a brief update on the status of SharePoint

access.

Identification of I ssues for the FAAC

M r

. Pelton began the discussion by stating his belief that the issues surrounding financing essentially could be derived from aviation system and airport funding. He further stated his belief that all of these issues revolve around the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) and the equipment that will be needed to operate in the future aviation system. Mr

. Pelton stated he believe s it is very important for operators to recognize the benefits of NextGen and how to transition into the future environment. He proposed that a roadmap for the transition to NextGen, with tangible benefits toFuture of Aviation A dvisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Aircraft Company Wichita, Kansas

4 operators, and a plan for transition are needed and asked the subcommittee members for their input. Mr

. Joseph Kolshak , United Airlines, exp ressed his agreement with the need to identify key elements and requirements for NextGen . He cited recommendations made by RTCA
, Inc. (RTCA)
, on NextGen equipage, procedures
, and separation standards that serve as a roadmap for NextGen, but these recommen dations are not an industry product and he was unsure if there was consensus around them

. Mr. Kolshak expressed concern that the 2020 target date for equipping for NextGen was quite distant at this point and that operators had little incentive to equip th eir aircraft at present. As an example , he noted that United Airlines recently retir ed 100 aircraft, some of which had equipment that had never been used in the National Airspace System (NAS) . He reiterated that visible benefits were needed before operat ors would equip aircraft ahead of mandatory dates.

Mr

. Severn Borenstein , Haas School of Business, expressed his belief that identifying a funding source for NextGen is important. Mr

. Pelton asked if any members had a point of contact that could brief thi s issue. Mr

. Hennigan stated he could assist in providing background materials to the subcommittee.

Mr

. Kolshak expressed concern over early equipage of aircraft without clearly visible incentives. He stated it was not clear to operators that
, if they eq uip early in 2013
, they will receive any benefit over another operator that waits until the 2020 deadline.

( Mr. McKenzie joined the meeting at 1:18 p.m. via telephone

. )

Mr

. Pelton cited automatic dependent surveillance

– broadcast (ADS

– B) as an example that has recently garnered attention, and stated that the real benefits of the system will not be realized until the rollout of ADS

– B In (information received by aircraft) . Mr

. Kolshak agreed, but also stated that until all aircraft are equipped, present separ ation standards will remain, and this is where a benefit of early equipage can be realized. Mr

. Pelton stated that eliminating older equipment from the system can bring cost savings. Mr

. Kolshak agreed, but expressed his belief that the capacity improvem ents that would be realized by decreased separation standards (such as in areas with limited radar coverage) would bring the greatest benefit. A n observing member of the public, Mr. Jens Hennig, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, offered that an FAA study on the cost of removal for ground

- based radar systems may be of interest to the subcommittee and suggested a point of contact to obtain it.

Mr

. Borenstein suggested it would be a good process for the subcommittee to obtain background documents on NextGen for reference, because it may be a major focus of the subcommittee. Mr

. Kolshak suggested the RTCA Taskforce 5 paper. Mr

. Pelton suggested reading background material and bringing in experts for briefings at the next subcommittee meeting ; Mr

. Bo renstein agreed. Mr. Borenstein and Mr. Pelton then had a brief discussion on NextGen funding sources, which led to a discussion on incentives for early equipage of aircraft. Mr

. Kolshak cited an example of reduced vertical separation minima (RVSM), in w hich aircraft separation was reduced from 2
, 000 feet to 1
, 000 feet in high altitude airspace . He noted that aircraft operators were paid to equip their aircraft to meet the requirements to participate in RVSM, and they got direct benefits from being able to use the airspace. He observed that tangible benefits such as this would be necessary to incentivize early equipage by operators for NextGen.Future of Aviation A dvisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Aircraft Company Wichita, Kansas

5 Several subcommittee members noted that the airspace capacity gains brought by NextGen may be lost on capacity constraints in the terminal environment, and this concern had been raised by RTCA and others. Mr

. Hennigan raised the theory of “best equipped, best served
, ” and Mr. Hennigan, Mr. Kolshak, and Mr. Pelton discussed varying potential levels of access to air space based on aircraft equipment, using RVSM and category 3 approaches as examples.

Mr

. Pelton shifted the discussion to incentivizing aircraft operators for early equipage. He expressed his belief that clear benefits to operators are essential, because many are financially constrained and reluctant to spend resources to equip aircraft without knowing precisely what benefits they would receive. Mr

. Kolshak agreed, stating that operators need to see a return on their investment. Mr

. Stan Van Ostran
, Metr opolitan Nashville Airports Authority, asked if airports were being considered in the equation. Mr

. Kolshak replied they were, particularly large airports. He cited Chicago O’Hare International Airport as an example, stating it can handle 112 operations per hour on a good

- weather day, but bad weather cuts the operation rate in half. He noted a capacity improvement that could reduce that loss to only 10 to 20 percent would be a clear benefit to operators.

Ms

. Bowens stated that most of the discussion so f ar had centered on how aircraft operators would fund improvements, but it was an equally important issue for airports. She remarked that there was no identification of funding for airport improvements, and present funding mechanisms are seen as onerous by air carriers. She pointed out the need for a balance between the needs of airports and the needs of air carriers. Mr

. Pelton asked for clarification on the needs of airports. Ms

. Bowens replied that infrastructure was the primary need, including runway s, navigation aids, and airport terminal buildings and equipment. She expressed her concern that as the aviation system becomes more efficient, airports will not be able to keep up with the demand for more gate space and other infrastructure because the P assenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program is not adequate to support future projects.

Mr

. Pelton asked for clarification on whether Ms

. Bowens was concerned that as en route capacity grows, adequate facilities at airport s will not be available to support it

. She confirmed this was one of her concerns. Mr

. Pelton asked Ms

. Bowens for further clarification on airport funding. She explained the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, Airport Improvement Program (AIP), and PFC Program . She cited examples of funding sho rtfalls for airport programs, and expressed her belief that PFC Program funding cannot possibly fund all airport projects in the future. She described other sources of airport revenue, such as parking and other businesses located on airports. Mr

. Pelton asked if PFC funds could be used in places other than facilities. Ms

. Bowens replied that PFC funds are typically used for facilities projects , but could be used for other appropriate projects, such as noise mitigation. Ms

. Bowens further discuss ed airpo rt funding issues and stated new funding sources were needed, but also noted air carriers are sensitive to additional burdens.

Mr

. Kolshak noted that a document submitted by Mr

. Christopher Williams , The Williams Capital Group, L.P., included discussion of PFC funding and of the relationship between PFC and AIP funding. He suggested airports receiving more PFC funding could receive less AIP funding. Ms

. Bowens responded this may work for large airports, but likely would not for smaller airports
, because t hey generate less PFC funding. She added that such a relationship could leave moreFuture of Aviation A dvisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Aircraft Company Wichita, Kansas

6 AIP funding available for smaller airports, because they don’t generate as much funding through PFC. Mr

. Van Ost r an remarked that there is an incentive for medium and larg e airports to shift to PFC funding ; Ms

. Bowens agreed. Both agreed that the funding should be used for airfield projects, because the users (passengers) are paying for them. Mr

. Kolshak cautioned that air carriers may not be in favor of raising PFC fees for passengers and

- other costs passed to passengers , while agreeing there are projects more appropriately funded through PFC. They further discussed the use of PFC funding and the amount of fees and taxes paid by the air carriers during a period of heav y financial losses.

Mr

. Borenstein reminded the subcommittee to stay focused on the future, as opposed to past losses. He stated there is a need to identify appropriate investments in facilities, infrastructure, aircraft, and airports
, and then discuss me thods of funding , generation of revenue by air carriers
, and future methods of funding

. Mr

. Pelton noted there is an obvious need for the modernization of infrastructure, as some portions are extremely old. He posed the question of how to fund the operat ing costs of the system. Mr

. McKenzie responded that air carrier pricing is tied to capacity, and they do not have the pricing power to simply raise fares. He expressed belief that the solution is to reduce capacity, because pricing is a derivative of ca pacity. He noted the industry is very competitive, and such an action would likely not happen unless all air carriers followed suit. Mr

. Borenstein agreed on the reduction in capacity, and remarked that the FAAC may have to realize that the present level of air carrier access and capacity may not be sustainable
, and negative side effects of fewer routes and air carrier jobs would have to be tolerated.

Mr

. Pelton questioned how forced capacity cuts would be possible in an unregulated environment, because a reduction in capacity by one air carrier can be offset by another air carrier adding capacity. Mr

. McKenzie raised the subject of the smaller number of startup air carriers and revised policies by the DOT. He agreed that capacity cuts are difficult, and added that labor agreements at some air carriers may prevent them. Mr

. Kolshak suggested there may be fewer startup air carriers because of a lack of available capital, rather than revised policies. Mr. McKenzie, Mr. Kolshak, and Mr. Borenstein further discussed recent startup air carriers, and the DOT policies affecting them. They also noted this issue may overlap with the work of the Subcommittee on Competitiveness and Viability.

Mr

. Borenstein noted a sense of agreement among the subcommittee that in vestment was needed for

non

- aircraft components of the aviation system, as well as in equipment for aircraft. He stated a projected 10

- year outcome may be seen as beneficial, but questioned how it is reached when there is no funding at present. He noted the need for funding, but also expressed reservation about using the Congressional general fund. Mr

. Van Ostran noted there is disagreement in the industry over the use of PFC funding, because air carriers want to see a transition from PFC

- funded projects , yet the results may not be obvious. He stated agreement is possible between airports and air carriers on PFC

- funded projects, but he was unsure of a path to consensus. Ms

. Bowens added that air carriers do have the ability to comment on PFC

- funded proj ects at airports, and often do. She acknowledged airports attempt to work with air carriers when contemplating PFC

- funded projects and they can participate in the process. She added that the FAA occasionally asks that an airport project be removed from

c onsideration for PFC funding.Future of Aviation A dvisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Aircraft Company Wichita, Kansas

7 Mr

. Kolshak sought confirmation that several subcommittee members had reached a common theme
, citing the need for a comprehensive long

- term funding plan for airports, in addition to airspace and other infrastructure needs. He questioned whether these needs had been balanced comprehensively. Mr

. McKenzie noted a recently proposed funding mechanism of a $25 flat fee that would have generated approximately $500 million of revenue was not approved by Congress. Mr

. Borenstein ask ed if the fee was per passenger, or per aircraft. Mr. Pelton confirmed the fee to be per aircraft, and added that an increased tax on jet fuel was proposed in its place
, which would cover funding for NextGen. Mr

. McKenzie maintained that a user fee is a sensible funding mec hanism that could be considered. Mr

. Pelton noted potential difficulties of collection from private operators and the responsibilities for doing so. He added that there are long

- term plans for the U.S. aviation system, including the O perational Evolution Plan, which apparently has superseded the NextGen plan. Mr

. Pelton questioned who had responsibility for the Operational Evolution P lan, and was given a point of contact. He suggested a briefing to the subcommittee would be helpful. Mr

. Pelton added that the subcommittee should consider the RTCA Task Force 5 report as a reference on NextGen, in addition to the Operational Evolution Plan.

Mr

. Pelton shifted the discussion to incentives for aircraft operators, and whether there has bee n research or discussion in the subcommittee members’ respective communities on this subject. He added there had not been much discussion in the business aviation sector, and again cited RVSM as an enhancement to the aviation system with clearly defined b enefits. Mr

. Kolshak asserted it was difficult to visualize long

- term benefits, and that clearly defined benefits or direct funding would be needed to get consensus among operators. Mr

. Pelton agreed that clear benefits would be needed to incentivize ope rators to equip ahead of a 2020 deadline, and he theorized many would elect not to equip until the deadline without incentives. He also asked for clarification of the phrase “best equipped, best served” used by RTCA. Mr. Hennigan attempted to provide som e insight, and added that aircraft equipment needs go further than just ADS

– B, citing required navigation performance (RNP) as another need. Mr

. Kolshak agreed and stated
, as an example
, that if RNP were implemented at the 35 largest airports and could ke ep the U.S. aviation system at 80 percent capacity during inclement weather, air carriers would likely be purchasing equipment and training flight crews in the near term. Mr

. Hennigan acknowledged the points made. Mr

. Borenstein suggested varying fees fo r aircraft operators, based on the level of equipment installed on their aircraft, especially for aircraft that do not meet a set standard for a certain airport. Discussion followed on the logistics of collecting such fees, the potential impacts on the ge neral aviation sector, and whether it made sense to discourage some aircraft operators from using certain airports unless they were equipped to an appropriate level. Several subcommittee members advocated for congestion based pricing or other policy chang es from the DOT at capacity

- constrained airports.

Mr

. Hennigan asked for the subcommittee’s thoughts on whether congestion

- based pricing was an issue for this subcommittee or the Competitiveness and Viability Subcommittee, while acknowledging that the FAAC was aware of overlap between several subjects. Mr

. Pelton replied that he doesn’t believe airport s causing delays (direct and indirect) to 30 percent of the U.S. a viation s ystem would be a competitive ness issue. He added that landing fees could be adjus ted for aircraft operators that equip early as a clearly defined benefit.Future of Aviation A dvisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Aircraft Company Wichita, Kansas

8 Mr

. McKenzie raised the issue of FAA approval of new equipment and procedures. He cited an example wherein RNP approach procedures have been designed and flightcrews have been train ed for their use, yet the application t oo k a year to be approved (NOTE: it was unclear if this was a gener al or specific situation ). He asked whether this work could be outsourced to expedite the approval process. Several subcommittee members expressed f rustration with the length of the approval process in general and cited various examples of inefficiencies. Mr

. Hennigan observed while there is a focus on area navigation (RNAV) and RNP procedures, the aviation industry is seeking new approach procedures , as opposed to RNAV overlays of existing procedures. He stated there is much more work taking place to approve equipment and procedures than is apparent . Mr

. Pelton suggested a briefing by an expert in this area may be helpful to the subcommittee’s work

. He also questioned whether the delay in passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act is affecting the availability of personnel for the approval process. Mr

. Hennigan stated he did not believe this was a factor.

Mr

. Pelton recapped an issue area the subcommi ttee had identified : incentives for early equipage by aircraft operators and the need for clearly defined benefits for doing so. He again expressed a need to know of strategic plans and implementation timeline s for NextGen. Several subcommittee members agreed that clear realization of benefits from investments made by aircraft operators is a critical issue.
The subcommittee revisited funding issues, discussing the PFC Program and possible changes to the program in the pending FAA Reauthorization Act. Mr

. Pelton raised the issue of F ederal versus local funding of aviation projects, and asked for thoughts from the airport community. Mr

. Van Ostran stated that airports are facing increased costs without a corresponding increase in revenues , mainly because of the unchanged level of PFC funding and tax revenues that have not kep t pace with increased costs

. Mr

. Borenstein raised the concept of congestion pricing for PFC, and asked if it had been considered by the industry. Ms

. Bowens was not aware of any suc h consideration. She raised the issue of unfunded mandates on airports from the F ederal government. Mr

. Van Ostran agreed, but noted all sectors of the industry are seeing them. Mr

. Kolshak cited the recently implemented Enhancing Airline Passenger Prot ections rule as an example, which subjects air carriers to large fines for extended flight delays without considering the costs of flights returning to the gate, canceling flights, and the airport personnel needed to handle returning flights.

Mr

. Pelton no ted the subcommittee had made good progress on incentives for air traffic system benefits, but airport funding and infrastructure needs still seemed unclear. Mr

. Van Ostran noted that airports can charge a number of fees, but they must remain sensitive to what passengers will tolerate. Mr

. Pelton asked Ms

. Bowens if California’s economic difficulties have had an impact on airport funding. She stated that as a large airport, San Diego International Airport receives no S tate funding, but rather AIP and loc al fees. She emphasized that in the future, modifications to the PFC Program and the Aviation Trust Fund would need to be explored, as well as privatization of airports, and how that could help them become self

- sustaining from a financial standpoint. Mr

. Pelton inquired if foreign airports were already privatizing. Ms

. Bowens affirmed they were, though it was a different comparison. She stated that Chicago Midway International Airport was close to privatizing, and that it will provide an interesting mod el for how this will work in the United States. At Mr. Pelton’s request for further information, s he agreed to provide a white paper on the topic.Future of Aviation A dvisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Aircraft Company Wichita, Kansas

9 Mr

. Pelton summarized key topics covered during the meeting to ensure they were captured for consideration b y the subcommittee and included in planning for the next subcommittee meeting. He listed the following topics:
For the next subcommittee meeting, he stated there was a need for the members to review background materials on long

- term plans for the U.S. avi ation system and to arrange for briefings to the subcommittee by subject matter experts on pertinent topics, including the following:

o L ong

- term planning for NextGen and expected performance benefits to incentivize early equipage by aircraft operators ;

o Effe cts on funding issues for NextGen (that is, if benefits are clear, operators may voluntarily equip
, reducing the need for government funding) ;

o Potential airport/terminal environment congestion issues if en route capacity is expanded ; and

o Funding for airpor t projects.
Other issues raised by subcommittee members included the following :

o Cost

- benefit analysis of first implementing NextGen in the nation’s most congested airports/ airspace ;

o Cost

- benefit analysis of elements of NextGen ;

o Funding mechanisms for the g overnment to develop and implement NextGen, for users to equip their aircraft, and to explore the government’s ability to accelerate implementation if clear benefits to users for early equipage are identified ;

o Consideration of user fees for aircraft operat ors to fund airport projects, if clear benefits can be shown (that is, use of the fees is directly evident to aircraft operators through airport and capacity improvements) ; and

o Numerous comments/question s about funding plans for NextGen, and the benefits i t provides to aircraft operators.
The subcommittee then had a brief discussion on FAA funding issues, including the process of annual reauthorization by Congress, and how the agency’s funding issues could potentially be better handled through other process es. Several members noted a need for a steady funding stream for NextGen, because under annual reauthorization, funding of projects may vary on a yearly basis. They also noted the need to make a solid business case for NextGen funding by demonstrating be nefits for the good of the public, including fewer air traffic delays, positive environmental impacts, and creation of jobs.Futur e o f Aviatio n Advisor y Committe e Subcommitte e o n Financin g Recor d o f Meetin g June 29, 2010 Cessn a Aircraf

t Compan y Wichita
, Kansa s

Becaus e Mr

. Kolsha k

departe d fro m th e meetin g shortl y beforehand
, a membe r o f th e public
, Mr

. Chri s Brown
, Unite d Airlines
, mad e a final statemen t o n behal f o f th e company , reiteratin g tha t ai r carrier s ar e seekin g direc t financia l incentive s t o equi p thei r aircraf t fo r NextGen

. H e state d tha t a n overal l pla n fo r

NextGe n shoul d includ e fundin g an d improvement s fo r airports

. H e adde d tha t

ther e doe s no t see m t o b e a holisti c approac h a t present , an d ther e appear s t o b e littl e collaboratio n betwee n governmen t

agencie s an d th e syste m users

. H e als o note d burdensom e taxatio n o f ai r carrier s an d passengers , citin g a figur e o f $6 1 o f taxe s an d fee s o n a

n averag e ai r

carrie r ticke t costin g $300

. H e ende d hi s remark s b y statin g th e nee d fo r a clea r pictur e o f

th e benefit s o f

NextGe n t o th e ai r

carrie r industr y an d passengers

.

CLOSIN G REMARKS/NEX T MEETIN G

Mr

. Pelto n close d th e discussio n an d thanke d th e subcommitte e member s fo r thei r participation

. H e reminde d th e subcommitte e tha t th e nex t FAA C meetin g woul d occu r i n Atlanta
, Georgia
, Jul y 14
, 2010

. Mr

. Henniga n gav e a brie f statemen t

abou t th e locatio n o f

th e meetin g an d procedure s fo r publi c attendance
, notin g tha t registratio n procedure s wer e availabl e o n th e FAA C We b sit e a t http://www.dot.gov/faac/

. Ms

. Bowen s aske d abou t accessin g th e SharePoin t sit e create d fo r

th e FAAC
, an d whethe r

minute s fro m today' s meetin g woul d b e poste d there

. Mr

. Henniga n state d tha t th e subcommitte e meetin g minute s woul d b e poste d o n th e SharePoin t sit e an d provide d a brie f

explanatio n
o f wher e informatio n o n accessin g th e SharePoin t sit e coul d b e found

. Th e subcommitte e discussio n the n concluded

.

ADJOURNMEN T

Mr

. Pelto n solicite d a motio n fo r adjournment

. O n motion
, dul y seconde d an d approve d b y th e majorit y o f

th e subcommitte e member s present , th e meetin g wa s adjourned

.
Th e meetin g adjourne d a t 3:3 8 p.m

.
I hereb y certif

y that
, t o th e bes t

o f m y knowledge
, th e foregoin g minute s ar e accurat e an d complete

.
Approve d by : Joh n Hennigan
, Designate d Federa l Officia l

Dated : //ffaff /l^oSO

1 0