U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–654 PDF 2017

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR 

AMERICA: STATE OF AMERICAN AIRPORTS 

(115–3) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 1, 2017 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, Vice 

Ranking Member 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan, Vice Chair 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DINA TITUS, NEVADA 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

WITNESSES 

Sean Donohue, Chief Executive Officer, Dallas Fort Worth International Airport: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Mark Meadows of North Carolina .................................................. 47 

Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington ............................................................. 48 

Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois ................................................................ 50 

Lance Lyttle, Managing Director, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Mark Meadows of North Carolina .................................................. 66 

Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington ............................................................. 67 

Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois ................................................................ 69 

Christina Cassotis, Chief Executive Officer, Allegheny County Airport Authority: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Mark Meadows of North Carolina .................................................. 79 

Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois ................................................................ 82 

Lew Bleiweis, Executive Director, Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 85 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Mark Meadows of North Carolina .................................................. 88 

Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois ................................................................ 90 

Todd McNamee, A.A.E., C.A.E., Director of Airports, County of Ventura Department of Airports: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois ..................................... 99 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri ................................................................................. 41 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, request to submit the following letters in support of H.R. 1265, 

‘‘Investing in America: Rebuilding America’s Airport Infrastructure Act’’: 

Letter dated March 1, 2017, from the American Association of Airport 

Executives ...................................................................................................... 101 

Letter dated March 1, 2017, from the U.S. Travel Association .................... 103 

Letter dated March 1, 2017, from Airports Council International ............... 105 

Page

VI 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Memorandum dated March 8, 2017, from Richard Garcia, Mayor of Edinburg, 

Texas, and President, Board of Edinburg Economic Development Corporation, et al., to Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure .......................... 106 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 24654.001

JthU $-lmstn 

<Chatrtthlll 

\hlthM~ \f.l,ht!'ltt'' 

Stc~trlli!"~:,H 

February 24. 2017 

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER 

TO: 

FROM: 

Members. Subcommittee on Aviation 

Stan: Subcommittee on Aviation 

lJrtn 'd. Dr-jfmto 

!\mtliing: iHttnbrr 

Katherinr \\. lh:drifk 

!kmn~rJhc S1:.:~l1' Dmxtor 

RE: Subcommittee Hearing on "Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: 

State of American 

PURPOSE 

The Subcommittee on Aviation will hold a series of hearings to receive testimony from 

representatives of difTerent segments of civil aviation in order to help prepare for the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill. This memo will serve as the Summary of 

Subject Matter ft)r these hearings. 

The Subcommittee will meet for the second hearing on Wednesday, March l, 2017, at 

11:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building. The Subcommittee will hear about the 

current state of commercial service and general aviation airports across the Nation and discuss 

the challenges and opportunities associated with building a globally competitive 21st Century 

aviation infrastructure. The Subcommittee will receive testimony from representatives of 

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Pittsburgh 

International Airport. Ashville Regional Airport, and the Ventura County Department of 

Airports. 

BACKGROUND 

Federal Aviation Administration 

The primary mission ofthe FAA is ensuring aviation safety. The FAA has the 

responsibility to certify, monitor. and regulate the safety and operation of the civil aviation 

sector. including airlines. general aviation, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), airports, 

commercial space transportation. repair stations. and aircraft manufacturers. as well as to 

establish licensing and training requirements ti)r pilots and other aviation-related professionals. 

One of the most visible functions of the FAA is the operation of the air traffic control system. 

The FAA provides air traffic control services in the continental United States airspace and also 

vast areas of international airspace over the GulfofMe:xico. Atlantic Ocean. and Pacific Ocean. 
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 24654.002

On February 14, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Federal Aviation 

Administration Modernization and Refimn Act of2012 (FMRA) (P.L 112-95). This law includes 

significant changes to FAA programs and policies. It also provided nearly $16 billion annually 

from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015 for FAA programs, projects, and operations.1 

On July 15, 2016, President Obama signed into law the FAA Extension, Safety, and 

Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-190). This law extends expiring authorities and taxes included in 

the FMRA through September 30, 2017. It also authorizes certain critical, time-sensitive safety 

reforms. 

Civil Aviation 

The United States civil aviation industry is a major economic driver, contributing roughly 

$1.6 trillion in total economic activity and supporting roughly II million jobs.2 Our civil aviation 

system accounts for more than five percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product.3 Air 

transportation accounts for a significant part by safely and efficiently moving passengers and 

cargo around the United States and connecting our country to the rest of the world. 

This industry supports a diverse and essential aviation system comprised of commercial 

aviation. general aviation, unmanned aircraft, airports, commercial space transportation. and 

other users. Commercial and general aviation help transport millions of passengers and move 

billions in revenue ton-miles of freight safely and securely all across the country. Impacts are 

also seen state-by-state, where airports and air operators help connect large and small 

communities, create jobs, and increase economic output.4 

Manufacturing 

Aviation manufacturing is the "seventh leading contributor to national productivity 

growth."5 The United States is the home of several major aviation manufacturers. including one 

of the two major global manufacturers of wide-body aircraft, and a number of the world's major 

general aviation manufacturers for business jets6 While the Nation experienced a severe 

economic downturn in 2007, civil aviation manufacturing has recovered and has increased its 

production over the past several years. In 2014, civil aircratl manufacturing's total output was 

roughly $147.7 billion. an increase from 20 l2's total output of$122.7 billion. Further. in 2014, 

1 The FAA" s authoritie~ and taxes authorized in FMRA were extended through March 3 L 20!6 in P.L I 14-55. and 

again rhroogh .lui) 15.2016 in P.L. 114-141. 

::Federal i\\·iation Administration. ''The Economk !mract ofCiYil /\\dation on the li.S. Ec(l!10m: _'"November 

2016. Pg. 3. 3 Federal Aviation Administration. ·"The Econornic Impact ofCi,il Aviation on the U.S. Economy:· :--.h)\:~mhtT 

2016. Pg. 3. ltLl0_:~-~l~~---:.EP-~()\ ;!lUh\.!J}~_J2Llblift.llt~. Ji,~Jn;;_\lt,t_J_!J(l_::::~<i2.lW.UD~l!Dl _~!~t:r£ib_SlJ_'i~~c:Jt 

-1 Federal Aviation ,\Jministration. ··Ucneral A\iation Airports Rcpo11s." 

Federal Aviation Administration. "The Economic Impact orCi\·il Aviation on the U.S. Econom)." No\'cmbcr 

20 16. Pg. 3. '''"''-"-.cc_=-'-"'"""'=-""---"-'='-"='"'-"="'~-".''' '.'.<..:'0l'.:.:.-,:<,&110'Llh:il!.!.lli!;J..:.i:ffi.\'.'l_.U"--:_1Lll<Jl 

(,United States [nt~rnati .. )m\1 Trade Jt~t Aircr~ttt lndustr): Structur~ and Factor~ ,\fTccting 

r~l~12J.!t.:.:.:;~ck:-t·\l' 2t)l '),'crtl:'i311kh.2.hllll 
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 24654.003

general aviation mannfacturing's total output was over $29 billion, which was roughly a nine 

billion dollar increase from 2012.7 

While American aviation manufacturing has continued to grow, the industry has also 

faced a number of global and domestic challenges. In the United States, the FAA is responsible 

for developing certification standards to ensure the safety of design and production of aircraft, 

aircraft components, and other avionics. To meet this responsibility, the FAA has a system of 

processes and compliance reviews that certify the design and production of aircraft and aircraft 

components to specific safety standards. However, these processes can otten be lengthy and 

costly for aviation manufacturers.8 FMRA directed the FAA to find ways to improve and 

streamline certification processes, reduce delays, and harmonize regulatory standards both 

domestically and internationally.9 As a result of this mandate, working groups consisting of 

industry, FAA, and labor representatives made a number of recommendations to streamline 

aircraft certifications and address inconsistent regulatory interpretations across the Agency. 

The United States has over 19,400 airports providing important services to our aviation 

system, and in many communities, they are key economic drivers. The current National Plan of 

Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) identifies 3,332 commercial service and general aviation 

airports that are significant to national air transportation and thus eligible to receive federal 

grants under the Airport Improvement Program (AlP). It also includes estimates of the amount of 

funding needed to complete infrastructure development projects bringing these airports up to 

current design standards and adding capacity at congested airports. 10 The current NPIAS 

estimates there are $32.5 billion in A IP-eligible projects between 2017 and 2021. 

There are 382 airports in the NPIAS classified as primary airports because they support 

scheduled commercial air service at a certain volume, and 2,950 non-primary airports supporting 

low-level commercial service and general aviation opcrations. 11 

Airport Revenue 

To linance daily operations, airports generate and rely on both aeronautical and nonaeronautical revenue. The primary sources of aeronautical (or airsidc) revenue are various fees 

paid by airlines and other airport users for the lease of terminal space, landing fees. and use of 

other airport facilities, such as jet bridges. Non-aeronautical (or landside) revenue sources 

include airport terminal concessions, parking, rental car operations, and rental fees. 

Airport Capital 

7 Federal Aviation Administration. ··The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Ei.':onomy." November 

2016. p. 28. 8 14 C.F.R Parts 21. 23. and 25 . 

. , Sections 312 and 313 of the 1':·1.4 .\/odemioalion and Refimn Act of 20/2. (1'.1.. I 12-95.) 

I(J Federal Aviation Administration. "National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)'' 

3 
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 24654.004

To finance capital needs, airports use a combination of federal grants, federallyauthorized local airport charges, state and local grants, and airport revenues. 12 The primary 

Federal grant program funding for airport development and planning is the AlP. AlP funds are 

primarily used for improvements related to enhancing airport safety, capacity, security, and 

environmental concerns. Airport sponsors can also use AlP tlmds, in most cases, on airfield 

capital improvements or repairs and, in some specific situations, for terminals and hangars. The 

AlP is currently authorized at $3.35 billion. 

Because the AlP does not cover all airport capital needs, Congress has authorized airports 

to collect a fee on passengers called the passenger facility charge (PFC). A PFC is approved by 

the federal government, collected by the airlines, and paid directly to the airport without going 

through the federal Treasury. The PFC is intended to supplement, not replace, AlP funds. 

Airports can use PFCs to build critical infrastructure projects at their facilities. However, unlike 

AlP funds, airports can use PFC revenue for gates, airline ticket areas, and debt service on bonds 

that airports issue to finance airport infrastructure projects. In 2016, the FAA estimated that 

airports collected approximately $3.1 billion from PFCs. 

Civil Aviation Operators 

Airlines and Charters 

The air transportation industry includes major airlines, regional airlines, all-cargo 

airlines, and charter operators that serve the widely varying needs of American consumers and 

businesses. 

In 2015, approximately 2 million passengers flew on domestic and international flights 

operated by U.S. airlines each day.U Foreign carriers serving the United States carried additional 

passengers to and from the United States. The transportation of air freight is also substantial: in 

2014, over 64 billion ton-miles of freight passed through U.S. airports. 14 Charter operators are a 

diverse group of approximately 2,000 companies operating over I 0,000 aircraft of various sizes 

and types serving the largest cities and also rural communities lacking scheduled service. 15 In 

addition to direct economic impacts, air transportation enables substantial economic activity 

outside of the transportation sector. 

In recent years, the U.S. airline industry has shown sustained profitability. However, this 

stability comes after decades of financial volatility that resulted in mergers and acquisitions. the 

disappearance of some airlines. and the emergence of others. Major U.S. passenger airlines often 

partner with other airlines to complement their services. Domestically, they partner with regional 

airlines operating smaller aircraft to !1y routes or during times-of-day that cannot be 

I? Tang. Rachel Y., Kirk. RobertS .. ··financing 1\irports Improvements''. Congressional Research Service. 

December 4. 2013. 

,., Bureau of Transportation Statistics. '"20 15 U.S.-Bascd Airline Tranic Data:· 

1\UJTIJn!Straucm. "The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Fconomv.'" Pg. 4. 

http:-.: '\\ \\\\ .hutgov/Jir tratTit>puh!ic atiP!h !ll(di~t''10 16-Lconomic-imp<..Kt-1\.:pprt JT\J:\1 ,.pdf 

" Study of Operators Regulated Under Part 135. April 2016. Available at: 

llt~·na ta.acw'data/lilesic icv~J>~0_1_1Q.Lmlf (p. ES-2 i 

4 
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 24654.005

economically served with other. larger aircraft. Internationally, they also form alliances with 

foreign airlines to mutually expand their reach of their global networks. U.S. all-cargo airlines 

are part oflarger integrated logistics companies that operate hubs around the U.S. and the globe. 

The FAA conducts comprehensive safety oversight of the airline industry. In 1978, the 

Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA) eliminated most economic regulation of the industry in 

favor of allowing market forces to detennine domestic airfares, routes, and levels of service. The 

legislation included the Essential Air Service program to protect air service in smaller 

communities. Since enactment of the ADA, airfares have fallen dramatically in real terms. 16 In 

1992, the United States entered into its first "Open Skies" agreement which eliminated most 

governmental limits on international services. Since that time, the United States has entered 

Open Skies agreements with 100 countries around the world. 17 

General Aviation 

The general aviation segment consists of flight activity for personal and business use. 

This activity includes recreational aviation, flight training, and other private uses. Aircraft used 

in general aviation range from helicopters and piston-engine aircraft to large transport aircraft 

capable of intercontinental flight. 

According to the FAA, ·• .. .the long tenn outlook for general aviation is favorable, led by 

gains in turbine aircraft activity. While steady growth in both GDP and corporate profits results 

in continued growth of the turbine and rotoreraft fleets, the largest segment of the fleet-fixed 

wing piston aircraft-continues to shrink over the forecast." 18 In addition, FAA forecasts that 

" ... the number of active general aviation pilots (excluding ATPs) is projected to decrease about 

5,000 (down 0.1 percent yearly) ... " between 2016- 2036. 19 

New Aviation Technologies and New Operators 

Air Trat]ic Control Modernization or "NextGen" 

In order to meet anticipated growth in air traffic, Congress directed FAA to undertake a 

series of initiatives to revamp the Nation's Air Traffic Control System known as "NextGen". The 

goal of NextGen is to transition from ground-based navigation and surveillance systems to a 

satellite-based system in order to increase the efficiency, capacity, and flexibility of our airspace. 

Speciflcally, NextGen initiatives should reduce the required separation between aircraft, result in 

more elficicnt routes, and decrease congestion. Together, these initiatives should provide a better 

experience for the travelling public. 20 NextGen consists of specific programs to realize these 

beneiits, including Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), System-Wide 

16 Thompson. Derek ... How Airline Ticket Prices Fell 50% in 30 Years (and Why Nobody Noticed).'' The Atlantic. 

Feb. 23. 2013. b.lli.):/1\\ \\\\ J11~.:at! untic.cotl]_husirr~~ii!!:.f.hh c/20 I J!02/Iww-airlirh:-tkl-.ct-pricr..:s-l~_!l-50-in-30-\ carsU.S. Dcpartm~nt ofStatt:. ·'Open Skies Agreements." https://\\ '~~5tJk.''()\ ··c eb·tm'u.t~t. 

18 FAA Aerospace Forccasl. 2016-2036. p. 2. 1') !d at 25. 

:w GAO ·':'Vex! Generation Air Transportation ~~rstem: !njhrmation on Evpenditures. S'chedu !e. ami Cost Estimates. 

Fiswl Years 2004-2030, ·· NO\·ember 17.2016. p. I. 

5 
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 24654.006

Information Management (SWIM), and Data Communications (Data Comm). The goal at the 

inception ofNextGen was to achieve transformation of our National Airspace System (NAS) by 

2025.21 

According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, FAA has spent 

approximately $7.4 billion on programs identified as NextGen.22 In order to ensure timely 

completion, FMRA established a ChiefNextGen Officer within the FAA to oversee the 

implementation and management ofNextGen and created NextGen metrics. However, the 

NextGen programs have been consistently fraught with delays and cost-overruns. According to a 

November 2016 GAO report, six NextGen activities with completion dates in 2025 have been 

delayed to 2030.23 According to Inspector General of the Department of Transportation (DOT 

IG) Calvin Scovel during the February 5, 2014 hearing entitled "Ihe FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of2012: Two Years Later", the total expenditures ofNextGen look to be two to three 

times greater than the initial $40 billion estimate.24 

Remote Air Traffic Control Towers 

Technology could enable some airports to provide air traffic services remotely. Remote 

air traffic control towers include cameras, microphones, meteorological sensors, and other 

monitoring equipment installed at the airport. Controllers are located at facilities that receive 

real-time data and video from these sensors and equipment. A controller at the remote location 

operates traffic at the airport the same way he or she would in a normal tower. This technology 

was tested at Leesburg Airport in Virginia in 2015. This technology could provide air traftic 

services to airports located in rural and remote areas, thereby greatly improving safety and 

increasing access to the NAS. 

Unmanned Aircrafi Svstems 

UAS, or drones, are an important innovation in aviation technology. There is significant 

demand for UAS in the United States. From 2005-2014, the number of countries using UAS for 

commercial and military purposes nearly doubled.25 Since the early 1990s, UAS have operated in 

the national airspace mostly in support of governmental functions, such as military and border 

security operations.26 In recent years, the private sector has developed a sweeping range of uses 

for UAS including aerial photography, surveying, agriculture, communications, environmental 

monitoring, and infrastructure inspectionP Certain companies have announced plans for small 

package delivery using UAS. 

21 !d. at] 

/d. at 2 

''/d. at 2 04 GAO "lhe I'>IA Modernioation and Reform Act of20/ 2.' T1m rears Later" Hearing before the Subcommittee on 

Aviation llearing Transcript. February 5. 2014. p. 22. 

"GAO "Key Issues: rDrones)," February I, 2016 

Federal Aviation Administration. "Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National 

Airspace System (NAS) Roadmap" http:-.; \\\\ \\.l~I<U!.O\ :u;;~:-.rnh.xlia/tlt\S RoaJmap '>013.pdf(p. 4) 

!d. at6 

6 
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 24654.007

The emergence of UAS offers substantial opportunities and also raises important policy 

issues such airspace rules, privacy concerns, and aviation safety. Since 2014, the FAA has 

promulgated regulations authorizing use of small UAS on a routine basis, requiring registration 

of certain UAS, and has also authorized use of certain advanced technologies through waivers 

and other regulatory means. 

Commercial Space Transportation 

For decades, private industry, with the support ofNational Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) and the FAA, have worked to develop new and innovative methods to 

transport passengers and cargo safely and efficiently into space. Under the Commercial Space 

Launch Act of 1984 and subsequent amendments, the Secretary of Transportation has the 

responsibility and authority to facilitate, regulate, and promote the commercial space 

transportation industry. This responsibility has been assigned to the FAA's Ofiice of 

Commercial Space Transportation (AST). According to the FAA, the AST's mission "is to 

ensure protection of the public. property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of 

the United States during commercial launch or reentry activities, and to encourage, facilitate, and 

promote U.S. commercial space transportation." 

AST issues launch and reentry licenses for commercial space launches, permits for 

experimental launches, and launch site licenses for commercial spaceports. AST licensed II 

commercial launches, permitted four experimental launches, and supervised I 0 active spaceport 

licenses in 2016. As the pace and complexity of commercial space transportation operations 

continues to increase, AST's role in regulating and facilitating the industry will continue to 

evolve. 

Other issues. 

In addition to the issues discussed above, the hearings may also touch on the following 

subjects: 

• Safety Oversight: The U.S. commercial aviation system has an impressive safety record, 

but accidents, including the crash of Colgan Flight 3407. the disappearance of Indonesia 

Air Asia Flight 850 l and the intentional crashing of Germanwings Flight 9525. arc stark 

reminders to be ever vigilant. Aviation safety is reliant on excellent training, the sharing 

of safety critical data and information, and strong oversight. 

• Essential Air Service (EAS) program: The EAS program was created in 1978 to ensure 

continuity of air service to small communities following enactment of the ADA. The 

program provides subsidies to airlines to provide service to small communities where 

there are not enough passengers to operate profitably. Recent Congresses have enacted 

reforms limiting program participation and subsidy levels. 

• FAA Contract Tower Program: Federal contractors provide air traffic control services at 

visual flight rule airports. FAA oversees the safe operation of these towers. As of 

February 2016, there arc 252 contract towers in the NAS. 

7 
xiv 


Insert offset folio 8 here 24654.008

• Cybersecurity: As aviation has evolved and newer technologies have been adopted and 

integrated cybersecurity concerns have arisen. In July 2016, the President signed into law 

the FAA Extension, Safozy and Security Act of 2016 that directed the FAA to implement a 

strategic framework for cybersecurity. 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Sean Donohue 

Chief Executive Officer 

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport 

Mr. Lance Lyttle 

Managing Director, Aviation Division 

Port of Seattle 

Ms. Christina Cassotis 

Chief Executive Officer 

Allegheny County Airport Authority 

Mr. Lew Bleiweis 

Executive Director 

Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority 

Mr. Todd McNamee 

Director of Airports 

County of Ventura, California 
(1) 

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: STATE OF AMERICAN 

AIRPORTS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 a.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to 

order. I would like to thank you all for being here today. Today the 

Aviation Subcommittee is holding the second of its hearings in the 

115th Congress in preparation for FAA reauthorization. 

As all of you know, the focus of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee this year is building a 21st-century infrastructure for America. Today we will be looking at the current state of 

our Nation’s airports and their role in the 21st-century transportation network. 

Airports are the most visible piece of physical infrastructure in 

the air transportation system, and the place where all flights begin 

and end. More than 800 million passengers pass through our Nation’s 509 commercial service airports on U.S. air carriers each 

year, a figure that is projected to grow to 1 billion within 10 years. 

Our Nation is home to 3 of the 10 busiest airports in terms of 

passengers, and 8 of the 10 busiest airports ranked by the number 

of aircraft operations. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport tops both categories, earning the title of the world’s busiest 

airport by any measure. 

Our Nation’s airport infrastructure is not limited to just passenger service airports. 

It also includes small general aviation airports that are located 

in every congressional district; I have five in my own district. 

These airports may be small, but they play a vital role in connecting remote communities, providing emergency services, fostering small business development, and teaching a new generation 

how to fly. No other country supports its airport infrastructure to 

the degree and scope that we do here, in the United States of 

America. 

In partnership with States and municipalities, the Federal Government supports airport infrastructure development in a number 

of ways, including airport improvement program grants, passenger 

2 

facility charges, and favorable tax treatment of airport bonds. Increasingly, however, there is a perception that American airports 

are falling behind their global competitors. 

In a 2016 ranking by the Skytrax World Airport Awards, the best 

performing American airport was Denver International, but only in 

28th place. According to a 2015 FAA analysis, nine of the country’s 

largest airports will be capacity constrained by 2030, even if all 

planned improvements are implemented. At the other end of the 

spectrum, available flights to smaller cities and rural communities 

are declining, decreasing connectivity and leaving airports with 

huge maintenance costs for oversized facilities. 

Not only must Congress be mindful that our Nation’s airports 

need to plan for and be capable of handling future passenger 

growth, but we must remember the needs of smaller communities 

and those impacted by declining air services. 

Our panel today represents a broad range of airports in terms of 

both size and geography. Each airport is also from a State or district represented by the Aviation Subcommittee, and each witness 

brings a unique perspective to the state of America’s airports. I 

look forward to their testimony on how Congress can help facilitate 

the building of a 21st-century aviation infrastructure. 

Before recognizing Mr. Larsen for his remarks, I ask unanimous 

consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such 

time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that 

may be submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that 

the record remain open for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the 

record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Now I would like to yield to Mr. Larsen. 

Rick, it is all yours. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for calling today’s 

hearing on the state of U.S. airports. As we confront the FAA reauthorization this year, this hearing provides an opportunity for us 

to better understand how Congress can help airports satisfy their 

growing capital needs and keep pace with progress abroad. 

First and foremost, I want to welcome a fellow Washingtonian as 

part of today’s panel of witnesses. Mr. Lance Lyttle is managing director of Sea-Tac, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, which 

many of my constituents, as well as tens of millions of others each 

year, rely on for air travel. I look forward to hearing from him 

today, in particular about the needs and challenges Sea-Tac faces 

as it undergoes its own long-term capital improvement plan to 

modernize facilities to alleviate congestion, which I know is a serious issue at Sea-Tac, as well as to improve the customer experience. 

Each year, nearly 800 million passengers board aircraft in the 

United States, with approximately 70,000 commercial and GA [general aviation] flights taking off daily. FAA’s most recent forecast 

projects the number of commercial enplanements in the U.S. alone 

will reach more than 1 billion a year by 2036. So it should come 

as no surprise, then, that the U.S. is home to 4 of the world’s 10 

busiest airports, and, in total, the U.S. has over 19,000 airports, 

ranging from the world’s busiest to small general aviation airfields 

3 

across the country. And forecasts of increasing air travel may seem 

encouraging for the U.S. economy, but without adequate investment in airports, passengers will experience congestion, delays, and 

the U.S. will miss out on economic opportunities. 

The Nation’s top airports will continue reaching higher levels of 

congestion, unless airports add new capacity and manage overcrowding. For many years, Chairman LoBiondo and I have called 

for the modernization of the air transportation system. This includes encouraging immediate implementation of NextGen priorities: improved surface operations to reduce time spent taxiing between gate and runway, and improved flight routes and procedures 

are just two of the priorities, along with added capacity, that will 

be critical as air travel increases. 

But, as the airport manager in Arthur Hailey’s 1968 novel ‘‘Airport’’ remarked—a book I am sure we have all read—‘‘We have broken the sound barrier, but not the ground barrier.’’ That was true 

in 1968; it is true today. Congress has long recognized a Federal 

role with respect to investing in our aviation infrastructure, including the airport improvement program and authorizing passenger 

facility charges. 

Unfortunately, airport capital needs significantly exceed available funding through these two mechanisms. The FAA estimates 

that, over the next 5 years, airports will need $32.5 billion for AIPeligible [Airport Improvement Program] airport capital projects 

alone, amounting to about $6 billion per year. These numbers are 

even more startling when we add in the non-AIP-eligible projects. 

The leading airport association estimates the airports will need 

more than $100 billion over the next 5 years for all airport capital 

projects. The math says it is about $20 billion a year. Congress is falling short, providing $3.35 billion in AIP funding 

annually, and the current PFC [passenger facility charge] currently 

capped at $4.50 generates only about $3 billion per year. So, even 

with airports’ ability to raise revenues through PFCs, there is still 

a significant gap between available funding and the investment 

needed for critical safety and capacity projects. We need to make 

headway on these funding shortfalls in order to make U.S. airports 

more efficient and more competitive. 

So, what I expect to glean from today’s hearing is that this committee must encourage investment at airports, large and small, and 

keep airport funding in mind in the development of a long-term, 

comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill this year. I look forward to 

hearing from all of our witnesses, but especially the one from SeaTac, about the status of our airport infrastructure and ideas for 

continued investment now and into the future. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. All right. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. 

Chairman Shuster? 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member 

Larsen. Thanks for having this hearing today. Welcome to all of 

our witnesses. 

We talked about a lot of big airports, but nobody has mentioned 

the most important airport in the country, and that is the AltoonaBlair County Airport. 

[Laughter.] 

4 

Mr. SHUSTER. So for those of you that don’t know it, it is a great 

little airport. And I mention that because it is my favorite airport, 

number one. But, number two, it is a small, rural airport. So some 

of you may have heard I want to do some reforming of the FAA. 

I would call it transformation. But I want to make sure everybody 

knows that I am not going to forget about small airports and medium-sized airports, all the airports. They are important to the system, and are an important piece of infrastructure that we have got 

to pay attention to. 

Now, the second most important airport is here today, represented by Christina Cassotis. I have been practicing. Christina 

hasn’t been on the job long—2 years—but just—I guess it was— 

was it last month? Yes, last month Pittsburgh was named the Airport of the Year by the Air Transport World magazine. So it is a 

great airport—number two in my heart, but still in my heart. 

I appreciate the fact that we are holding these hearings because 

aviation is so vital to this country. And I, for one, believe the FAA 

needs to be reformed significantly, not only from the air traffic control system, but the certification process that is so important to 

manufacturing in this country. But having these hearings, bringing 

people from around the country together to talk about their piece 

of the infrastructure is incredibly important. 

I can’t be more pleased than coming off last night’s speech by the 

President. He talked about a lot of things that I agree with, but 

he talked about infrastructure. As I have mentioned before, it is 

the first President that I can look back into history that used the 

word ‘‘infrastructure’’ in his inaugural address. And, as you know, 

he flies around in an airplane. Now he has got a Government airplane, Government-issue, which I think might be a step down for 

him, but he uses the airspace, he knows about the airspace. And 

I have talked to him on a number of occasions about the need to 

transform aviation—again, across the spectrum. 

But it is important we have these hearings to educate the Members. We have got a couple of new members on the committee, but 

some come to us with a lot of experience in the air. A couple of 

them own their own planes, or fly their own planes, or do something with their own planes. So again, I really appreciate the opportunity to have you folks here in front of us to talk about, again, 

a critical piece of infrastructure, and look forward to working with 

each and every one of you, and all the committee members, as we 

move forward. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Shuster. And now I would like 

to recognize Mr. DeFazio. 

Peter, it is all yours. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I was the—you know, I am vitally interested in the needs of 

the airports, particularly their unmet needs, their projections into 

the future to provide a better travel experience for all Americans, 

shortened security lines with redesign to accommodate new security measures, et cetera. 

But in the numerous conversations I have had, a lot of airports 

are bonded out, they are tapped out, they need a way to finance 

bonds for the investment they need to make. So I am pleased today 

5 

to announce that, along with our colleague, Mr. Massie, we have 

introduced a bill to lift the cap on the passenger facility charge. 

I have a long history with this. I was the original Democratic 

sponsor here in the committee. We fenced it, so that the abuses of 

the previous PFC, which had—Congress had repealed couldn’t happen, which was generating revenues for off-airport activities that 

didn’t go directly to benefit those who used the system. And there 

have been no scandals, and it is a good system. Those who don’t 

fly, they don’t have to pay, it is not coming out of the general fund. 

Those who do fly benefit from the improvements, and they pay a 

little bit for a better experience. 

Now, I know that already I can hear the screams from A4A [Airlines for America] downtown about how this will cause people to 

just—no one will ever get on an airplane again if you raise the PFC 

$2. Now, it is interesting. My staff did a little math. Last year, 

with bag fees—and you average out among every person who 

flew—$8.50 per passenger for everybody who flew last year in bag 

fees. But that doesn’t deter anybody from flying. 

Fifty bucks to put your bag in the overhead? Oh, thank you very 

much. I love the experience. What they are really worried about is 

that you might build more gates and expand your terminals and 

we might have some more competition. That is what they are really 

worried about. And it is time to get past this and get real and 

allow the airports to fund. You know, the President has said he 

wants to rebuild our airports, they are horrible. They are, in many 

cases. I talked in particular about LaGuardia. But he also had reservations about fees. But what is better than a user fee for the 

users of the system to pay? 

So, I am not going to go into great depths. Already my colleague 

from Washington State has mentioned it. But, you know, we can 

do everything—you know, the chairman and I have some agreement over reforms that need to be made. Not the form of the reforms, but—at the FAA. But as former Administrator Randy Babbitt said, let’s do everything we can with NextGen. 

But if you look at LaGuardia, you can’t land more than one plane 

on a single runway every 54 seconds. So unless we do things to actually enhance the ground capacity of the system to move people 

through the airports, and a better experience more quickly to provide more gates at airports, to provide more runways, it doesn’t 

matter what you do with putting planes any way you want in the 

sky. They have got to go someplace. 

I mean, gee, you get there and, oh, there is the Greyhound bus 

station that I am going to stumble through. You know, it is not a 

comprehensive way of approaching the problem. 

So, yes, let’s do what we need to do to make the FAA better with 

procurement, personnel, and other issues. But let’s also allow the 

critical component of the system to grow into a 21st-century form 

to accommodate current and future needs of passengers. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. At this time I would 

like to recognize Congresswoman Johnson to introduce one of our 

guests. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and thanks to you for calling the hearing. 

6 

As we convene this morning to discuss the state of American airports, I can think of no better witness to testify than Mr. Sean 

Donohue, the chief executive officer at DFW Airport—that is Dallas 

Fort Worth International Airport. 

Mr. Donohue is a great partner, and I am very appreciative of 

his willingness to testify before the committee today. He brings 

with him more than three decades of experience in the airline industry. He has previously served as the chief operating officer of 

Virgin Australia Airlines. And prior to that he climbed the ranks 

of a 25-year career at United Airlines, first as an accounting clerk 

and ending as a senior vice president of operations. 

Today we are extremely fortunate to have Mr. Donohue oversee 

all the operations of the greatest airport in the country, Dallas Fort 

Worth International Airport, as CEO. The airport—and, you know, 

Texas always—we should know, we have the best. 

The airport itself is a massive complex, sprawled over nearly 30 

square miles and five terminals. DFW ranks as the 10th-busiest 

airport in the world by passenger traffic, and the 3d-busiest airport 

in the world by aircraft movement. Last year alone, DFW Airport 

achieved another record by serving more than 65 million passengers. We are extremely fortunate to have Mr. Donohue at the 

helm to continue DFW’s legacy as a premier large-hub airport. 

With that, I am proud to introduce Mr. Sean Donohue to the 

committee, with full confidence in his testimony insight today. 

I yield back the balance of my time. But before I do I want to 

say that I truly support the passenger facility fee. We can use it. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Our next witnesses are Mr. Lance Lyttle, managing director of 

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport; Ms. Christina Cassotis, who 

is the chief executive officer of the Allegheny County Airport Authority; and Mr. Lew Bleiweis, who is the executive director of the 

Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority. 

And now I would like to recognize Ms. Brownley to introduce one 

of our guests. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the proud representative of Ventura County, California, I am very, very pleased 

to introduce my constituent, Todd McNamee. Todd currently serves 

as director of airports for Ventura County, where he oversees operations at the Camarillo and Oxnard Airports, two of the greatest 

airports in the country. 

Todd is also a pilot. Todd was elected as secretary-treasurer of 

the American Association of Airport Executives for 2016 through 

2017. He is also past president of the Southwest chapter of AAAE. 

Early in his career, Todd worked on unmanned aircraft systems for 

several private-sector companies. Since I came to Congress, Todd 

has been an invaluable resource for me, not only on local issues impacting the general aviation community, but also on national policy, including unmanned aerial systems, airport financing, and 

FAA policy. 

Todd really understands aviation issues inside and out, and I appreciate that he is joining us here today. I am very proud to represent him and to introduce him. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Ms. Brownley. 

7 

I would like to remind all of our witnesses to please try to limit 

their opening remarks to no more than 5 minutes. 

Mr. Donohue, you are recognized for your opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF SEAN DONOHUE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

DALLAS FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT; LANCE 

LYTTLE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT; CHRISTINA CASSOTIS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY; 

LEW BLEIWEIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREATER ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY; AND TODD 

MCNAMEE, A.A.E., C.A.E., DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS, COUNTY 

OF VENTURA DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 

Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you, and, Congresswoman Johnson, I just 

want to say thank you for the longstanding support and partnership with DFW. We are most grateful. 

Chairman LoBiondo, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Members 

Larsen and DeFazio, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, good morning. I would like to also recognize another 

friend of DFW Airport, Congressman Blake Farenthold, who is a 

great supporter, as well. 

On behalf of the nearly 2,000 employees who work for DFW Airport, and the more than 50,000 men and women who work for an 

airline, a business, or operational partner, it is my pleasure to be 

here today to testify before you on the state of American airports, 

specifically the large hubs that are at the heart of our industry. 

This hearing is an important step in shaping the way forward for 

our Nation’s airports, airlines, and, most importantly, passengers. 

There is a saying in our industry: If you have seen one airport, 

you have seen one airport. Each airport is a unique entity with its 

own benefits, challenges, and characteristics. As you consider today’s testimony, and potentially develop plans for greater investment in airports, please keep our needs in mind. While some airports need new runways, others need new towers or terminals. 

There is not a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing aviation infrastructure. 

As Congresswoman Johnson mentioned, DFW is the third-largest 

airport in the world, in terms of operations, number 10 in terms 

of passengers. But probably most importantly to the region, we deliver $37 billion in annual economic activity to the north Texas region. We connect Dallas Fort Worth International Airport to 150 

cities in the United States and nearly 60 business centers around 

the world. Aviation has truly made the world a smaller place. In 

the 9 hours it takes to drive from DFW to El Paso, you can fly 

across the Atlantic to London with time to spare. 

Large-hub airports like DFW, which account for 73 percent of 

total customer traffic in the country, have needs that are truly 

supersized. For example, building and improving terminals, a necessity for the long-term success of an airport, are not just simple 

construction projects. They are multiyear ventures entailing billions of dollars of costs. 

Airport financing remains the most significant issue we are facing today. Airports owned by State or local governments are required to be as self-sustaining as possible, and receive little or no 

8 

taxpayer support. To that end, we must operate like a business, 

funding operations from revenue and strategically planning funding for major improvement projects which are, to say the least, incredibly expensive. 

Airports, capital markets, the airlines, and passengers provide 

funds to help pay for these long-term projects. Utilizing a combination of airline fees, the passenger facility charge, airport improvement program grants, critical municipal bonds, and commercial 

revenues, airports must cobble together enough funding to build 

the massive infrastructure needed to keep our industry moving at 

peak efficiency. 

But even the healthiest of airports have found their revenues 

stretched to keep up with the ever-growing needs of the traveling 

public in aviation industry. Indeed, as Congressman Larsen mentioned, we are looking at about $100 billion in the next 4 or 5 years 

in infrastructure needs throughout the United States. These are 

not cosmetic projects designed to put a new shiny look on our airports, but the necessary developments required to keep up with an 

ever-growing and changing aviation industry. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the fundamental 

priority airports place on safety and security when it comes to infrastructure. DFW operates on 17,000 acres, an area roughly the 

size of Manhattan. Any new building, runway, or even a parking 

garage can only move ahead when proper security investments are 

made. It is a significant part of any discussion in an equally significant investment. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Donohue. Mr. Lyttle, you are recognized for your statement. 

Mr. LYTTLE. Thank you, subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo, subcommittee Ranking Member Larsen, Chairman Shuster, and Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee, for your 

leadership, and for inviting me to testify today. It is an honor to 

be here. I would like to specifically recognize and thank Representative Larsen for his leadership and support of Washington State. 

My name is Lance Lyttle. I am the managing director, SeattleTacoma International Airport. My remarks this morning are focused on the challenge that we face at Sea-Tac in creating the 

needed facilities to support our rapid growth. 

Two thousand sixteen marked the sixth year in a row of record 

growth at Sea-Tac. We serve 45 million passengers and we are now 

the ninth busiest airport in the U.S. At Sea-Tac we are proud of 

our growth, because it reflects the increasing economic vitality and 

global relevance of the Puget Sound region and Washington State. 

Our essential mission as an airport is to avoid being a choke 

point. To achieve this, Sea-Tac is currently investing more than 

$3.2 billion over the next 8 years. Concurrently we are updating 

our 20-year master plan with a forecast that indicates Sea-Tac will 

serve 66 million annual passengers by 2034. At this point we anticipate our capital expenditures to accommodate this growth will 

cost at least $10 billion, in addition to our current capital plan. 

9 

I would like to share with the subcommittee how we approach 

this massive investment challenge, and how we evaluate the four 

available revenue options. 

First is airport net operating income. Per FAA guidelines, aeronautical revenues are set to recover cost. And so, effectively, all net 

operating income at Sea-Tac is generated from nonaeronautical 

sources. While this is a critical source of revenue, it is not sufficient 

to meet our capital needs. 

Second is the Federal Airport Improvement Program. While I am 

sure all of today’s panelists would welcome as much direct Federal 

investment as possible, the reality is that few of these scarce dollars are available, and they are limited to uses that do not include 

some of our biggest terminal investment needs. 

Third, the Port of Seattle has limited property taxing authority, 

but it would be highly inequitable to require King County taxpayers, including the majority that never use the airport, to pay for 

facilities used by travelers from all over the world. 

The fourth option is the passenger facility charge. The decision 

about whether to charge a PFC user fee is truly a local decision, 

and impacts only those passengers that utilize the airport facilities. 

This allows airport governing bodies to encourage competition 

amongst carriers, secure capacity increases, and support economic 

growth through passengers’ direct investment in local airport infrastructure. 

As public institutions accountable to local voters, airports balance the very real need to keep costs low, while ensuring that aviation-specific infrastructure meets regional demand. 

Unfortunately, the outdated Federal cap on the PFC prevents 

airports like Sea-Tac from setting a rate that makes the most sense 

for our airport. Because our existing capital plan will essentially 

use all Sea-Tac’s anticipated PFC collections through 2035, and 

most PFC collections through 2047, there will be little available 

PFC capacity to pay for the billions in projects identified in our 

master plan. 

Without additional PFC authority, our debt service on the bonds 

to fund master plan projects will flow directly into the airline rate 

base, likely driving costs to airlines at Sea-Tac to the highest in the 

Nation. This would make Sea-Tac less competitive as a gateway, 

and put airline service at risk. While an uncapped PFC would give 

us the authority to raise the fee, that decision would have to be 

balanced with the need to keep our costs competitive with other 

U.S. airports, and subject to the approval of our local elected officials. 

I should mention that increased investment flexibility also allows 

us to address the greatest challenge facing U.S. airports: security. 

Airports have increasingly become targets, and infrastructure development is a key part of the solution. 

Our commissioners and our staff are committed to being the 

most efficient and customer service-focused airport in the country, 

while being a leader in growing responsibly and helping our residents benefit from our growth. 

In closing, Sea-Tac International Airport sees the Federal Government and Congress as essential partners. By granting us local 

authority on PFCs, greater tools and flexibility on addressing comVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:03 Jul 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\3-1-20~1\24654.TXT JEAN
10 

munity impact, and greater investment in security, you will help 

us once again make America’s airports the envy of the world. 

Finally, I would like to thank Representatives DeFazio and 

Massie for introducing legislation to uncap the PFC. Your leadership is appreciated and essential. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Lyttle, for your testimony. 

Ms. Cassotis, you are recognized for your statement. 

Ms. CASSOTIS. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member 

Larsen, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here today; thank you 

for inviting me to provide infrastructure needs about the mediumsized airports, and the funding challenges that we face. 

The way the airline industry serves Pittsburgh and many other 

medium-sized communities in the U.S. has gone through a major 

transformation. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Saint Louis, Raleigh-Durham, Nashville, Memphis, and Milwaukee are among the 

airports that used to carry millions of passengers a year. And many 

of those passengers are now gone, because the hubs are gone. But 

our infrastructure remains. 

None of us got to declare bankruptcy. We have been paying down 

the debt on these facilities for more than a decade, and our current 

carriers are stuck paying for oversized space. The Pittsburgh terminal, which was designed in size to accommodate 32 million passengers a year, now accommodates just over 8 million. We have 

been good stewards of public money, prudently managing finances 

to prioritize debt repayment, and we have done everything we can 

to stay competitive in a global market. 

And yet each of us is left with a large number of capital projects 

that we have had to defer, and infrastructure needs totaling billions. At Pittsburgh International, just in deferred maintenance we 

have over $74 million worth of projects. Saint Louis has $87 million, and Cincinnati $80 million. Our cost structures have radically 

changed over the past two decades, but Federal funding mechanisms remain unchanged. 

Medium-sized airports are getting hammered in the current 

funding framework. Small airports are funded at the highest AIP 

levels, large-hub airports get the least, because what they don’t get 

in AIP they make up for in PFCs. But we should be in the middle, 

and we are not. We are funded at the same discounted levels as 

the large-hub airports. In order to address infrastructure needs at 

many medium-sized airports, we need to modernize and upgrade 

costly, inefficient, oversized, and out-of-date facilities, none of 

which is a priority in the current funding rules. 

We see five areas that need to be addressed. 

First, the significant contribution requirement should be eliminated from PFC funding criteria for medium-sized airports. That 

requirement prioritizes capacity enhancement, air safety and security, increasing carrier competition, and reducing congestion or 

noise. These are not our issues. It has been challenging, if not elusive, for large and medium-hub airports, even with airline support, 

to convince the FAA that preserving capacity and infrastructure 

makes a significant contribution. 

11 

Second, medium-sized airports should not be required to take the 

same AIP haircut as large airports do. Medium-sized airports must 

be grouped differently, because our reality is different. In 17 years 

of Pittsburgh’s PFC program, we have foregone $95 million in AIP 

entitlement grants. 

Third, the PFC, which I am happy to hear today, must be raised 

or uncapped. It has not kept pace with inflation, leaving us financially challenged. For Pittsburgh, due to the legacy airline debt 

from the abandoned hub, the authority has dedicated most of its 

PFC revenue to reduce debt since 2001. 

Fourth, the FAA must discontinue its arbitrary restriction on 

AIP and PFC-eligible projects. The types of programs that qualify 

for funding should be expanded. 

And lastly, we would like to see regulations reduced. Current 

regulations seek a 30-percent design completion in order to leverage Federal money, which is an unnecessary and onerous undertaking for cash-strapped medium-sized airports. Airports of our size 

have come a long way on our own, cutting costs and sweating our 

assets by increasing nonaeronautical revenue in creative and innovative ways. But we need your help to move the needle further. 

Investing our fair share of Federal resources back into mediumsized communities is a game-changer for our airports, the country’s 

aviation system. Otherwise, we stay stuck in the catch-22 we are 

in today. We need to invest in our facilities to keep them cost-competitive, to attract the type of air service that allows our communities to grow. But because we don’t meet the capacity enhancement requirement, our airports don’t get funded, and our airline 

partners and we end up paying to maintain old, oversized, and underutilized space. 

We have had a lot of recent success in Pittsburgh. But Pittsburgh, and airports like us, can do more and must do more for our 

regional economies. By focusing on streamlining processes, the Federal Government can ensure that we, as medium-sized airports, 

can streamline our footprints, stay competitive, and the communities we serve can prosper. 

Thank you for your time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, thank you very much. Now we will turn to 

Mr. Bleiweis. 

Is your microphone on? 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking 

Member Larsen, and the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation. Thank you for 

inviting me to participate in this important hearing. 

I am Lew Bleiweis, executive director of the Asheville Regional 

Airport in western North Carolina. We served just over 826,000 

passengers in 2016, which makes it the third straight year of 

record-setting numbers. I am here today representing the small 

and nonhub classifications of the country’s commercial service airports, including Asheville Regional Airport. 

While the small and nonhub airports only account for 11.8 percent of the national passenger traffic, we make up 89 percent of the 

commercial service airports in this country. I will briefly touch on 

items that have an overwhelming impact on the smaller airports. 

12 

Based on the Airports Council International, North America’s biannual infrastructure needs survey that will be officially released 

next week, airports’ infrastructure needs for 2017 through 2021, 

adjusted for inflation, is nearly $100 billion. Small and nonhub airports account for approximately 14 percent of this total number. 

Funding for small and nonhub airports is critical and, at the same 

time, limited because AIP entitlement grants and PFC user revenue is based on passenger enplanements. The smaller the 

enplanement numbers, the lower AIP and PFC funds. 

We all know that the expense of a capital project does not vary 

because of the size of an airport. Let me briefly tell you about the 

major airfield project going on in Asheville. The airport consists of 

a single runway 8,000 feet in length, and serving both commercial 

and general aviation aircraft. The original airfield was—is over 50 

years old, and it is coming to the end of its useful life. 

We had two safety deficiencies that were out of compliance with 

current FAA policies and standards. We presented the redevelopment project to the FAA 8 years ago, and it took 5 years to program and fund the project. Even with that, the FAA required us 

to phase the approximate $79 million project over 4 years. 

Capital projects for small airports under AIP are traditionally 

funded at 90 percent, with a 10-percent local match. Currently, our 

project is only funded at approximately 77 percent, leaving Asheville to fund approximately $18 million. We have been able to increase our fund balance over several years to cover the project, but 

it has been at the expense of deferring other capital aviation 

projects. 

During this same time our parking availability reached capacity, 

and we had to move forward several years earlier than anticipated, 

with the construction of a $21 million parking garage. Due to the 

lack of full funding on the airfield redevelopment project, the airport was forced to go into debt for the parking garage. A modernized PFC would allow us to recoup our costs for the airfield project 

sooner, and would have provided us with more of our own funds 

to apply towards the garage. 

The airlines will tell you they will just pay for it. That is not the 

case at small and nonhub airports like Asheville. I am fighting to 

keep my costs low to maintain service. And if I raise my rates too 

high to cover capital projects like my airport airfield project, they 

will just move to other airports with lower costs. 

My story is not dissimilar from the stories of my colleagues’ 

small communities across the country. The choices we make, in 

terms of capital projects and the funding available, do impact our 

abilities to truly meet our overall infrastructure needs. 

Congress and the industry must work together to find the sustainable funding solution for the future. That is why our leading 

airport funding issues this year are removing the outdated Federal 

cap on PFCs and enhancing the AIP. 

Small and nonhub airports have difficulties attracting and maintaining air service for the communities. Carriers decide which communities to serve, leaving many communities with little or no air 

service. In fact, over the past couple of years, approximately 50 

small communities have lost commercial service—air service. 

13 

During a speech late last month, a recently retired airline CEO 

explained that larger airplanes reduced the fuel cost per seat, 

meaning that smaller planes servicing smaller airports are becoming harder to justify the economic feasibility, which questions the 

viability of the smaller airports. All communities, but not specifically smaller communities, benefit economically from a viable airport. 

In an analysis recently conducted, based on FAA’s economic impact study on commercial aviation in the United States, small and 

nonhub airports contributed $121 billion economic output, supporting 1.1 million jobs. Locally in Asheville, the Asheville regional 

airport provides 1,700 direct, indirect, and induced jobs, while providing $556 million of economic output. The industry must find a 

way to keep air service inexpensive and available to the majority 

of the country. 

Lastly, small and nonhub airports, as with all airports, are required by the FAA to be as self-sufficient as possible. And yet, the 

FAA overregulates any airport development on any parcel of land. 

These onerous requirements not actually found in Federal law trigger extensive Federal environmental analysis which unduly delays 

projects and often causes developers to look elsewhere to build 

their projects. This deprives airports of the ability to compete for 

development opportunities to generate nonaeronautical revenues, 

bogs down FAA staff in unnecessary review analysis of project 

planning, and generates inefficiencies without benefits. 

We believe the Federal Government should only impose restrictions based on safety concerns, and ensure that fair-market value 

is received for nonaeronautical use of the land. The FAA bureaucracy does not need to get involved in every local use decision at an 

airport. Congress should encourage and mandate the FAA to limit 

the statutory requirements, so the FAA has a role only with respect 

to issues affecting the safety, efficiency, or utility of the airport for 

Federal facilities. 

Thank you for your leadership on these important issues. I look 

forward to working with you all and this subcommittee to move our 

airports to the 21st century. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Bleiweis. 

Now we will turn to Mr. McNamee for your statement. 

Mr. MCNAMEE. First I would like to thank Congresswoman 

Brownley for the kind introduction. And also, thank you for your 

great work for the country and also for Ventura County. 

Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, 

Chairman Shuster, and Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of 

the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing. It is an honor for me to be with you today. 

Ventura County operates two airports, Camarillo and Oxnard. 

Camarillo is a general aviation reliever airport that has between 

150,000 and 200,000 takeoffs and landings per year. Oxnard is 

classified as a nonhub commercial service airport. However, after 

losing commercial air service in 2010, it functions as a general 

aviation airport today. 

Investing in general aviation airports and promoting the general 

aviation industry pays big dividends. The Camarillo and Oxnard 

Airports provide $244 million annually in positive economic benefit 

14 

to the local community, and supports over 1,400 jobs. Overall, general aviation contributes $219 billion in total economic activity, and 

supports 1.1 million jobs. Our facilities are critical links for our 

communities to regional and national economies. 

This committee can help general aviation and commercial service 

airports build a 21st-century infrastructure by providing them with 

the resources they need to repair aging facilities and advance critical safety, security, and capacity projects. 

As you prepare to consider an FAA reauthorization bill, I urge 

you to take two steps that would improve the state of America’s 

airports. 

First, increase Federal funding through the airport improvement 

program. AIP is a key source of revenue for all sizes of airports. 

Today airports only receive enough Federal funds to cover half of 

their eligible projects. An AIP increase would help airports like 

ours in Ventura County, where we are planning to use Federal 

funds to rehabilitate and reconstruct runways and taxiways at both 

airports, with an estimated cost of $30 million. 

Second, and as my colleagues have mentioned, eliminate the outdated Federal cap on local passenger facility charges. Eliminating 

the PFC cap is the easiest way to build critical airport infrastructure projects at commercial service airports without putting a 

heavy burden on the Federal budget, and is aligned with the administration’s plan for infrastructure spending. 

I want to thank Ranking Member DeFazio and Congressman 

Massie for introducing legislation earlier today to eliminate the cap 

on local PFCs. We look forward to working with you and the committee in support of this important measure. 

Although general aviation airports don’t collect PFCs, we benefit 

from commercial service airports that do. As mentioned, large airports that collect PFCs get back a large share of their AIP entitlements. The FAA then distributes a vast majority of those funds to 

general aviation and small commercial service airports like those 

in Ventura County. Eliminating the PFC cap could open the door 

to focus limited AIP funds on smaller airports that need Federal 

assistance the most. 

This committee also has a strong track record of supporting the 

contract tower program. I urge you to continue to protect this valuable program, which allows Oxnard and 252 other airports to have 

cost-effective air traffic control services and enhance aviation safety, while saving the FAA approximately $200 million per year. 

Finally, I would like to thank this committee for addressing the 

challenges related to unmanned aircraft systems. Safely integrating UAS into the National Airspace System will be a key component of a 21st-century aviation system. 

In Ventura County we operate a small UAS on behalf of the airport under the recently enacted FAA part 1 of 7 regulations. We 

hope to be a model example for the rest of the country on how to 

safely integrate and operate small UAS on and around the airport. 

Thank you again for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing. 

I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much. We will now turn to 

Chairman Shuster for any questions he may have. 

15 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. My line of—I don’t think there is any 

debate that we need more investment in our infrastructure. The 

President put an exclamation point on that last night, and aviation 

is no different. 

One of the things, though, sometimes I think we lack in this discussion about funding is how do we reform the system. How do we 

make it better so we can build bridges and roads faster, so we can 

deploy those dollars when it comes to rebuilding our airports and 

expanding them? 

I look at the wall there, and there are five people up there in the 

last 30 years that have been involved in reforming the FAA. And 

I don’t want to be too critical, because I know one may charge the 

door and take me on, and another one may call me, so I got to be 

careful. 

So I would rather turn it to you folks at the tables there today 

to tell me what—dealing with the FAA—and, Mr. Bleiweis, you addressed it directly, so I will let you sit out this one. But dealing 

with the FAA, how do we reform them so that, when you are doing 

those projects, you can get it done faster? 

And I have got—there are billions of dollars out there right now 

in airports, but pipelines, railroad projects that we got a Government agency up here that is making it extremely difficult to move 

these projects forward. So can you address—let’s start first with 

Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, and then we will go to my 

second-favorite airport, Pittsburgh International Airport. 

So tell me what we can do to make the FAA more responsive to 

you, get these projects done. To save you money, I would assume. 

Mr. DONOHUE. OK. Thank you, Chairman Shuster. When it 

comes to the FAA, DFW supports reform and modernization. But 

before I comment on that, I think it is critical to talk about the 

safety aspect. And sometimes that does not get enough attention as 

we talk about the FAA. And from all perspectives, airports, airlines, the FAA, the controllers, the NTSB, everybody involved in 

the safe operation of the FAA does a great job, and we never want 

to take our eye off that ball. And I know we all agree on that. 

In terms of modernization, anything we can do as an aviation industry to drive more efficiency, to drive more funding certainty 

DFW would support. And as discussions move forward, I think it 

is just critical that airports are at the table. And we can offer a 

perspective, I think we can offer a lot of value. And we would welcome that opportunity. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And, Ms. Cassotis, can you respond to one thing 

in particular about certainty? How important is certainty to your 

projects? 

Ms. CASSOTIS. It is as important as certainty is to the airlines 

in the rates and charges. The last thing that the airlines want from 

us is any volatility in their rates and charges from one year to the 

next. And, for us, in funding, certainty is that critical, because we 

can make plans about what we need to do in order to better position ourselves to do what we are supposed to do for these communities. 

And listening to Sean talking about reform and modernization, 

you know, we are not one of the airport categories that would necessarily be the most obvious beneficiaries, but we are the spokes 

16 

in the hub-and-spoke systems. And when the hubs get backed up, 

we are the ones who suffer. So we are all in favor of the FAA continuing to do what it does well, which is safety oversight, and having the rest of the FAA focus on a more streamlined approach to 

getting work done. 

So, yes, incredibly important, thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And, Mr. McNamee, general aviation airport. 

Again, you have to deal with the FAA when you are doing any sort 

of projects. Is that accurate? 

Mr. MCNAMEE. We do. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And in your experience, has it been difficult? 

Easy? 

Mr. MCNAMEE. So, you know, in our local region, in the Los Angeles Airport District Office we have wonderful staff there. But, 

you know, whether you are doing a project at a general aviation 

airport or at a large hub airport, the time it takes, the resources, 

the manpower, and, in some cases, even the funding, it is the same 

at my airport that it might be at DFW. 

And so, streamlining some of those processes when it comes to 

grant funding would certainly be helpful. A bigger picture moving 

forward with the implementation of NextGen—one thing for general aviation airports and smaller commercial service airports—or, 

I guess, nonprimary entitlements—at $150,000 you really can’t get 

that much done. And if you look at some of our projects, most of 

those are in the millions. 

And so, frequently, when we are competing for dollars, the limited dollars within the FAA, we are having to just basically roll 

over that $150,000 until we can fit in to that limited funding to 

fully fund a much-needed project for us. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. My time is almost about to expire. I 

just want to—my mother used to tell me when I point my finger 

at somebody to blame them, if I point at the FAA there are three 

pointing back at me. 

So Congress, I believe, is part of the problem, and it is the uncertainty that we—you know, whether it is sequestration, whether it 

is Government shutdowns, whether we do short-term extensions— 

so Congress has to look at itself. And like I said, I got five former 

chairmen up there on the walls looking at me, and they were all 

part of bills that tried to reform FAA, just nipped around the 

edges. As far as I can tell, didn’t do anything significant. 

So—and I think a big part of that is making sure that, when you 

deploy your dollars, you have a process that is steady with certainty. So again, I appreciate you being here, and I appreciate you 

answering our questions and educating us. 

Thanks. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to get to the core, 

I think we have some substantial agreement here on allowing an 

enhanced PFC and the needs it would address. But we do need to 

address—you know, I did study economics, but it would be useful 

to have other people counter the argument of Airlines for America, 

which is that there is absolute price elasticity. Two dollars, three 

dollars PFC, no one is going to fly any more. Two hundred dollar 

17 

ticket change, no problem. Twenty-five bucks for a bag, no problem. 

Fifty bucks for a bag in the overhead, no problem. Two dollars 

PFC, no one will fly any more. 

Anybody want to kind of address that, refute that? Yes? 

Ms. CASSOTIS. So I think we—there was a GAO study that said 

that that is really not going to be an issue. And I would concur 

with your comments, that it won’t depress demand. 

I don’t find that the airlines object to raising the PFC as much 

as they object to not having any control over what we use it for. 

And I think that, in order to move the conversation forward, it 

would be helpful to involve them in some sort of consultative process about what we are going to use our money for. 

Most of the airlines that I talk to, who walk right out of our airport, are desperate to have infrastructure more efficient and make 

more sense. And I am confident that as many people would fly out 

of Pittsburgh in the future as they do today, if not more, if we had 

a better airport with more air service that would be possible, because of the locally imposed PFC. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And, of course, you identified, in particular, which 

the chairman was pointing to in a larger sense, the FAA that—the 

requirements for you to increase your PFC are—just don’t work for 

you, for your needs, I mean, because they are a criteria—— 

Ms. CASSOTIS. Well, not as it is defined today, correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. 

Ms. CASSOTIS. The—what we can use it for, we need that to expand. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Ms. CASSOTIS. Because we have enough capacity for a whole lot 

of years. That is not our issue. What we don’t have is the right capacity. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Ms. CASSOTIS. And we don’t have efficient capacity. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. Mr. Massie and I accommodated that in our 

bill. 

Ms. CASSOTIS. Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We moved that criteria. Anybody else want to comment on this? 

Mr. LYTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I did try—I did go to A4A and say, ‘‘How about if 

we tier it and they have to show a higher level of need to go to 

a higher PFC, or extraordinary need,’’ and the answer was no. 

They just won’t talk about it. 

So I would like to think that they would be willing to talk about 

something where they could have a little more input. But I think 

that some of their members are afraid of the potential for more 

competition at certain airports. 

Mr. Lyttle? 

Mr. LYTTLE. I think one way that we can view it is that the airlines have found a way to offset the cost associated with baggage 

or the other change fees that they have, and so they have found 

a way to offset it. 

So the other way we can look at it is that the airports need to 

do the same thing. So we need to find a way to offset the cost associated with the infrastructure that we need to keep pace with the 

18 

growth that’s taking place in the industry. And that means our 

method of getting that done is through a PFC, uncapping the PFC. 

So I think that is one way of doing it, as well. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Does anybody—yes, Mr. Donohue? 

Mr. DONOHUE. The other perspective I would offer—I mean DFW 

supports a PFC increase for all the reasons my colleagues mentioned. But when I look selfishly at DFW—we just finished—we are 

about to finish a $3 billion capital program, and we probably have 

another $5 to $10 billion in capital requirements, infrastructure requirements, moving forward—and the PFC is critical to help us, 

but it is not the silver bullet. I mean it is a balanced solution. 

As an airport, we have got to perform better to generate more 

revenues that we put back into the airport. Infrastructure—I mean 

I am delighted to hear the infrastructure discussion going on. Probably I am more excited—and when I hear it, I finally hear airports 

mentioned. And previously, when I heard ‘‘infrastructure,’’ I didn’t 

hear airports. And obviously, I think the airports can add value in 

that discussion, moving forward. 

P3s are an important vehicle. Obviously, we are going to continue to hit the bond market. And obviously, the airlines are going 

to continue to participate. So we support the increase in the PFCs. 

We appreciate the bill. But for an airport like DFW, it is bigger 

than just PFCs. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure. 

Mr. DONOHUE. We have got to look at a really balanced solution. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. No, I get that, and that is like people who say P3s 

or private money will solve all our infrastructure problems. No, 

there is—a lot of this is public infrastructure that cannot generate 

surplus revenues, and needs Federal investment. And we will continue the AIP program with a slight reduction under the plan we 

introduce. 

And I am not aware of any other alternative to help people do 

additional bonding. I mean, you know, the President has admitted 

that, you know, like LaGuardia and other places really need the investment. But he said he doesn’t like fees. Well, I don’t know what 

the alternative is. Someone has got to pay for it. I mean, if anyone 

has an alternative, let me know. 

So—but thank you for the—at least the comprehensive overlay. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. Is Mr. Rokita here? No? 

Then we go to Mr. Massie. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one—Mr. Donohue, 

one quick clarification. This is just semantics. We are not increasing the PFC. We are giving you the freedom to set—that is our intent, to set whatever PFC you want. You can lower it, if you like. 

But anyways, what are some of the—I mean we are using general terms, ‘‘infrastructure.’’ What are some of the specific projects? 

And I would ask Mr. Lyttle and Ms. Cassotis that, as well. What 

are some specific projects that you would be doing if you could finance them that aren’t being done? And what is the implication or 

impact on customers and airlines? 

Go with you first. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, again, I recognize DFW, given our size, we 

are in a position where we will find a way, one way or the other, 

19 

to fund our infrastructure projects. And again, we would prefer a 

more balanced solution than we have today. 

But when I look at our 45-year-old airport and the fact that we 

have terminals that are that age, and we have a couple of runways 

that are that age, and roads and bridges within the airport, I mean 

we will have to do those projects. We will find a way to do those 

projects. But I think we can do it in a more balanced approach 

than we have in the past. 

Mr. MASSIE. So roads, bridges, terminals? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Runways. 

Mr. MASSIE. Runways. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Airfield operations. Correct. But again, I—to answer your specific question, it is not an issue at DFW that we won’t 

do them. 

Mr. MASSIE. Understood. 

Mr. DONOHUE. We will find a way of doing them. 

Mr. MASSIE. Understood. 

Mr. Lyttle? 

Mr. LYTTLE. So specific projects: international arrival facility, 

$660 million; north satellite facility expansion, $550 million; baggage handling system, $320 million; satellite renovation, yet to be 

determined. And that is just the current capital development program. 

In addition, we are doing a master plan. We have not finalized 

that master plan, as yet. But the master plan is pointing to the 

need for an additional 34 gates. And so we are looking at an additional, potentially, $10 billion to complete that master plan. It 

could be higher, it could be lower. We haven’t finalized it, as yet. 

Now, unlike maybe DFW, we have—I agree that PFC is not the 

end all. However, we have less flexibility because of the footprint 

that we have, in terms of generating nonaeronautical revenues. 

And so the PFC—flexibility, as you said, with the PFC is extremely 

important to us so we can—you know, we can use the PFC at 

whatever level we think is reasonable for the projects. 

Mr. MASSIE. And why aren’t you funding all that stuff right now, 

with AIP? 

Mr. LYTTLE. Pardon? 

Mr. MASSIE. Why aren’t you funding all that right now with AIP? 

Mr. LYTTLE. So the—most of the—— 

Mr. MASSIE. I suspect I know the answer. 

Mr. LYTTLE [continuing]. Eligible are our runways and taxiways 

and, you know, projects. Most of the projects that we have in the 

future are actually gates and terminals. And not all of those 

projects are AIP-eligible. And that is one of the major challenges 

that we have. 

Mr. MASSIE. Got you. 

Mr. LYTTLE. We have finished all of our runway projects for the 

foreseeable future. 

Mr. MASSIE. Ms. Cassotis? 

Ms. CASSOTIS. Yes. So we—first of all, I have gates, if you need 

a couple. We are happy to ship them over. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. CASSOTIS. Yes, can I—can you pay me for them? 

20 

Mr. MASSIE. We have got some spare ones at CVG [Cincinnati/ 

Northern Kentucky International Airport], too. 

Ms. CASSOTIS. Yes, we are going to work out a deal. We—right 

away, we have a deicing pad that needs to be upgraded. That is 

$13 million. We have got snow removal equipment that is 25 years 

old that needs to be replaced. We have got escalators, moving walkways, a rehab that needs $16 million worth of work. 

But in the long term, what a PFC would allow us to do as part 

of a mix, as my colleagues have said, would—an increase in the 

PFC would allow us to right-size and modernize our facility, to be 

an origin and destination airport. We were built as a large connecting hub. So we have an X design. It is beautiful, it is brilliant, 

and I think it is the only one outside of Abu Dhabi that is as smart 

as it is. 

So that means that, when passengers come off an international 

flight and they clear customs, most of those passengers usually just 

go to their gate. Well, if you were coming home, you had to go 

through TSA because you were airside, you were on the secure 

side. So when we became an O&D airport, origin and destination, 

and everybody was coming back into just Pittsburgh, they would 

line up at TSA to take off their belts and their shoes to go to the 

garage. That doesn’t make sense. 

We have an inadequate Federal inspection services facility that 

needs a major upgrade. Our security checkpoint is too small, so we 

have two—so we have a major renovation that has to take place. 

Mr. MASSIE. So, very quickly, I know you wanted more flexibility. 

Probably flexibility for all of the programs. 

Ms. CASSOTIS. All of them. 

Mr. MASSIE. But which gives you more flexibility, PFCs or AIP? 

Ms. CASSOTIS. Neither. We need—— 

Mr. MASSIE. OK. 

Ms. CASSOTIS. We need reforms to both. I need reforms to both, 

please. 

Mr. MASSIE. I bet. 

Ms. CASSOTIS. Our projects aren’t—we are not capacity-enhancing projects. 

Mr. MASSIE. My goal was to ask everybody, but I am out of time, 

so I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK, thank you. I recognize Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lyttle, can you talk—you talked about—in your testimony 

about the four revenue options. You didn’t discussion—and don’t go 

into detail—about how airports negotiate with airlines to contribute to the capital facilities. 

But do you have estimates? Since every airport is different, are 

there estimates of what airlines provide in this mix? Say for SeaTac, as an example. 

Mr. LYTTLE. Yes. So we have actually done a financial forecast, 

just based on the preliminary numbers that we have for the master 

plan. Again, we have not selected the preferred alternative, as yet. 

But when we look at the alternative, that would be in about the 

$10 billion range. 

At a $4.50 PFC, if we do not have an increase in the PFC by 

2034, the cost per enplanement to the airlines would increase from 

21 

approximately $10.15 today to $49, $50. And we think that would 

be unacceptable. I know I have heard that the airlines will pay, but 

I don’t think they will be willing to pay that much at any airport. 

Mr. LARSEN. So from $10 estimated to $49 to $50. 

Mr. LYTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. LARSEN. Under your current capital plan. OK. And so the alternative, it is either out of the airline, who presumably puts that 

into their fare—— 

Mr. LYTTLE. So if we—— 

Mr. LARSEN. If they increase their fare—— 

Mr. LYTTLE. Yes. If we do not have additional PFCs, and if we 

use bond, for example, go to the bond market, all of that goes into 

the rates and charges for the airlines. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, yes, OK. So can you talk a little bit about— 

and Mr. Donohue, as well, and Mr. Lyttle—Mr. Donohue, you 

have—American is largely the big dog at the—at DFW, where at 

Sea-Tac you have Delta and Alaska and United, and others, as 

well. But largely, Alaska and Delta, so some—multiple carriers, 

let’s call it. Can you two just briefly talk about what that means 

for operations, and how you have to plan at the airport? 

OK, Mr. Lyttle, you go first. 

Mr. LYTTLE. OK. It is very interesting, because I think in the 

last—using these negotiations, the primary airline that was negotiated with was Alaska Airlines. Now Delta has grown significantly 

at airports. So we are actually currently using this agreement— 

what we call the SLOA agreement—which expires at the end of 

this year. So we are in negotiations right now with multiple airlines. But, of course, the big players are Alaska and Delta. 

It is very challenging, because we have a gate allocation methodology that basically favors an airline that is actually growing at the 

airport. So it favors one airline over the other. And the problem is 

we are constrained. We just do not have enough gates. During peak 

time we cannot accommodate all the airlines at the airport. In fact, 

we are now doing hardstand operation, and, as we try to get these 

CIP [capital improvement plan] projects that I just mentioned, 

which will add additional gates, during that time we will have to 

continue doing hardstand operations. 

So, gates are our biggest issue, and that is the biggest challenge 

that we have negotiation with, not just Alaska and Delta, but 

American, Southwest, all the other airlines that we have at the airport. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. Mr. Donohue? 

Mr. DONOHUE. We are actually in discussions with American on 

the future master plan of the airport, and adding a terminal, and 

adding gates. And because American dominates DFW—probably 

shouldn’t use the word ‘‘dominate’’—it is the largest airline at 

DFW, they tend to invest in DFW, because it is so important to 

them. 

But I would agree with Mr. Lyttle’s point. As we look at these 

infrastructure needs in the future, we are not supportive, nor do 

we want to see the cost per enplanement for passengers double or 

triple as we do these programs, because the only solution is the 

bond market. Because I feel that, then, makes us uncompetitive, as 

a hub, versus other major hubs in the U.S. 

22 

So that is why I think it is important that we continue to work 

with the airlines to find the right solution. As I said, to find a balanced solution, so that we make the proper investments, but we 

have to pay just critical, critical attention to making sure our costs 

don’t get so out of whack that it is uncompetitive, either in the U.S. 

or globally. Because, as you know, this is becoming more of a global 

aviation industry. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. Thanks. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Rokita? 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate you having this 

hearing. I appreciate listening to everyone’s testimony. 

Unfortunately, the electronics here at the committee room aren’t 

working. The IT is not working well today. I had two pictures, Mr. 

Chairman, I wanted to submit for the record. The first one was a 

picture of the work of my 6-year-old, who has turned our basement 

into airport building. And he found a way to take my iPad and go 

on Google Maps and pick a different airport every week and build 

it in our basement. And just like some of the challenges you have, 

he is running out of space and is acquiring more land. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROKITA. So I wanted to get that in the record. I know he is 

only 6, but I would like to get him some work when he is able, so 

putting it in early. 

One of the issues that has come across my desk recently—perhaps a little bit off the target of this hearing—is this idea about 

general aviation access to airports. Of course, general aviation pays 

a gas tax fee, and it—in my opinion, it certainly pays for what we 

use of the system. Of course, airports are part of the system. 

I guess first to Mr. Lyttle and Mr. Donohue, do you believe general aviation has a right to use your particular airports? Yes or no? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Yes, and they do currently. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. And Mr. Lyttle, for the record? 

Mr. LYTTLE. Yes, but we have limited GA services at the airport. 

But the answer is—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes, I saw that. Let me go there. You have at SeaTac something called Aircraft Service International Group, which 

is now Signature. 

Mr. LYTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. And I just checked, and they have something for 

what would be my general aviation airplane—a small, light twin— 

a $15 fee that goes to you, and a $50 FBO [fixed-base operator] fee 

that is waived if I buy 30 gallons. And that is—the FBO charges 

that, and I imagine that FBO Signature pays you a lease or a rent 

or something for the space. 

Mr. LYTTLE. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. ROKITA. Is that correct? 

Mr. LYTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. So they charge me $50. But if I buy 30 gallons, that 

fee gets waived. But the 100 low-lead fee at Sea-Tac right now is 

$8.43 a gallon, which is more than double—or at least double what 

Ms. Cassotis’s airport charges, and what Mr. McNamee’s airport 

charges. 

So, my question, I guess, you acknowledge that there is a right 

for GA to use the airport. Is there any way to avoid these fees at 

23 

Sea-Tac? More like a public park, where if you paid an admission 

fee to get in, you can go tie down somewhere and not be charged 

$50, $15, or $8.43 a gallon. 

Mr. LYTTLE. That is something I will have to look into. One of 

the big challenges we have at Sea-Tac Airport is—it is not just only 

on the terminal side, but on the air side, as well. Unlike—— 

Mr. ROKITA. What did you say, space? I am sorry. 

Mr. LYTTLE. Yes, yes, space. We are really constrained, 

spacewise. Unlike DFW—— 

Mr. ROKITA. But you acknowledge we have a right to use the 

space. 

Mr. LYTTLE. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right? Because we pay into the system. OK. 

Mr. Donohue, same set of questions to you. Let’s see, with DFW 

you only charge $5 a gallon, which I find incredible, until there is 

a $75 nonwaivable fee. I don’t know if that goes to the corporate 

FBO you have. I don’t know, do you have a—is that a Governmentrun thing, or is that a private entity? What is that? 

Mr. DONOHUE. We run our own corporate aviation—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Got you, got you. So that probably explains a lower 

fuel per gallon fee, but $75 nonwaivable, and then something for 

a landing fee, as well. 

Same question to you, then. Is there any way that I could go to 

DFW and waive these fees, or tie down and not use the FBO or 

anything like that, or have any kind of access that doesn’t require 

these fees? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, corporate aviation is a service we provide, 

Congressman, and it is not a priority for us, because there are so 

many GA airports in the surrounding region. And—— 

Mr. ROKITA. But hold on. I just premised this whole discussion 

by asking you an initial question, asking you if I had a right—GA 

had a right to use your airport, and you said yes—— 

Mr. DONOHUE. Correct, correct. So—— 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. So me using another airport isn’t the question. 

I have a right to use your airport. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Correct. 

Mr. ROKITA. But not unless we pay all these fees, correct? Even 

though we pay the gas tax. 

Mr. DONOHUE. That is correct. 

Mr. ROKITA. Got you. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Those are our market—those are the market 

rates, in our opinion. 

Mr. ROKITA. That is the market rate? Market assumes competition. You don’t have two FBOs on the airport, do you? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, when I say competition, I am referring to 

the other general aviation airports in our region. 

Mr. ROKITA. Oh, what—OK. But at your airport—I mean a lot 

of airports have more than one FBO, so the record understands 

that, and the other Members understand. You don’t, and the one 

FBO you have you, in fact, own. You run for—— 

Mr. DONOHUE. Right. 

Mr. ROKITA [continuing]. As part of the entity, or the Government. Right? 

24 

So, in the 15 seconds I have remaining, I don’t know if Mr. 

McNamee or—wants to respond to this, but a lot of your customers 

are general aviation. 

Mr. MCNAMEE. All of our customers are general aviation. We actually have four FBOs at Camarillo alone, and two at Oxnard. 

Mr. ROKITA. Do you believe general aviation, your customers, 

have a right to go to the big airports? 

Mr. MCNAMEE. They do. But, as you know, airports like 

Camarillo, they are specifically designated as reliever airports, to 

help minimize the congestion at those larger airports. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. 

Mr. MCNAMEE. And—— 

Mr. ROKITA. But this isn’t a congestion question, it is not a safety 

question. We acknowledge that, I mean, there is a space issue, and 

there is an issue of not having so much gallonage and flowage, and 

all that. 

Mr. MCNAMEE. So, as a general aviation pilot, I enjoy when I 

sometimes fly into those larger airports and are greeted with open 

arms, yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Great, thank you. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. I would like to recognize Mr. Larsen 

for a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous 

consent to enter into the record a letter from the American Association of Airport Executives, indicating support for the DeFazioMassie bill, and a letter from U.S. Travel Association indicating 

support for the DeFazio-Massie bill. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The letters referenced by Congressman Larsen are on pages 101–104.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Now we would like to go to Mrs. Bustos. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking 

Member Larsen. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions here. 

My congressional district in the northwest part of the State of Illinois has three international airports, and more than a dozen general aviation facilities. So I certainly appreciate all the witnesses 

here today spending time with us and answering some of our questions. I am going to start with Mr. Bleiweis. 

You mentioned the economic impact of airports on smaller communities. If you could go into a little more detail on that, that 

would be helpful. 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. Thank you, I am happy to. Airports or communities have to generate economic vitality. And one way that most 

companies look for to build up communities is with air service, or 

by being able to bring companies in to those communities to generate jobs. So, in Asheville, for example, again, 1,700 jobs are based 

not necessarily at the airport—the airport only has 450, 460-someodd jobs—but it is the influence of everything else that seeps in to 

the community by doing so. 

We have been told a number of times when businesses are looking to expand or move to western North Carolina, one of the first 

questions they ask is, ‘‘What kind of air service do you have?’’ and 

‘‘What is the ability to get in new air service from the airlines?’’ 

25 

The unfortunate part that we have to deal with, as smaller communities and smaller airports, is, again, there is limited air service. 

There are four legacy carriers carrying almost 85 percent of the 

traffic in this country. They are looking at more of the bigger hubs, 

they are looking at airports as feeders, but they also don’t provide 

a lot of good service to those feeders or for those hubs. So it is a 

limited amount of how much capacity an airport will take. 

The growth that we have had in Asheville has to do with the 

ultra-low-cost carriers. They are the ones that are bringing our 

travelers to our communities, but those are also the type of airlines 

that businesses are not looking to use when they are growing the 

community employment base. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. So, just as a followup to that—and maybe this is 

probably broad, and maybe I am—get myself in trouble for asking 

it this broadly, but what additional resources can Congress provide 

to help smaller airports flourish? 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. I think, again, looking at the uncapped PFC helps 

the dollars flow from the larger airports down to smaller airports 

to expand their facilities. But also, again, as touched on, some of 

my things with the regulation of FAA, there are ways for airports 

to incentivize airlines to come into the communities. But the way 

that the FAA is looking at those rules and procedures limits what 

we can do. 

There is no reason why an airport shouldn’t—if there is—if they 

are an economic vitality to that community, they—there is no reason why they should not be able to put some of their revenue dollars into incentivizing all airlines that want to serve and then 

bring in additional service to those communities. And right now we 

can’t do that. 

There are limiting factors when even in our chambers or our economic development communities or partners in our small communities want to attract airlines. Technically, right now, we are not 

even allowed to sit in on those conversations and guide our communities to what service that airport needs or what service the community needs. Those are some of the restrictions that the FAA 

should loosen up on, and let us do our business as a private enterprise. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. Thank you. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. McNamee, I was in your county with Congresswoman Brownley last summer, and it is lovely there. I want 

to ask you. You mentioned the Small Community Air Service Development Program. In addition to the infrastructure needs our airports face, attracting and maintaining commercial air service can 

be a real challenge. 

Can you talk a little bit more about how communities use the 

program, and what additional flexibility you would like to see? 

Mr. MCNAMEE. Additional flexibility. So we are—currently we 

have in hand a Small Community Air Service Development Grant 

in the amount of $500,000 at Oxnard Airport. We lost air service 

in 2010. That really was the airlines increasing the fares to the 

point where the Navy—we have a large Navy base there in Ventura County, which made up about one-third of our customers— 

stopped using the service. And then, from there, the fares got even 

26 

higher for the local businesses, and the business community traveling, and it basically killed the service. 

And so, we have been trying to restore air service ever since. 

Even with that grant package in hand, and great local community 

support, including funding—we have got about a $1 million package—that has not been enough to incentivize some of those regional carriers. We don’t have historical data to our strongest market, which would be the Bay Area. We have derived data based on 

traveling passengers: zip codes, things like that. So we know who 

is traveling out of LAX in Burbank. 

The program is a very good program. You know, it used to be funded at a much higher level. I think it is currently at $6 million 

a year. More funding would be nice to have for those small communities. They can definitely take advantage of it. 

In terms of flexibility, as Lew, my colleague next door here, mentioned, you know, we are often—our hands are tied in how we can 

exercise those programs. And so, for instance, we have a relatively 

strong reserve fund in our enterprise fund at the airport, but we 

are not allowed to spend airport money as part of that package for 

the grant. We have to go out and find it from outside sources, 

which, fortunately, we are able to do. But not all airports are in 

that position. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. All right. Thank you, Mr. McNamee. I have exhausted my time. Thanks. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our panelists. 

One of the issues that has been brought to my attention by virtually all of the regional airports in and around my district relates 

to ensuring continued access to air service. And in smaller communities, that actually means access to pilots. Regional airports in the 

communities I serve, like Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, and Springfield, Illinois, enable them to connect globally and 

have significant importance to the businesses and institutions in 

those regions. 

But, unfortunately, according to the U.S. Travel Association, twothirds of States like Illinois have seen declines in both the number 

of flights and the number of routes since 2007. And since 2013, 

nearly 40 small airports across the country have lost commercial 

service all together. 

And since I am not going to massacre your last name, I am going 

to call you Mr. Lew. So, Mr. Lew, as an executive director of a regional airport, what ideas and suggestions do you have—quickly, 

because I only have a limited amount of time and more questions— 

what can you do, what are your ideas to halt this trend? 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. I think looking at the regional carriers on what 

they are trying to base—you know, as the small airplanes are being 

phased out of manufacturing and use, they are becoming larger airplanes, which makes it difficult to support a small community with 

a 70-, 90-, or a 100-seat airplane, when it is really meant for a 35- 

to a 50-seat airplane. 

We were subject to that this summer. We have a—one of our legacy carriers decided to stop flying one of our early morning routes 

27 

out of our airport, and it was blamed on pilot shortage. We have 

no facts, whether that was accurate or not. The flight came back 

in September, and we haven’t had an issue yet. But it is a serious 

issue for airports all around the country, of whether airlines are 

really—you know, really have that issue, whether it is a pilot 

shortage, whether it is a pay situation, union situation, whatever. 

So we just don’t have all the facts and know where it is going. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. Any ideas? What can we do to ensure that 

we don’t lose service, then? 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. Trying—and again, being able to work with your 

communities, trying to work with airlines to bring in different 

types of services, different airlines—there are smaller airlines that 

are coming into play. The legacies don’t necessarily want to do it, 

but there are other types of carriers out there to do that. So it is 

just a matter of, again, having FAA loosen up some of the abilities 

for us to use incentive dollars or other type of marketing dollars 

to be able to, you know, be able to work with airlines and bring 

them in to your communities. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. My next question is going to be like a ‘‘Jeopardy’’ game. Whoever hits the button first can get to answer this. 

Language in the FAA Authorization Act of 1994 sought to limit 

the diversion of revenues generated at airports. Unfortunately, a 

loophole in that law has been used to get around our congressional 

intent. So, last Congress, during the debate of the AIRR Act, I cosponsored an amendment that would have ensured that that revenue raised at an airport remain at the airport and is used for airport purposes. 

I will open it up. Do you believe ensuring that these taxes remain at the airport is fair? And would it help you do a better job 

of investing in your aviation infrastructure if that were the case? 

Ms. CASSOTIS. Yes. 

Mr. MCNAMEE. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Cassotis? 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yeses? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Definitely, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Anybody want to care to explain why? 

Ms. CASSOTIS. We are already struggling to take care of the infrastructure needs that we have. If there were any revenue diversion—and we are one of the three airports in the United States, 

along with DFW and Denver, where we have an agreement with— 

the ability to pull gas out of the ground. Right? We sit on a large 

tract of land, and we have the ability for revenue that a lot of other 

airports don’t have. And we are putting all of it towards debt repayment and infrastructure. That is where it goes. 

Mr. DAVIS. So what are some of the expenses that this revenue 

is used for, rather than reinvesting in airport infrastructure? 

Ms. CASSOTIS. Oh, for me, it is about paying down the debt. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. 

Ms. CASSOTIS. That is it. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. 

Mr. DONOHUE. And at DFW we reinvest everything back into infrastructure at the airport. 

28 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Are there any of you that service municipalities 

that maybe take that money and use it for other purposes? 

[No response.] 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank 

you all. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Ms. Norton? You are recognized. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate this series of hearings you have been holding. I am a new cochair of something called the Quiet Skies Caucus. That name may 

convey the self-evident understanding that airplane noise has become a national issue. And it is a bipartisan issue here in the Congress. Of course, my own airport is Reagan National Airport. 

I also am aware that there are a number of contributing factors. 

For example, we had manufacturers here, and they discussed 

quieter planes just—I believe it was—last week. And, of course, 

there is the controversy over NextGen, or the new flight procedures. And then there is early morning and late night planes. I 

would call those the three major causes of the concern of Members, 

from coast to coast, I must tell you, about airplane noise. 

I wonder, Mr. Donohue, because I read in your testimony—and 

I commend you, because there is a line in your testimony that says 

outboard runways are typically closed from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. That 

is a much more reasonable hour than, for example, we have at 

Reagan National, where as late as 1 a.m. planes can go, and before 

5 a.m., because you can imagine what that must mean in some 

neighborhoods. 

Did you only—when did you go to 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.? And 

have—has that timeframe had any negative effects on airplane operations? Was the FAA involved, how you decided to go to those 

hours? 

Mr. DONOHUE. OK. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. 

Just to clarify, we do not have a curfew at DFW Airport. What 

we have is the luxury of seven runways. So the fact—— 

Ms. NORTON. You don’t have a curfew. So 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. is 

because of what? 

Mr. DONOHUE. That is just an operational decision we have 

made, because—— 

Ms. NORTON. You have always had that? 

Mr. DONOHUE. I will have to let you know. I have only been at 

DFW 3 years, but—— 

Ms. NORTON. I wish you would. 

Mr. DONOHUE. I will let you know. But we have the flexibility, 

because of seven runways, to use our inboard runways for overnight operations, and we just think that is the right thing to do, 

from a community perspective—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, does that mean that you do have late-night 

flights? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. And you don’t have complaints from your community? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Because we are on a footprint that is about 

17,000 acres, we have about 800,000 operations a year at DFW. 

29 

And I think we had maybe 400 to 500 noise complaints. So we average less—— 

Ms. NORTON. So it is the size of the airport that helps you. 

Mr. DONOHUE. It does. It does. The size and the flexibility we 

have with the runways. 

Ms. NORTON. Of course this is a major airport that you represent. 

I have one more question on the so-called DBE program, and 

that is the inclusion of minorities and women in the construction 

of and renovation of airports. I think this is for—probably best for 

Mr. Donohue and Mr. Lyttle. This committee has only recently reaffirmed in its reauthorization of the FAA its commitment to the 

inclusion of minorities and women in this work. 

Now, the inspector general, in his report, cited the bundling of 

major construction and concession contracts to a single contractor 

as a barrier to women and minorities becoming a part of airport 

construction. So I would like to ask you if you have had any experience with this approach. That is to say bundling. Do you understand how that would almost, per se, automatically exclude small 

business and minority and women-owned business? And what do 

you think can be done about it? 

Mr. DONOHUE. We do not bundle, Congresswoman, at DFW. And 

we have a very, very strong commitment to our minority and 

women-owned partners in the community. Last year, on the expenditure or construction side, we had about $200 million to minority and women-owned businesses. And on the concessions, or revenue side, we had about $150 million. 

So, we have a very strong program, we are committed to it, we 

work with our partners in the community, and we will continue to 

focus on those programs. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. My goodness. 

Mr. Lyttle? 

Mr. LYTTLE. Yes, I think one of the things that we have been discussing with—because we have specific challenges in Washington 

State, with I–200—— 

Ms. NORTON. You have specific challenges? 

Mr. LYTTLE. Challenges with I–200—— 

Ms. NORTON. With DBEs, in particular? 

Mr. LYTTLE. Well, if the—if we have a project that has grants associated with it, then we can set DBE goals. If not, we can’t, based 

on State laws. 

But one of the things we have—— 

Ms. NORTON. I am sorry, you will have to explain that. 

Mr. LYTTLE. There is a State law that we have in Washington 

State called I–200, which prevents us from setting those goals. It 

is specific to the State of Washington. 

Ms. NORTON. Could he just complete his answer, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Have you completed your answer? 

Mr. LYTTLE. No, I am not finished. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Try to wrap it up, please. 

Mr. LYTTLE. OK. I will stop there. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. Lewis? 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would concur with the 

ranking member, Mr. Larsen, that Arthur Hailey’s ‘‘Airport,’’ a 

30 

1968 novel, was a great read. But the movie in 1970 filmed at Minneapolis-St. Paul was even better. So if you don’t know by now, I 

represent Minnesota. 

And MSP, which is a great airport, like many of yours, does have capital infrastructure needs. They estimate $1.7 billion needed over 

the next 7 years to keep up with operational needs. The fees they 

have collected over the past 4 years—$80 million from PFCs, $4 

million only in Federal grants—obviously, they have other revenue 

streams. But you start to see the task ahead for MSP and the country, and what is needed on infrastructure in our airports. 

So, my question on the PFCs—and we will start with Mr. 

Donohue here—so we have raised the cap. Obviously, we are going 

to get more revenue. But one justification has been it will promote 

more competition. Can you tell me, or get more specific on how it 

would, as opposed to the airlines currently serving your cities just 

getting a bigger market share? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, again, while we support the increase in 

PFCs, we have a situation at DFW similar to Minneapolis, Congressman, that you have a carrier that probably has—at DFW, 

American has 80 percent-plus of our traffic. 

So, to argue from a DFW perspective that a PFC increase would 

drive more competition at DFW would be difficult to make that argument, given just the market situation at our airport. 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Lyttle? 

Mr. LYTTLE. Yes. I think it—well, I know it definitely will. We 

are extremely gate-constrained. We are out of gates. We have no 

more gates. And during peak we just cannot accommodate, whether 

it is domestic or international airlines that wants to operate at the 

airport. 

And so, with the additional funding sources from an increase in 

the PFC, we can build these additional gates, both domestic gates 

and international gates. 

Mr. LEWIS. You think it would go to newer—— 

Mr. LYTTLE. Oh, definitely, without a doubt. We have airlines 

that would like to come to the airport now, but the time that they 

would want to come to the airport they can’t, because there are no 

gates available. 

Mr. LEWIS. And what about Pittsburgh? 

Ms. CASSOTIS. We have plenty of gates available, and we would 

welcome anybody who can serve our community. That is not our 

issue. I mean, if anything, it is—we have got 75 gates, and 25 of 

them on any given day are sitting idle. That is 25 gates that we 

are not using that are going to be obsolete soon and would have 

to go through—I mean even if we wanted to preserve that infrastructure, it wouldn’t be useful by the time the airlines wanted to 

use it. 

Mr. LEWIS. There does seem to be unanimity of opinion—and certainly my view—that—I am kind of a user fee guy anyway, so I 

like this idea, to some degree. But, clearly, more revenue is needed 

for infrastructure. That is why we are here, that is why we are 

holding these hearings. 

But I am wondering if there are other methods of getting at some 

of the revenue. And this one is near and dear to my heart. There 

is a study that shows that the ticket tax, obviously, does not apply 

31 

to baggage now. So, naturally, the flights are just more fun than 

ever. Such fees, if you went back to the old model, where it is embedded in the ticket, might raise about $264 million, nationwide. 

Now, you know, given our needs, that isn’t much. But is it worth 

considering? Anybody? 

Yes, Mr. Bleiweis? 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. Congressman, I think all funding sources are important, depending on where they come from. Increase of the PFC 

does multiple things. But you have got to remember that airports, 

just like airlines, somewhat are limited to competition. 

I know when you get a little further out West you have further 

distances between airports. But on the east coast there are choices 

that passengers can make. So by—uncapping a PFC provides opportunities for airports to have infrastructure dollars. We have to 

be careful of what we do with those PFC dollars, because we can’t 

set those at a rate that would drive our—you know, our community 

to other airports to use those to save money. 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, what about the ticket tax on ancillary charges? 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. And I think, you know, since the airlines have 

unbundled, I think any way to put money into the trust fund, including those, is just additional funding opportunities to help support the infrastructure needs to the airports in this country. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much. I yield back my time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Ms. Brownley? 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to shift the 

conversation a little bit towards UAS integration. And obviously, 

UAS integration into our national airspace has become a major 

issue over the last decade. 

I know, Mr. McNamee, in our county we have been—you have 

been undertaking a lot in this area. And if you could, just talk a 

little bit about what you are doing and the progress you are making. 

Mr. MCNAMEE. Yes. So it is a dilemma that the FAA has been 

wrestling with, proliferation of UAS. The technology is so good and 

it is so inexpensive, that just about everybody and anybody owns 

a small drone nowadays. And so the concern, of course, is operating 

those around airports, in particular for this panel here. 

And so, the FAA has stood up what is called the Drone Advisory 

Committee that is a working committee. They have met twice now, 

and they have some subcommittees working primarily on establishing responsible yet reasonable regulations and policies. 

And then also trying to define the responsibilities of the different 

levels of Government. For instance, you may not be able to expect 

local law enforcement to enforce a Federal aviation regulation. So 

those are some of the things we are dealing with. We have been 

involved in that conversation in Ventura County for a long time. 

Our sheriff operates a UAS to supplement their other aviation 

assets. And out at the airport, again, we want to be a model on 

how to safely integrate those around airports. And we have been 

now, for 6 months or so, operating a small UAS simultaneously 

with general aviation traffic—we are not closing the Class Delta 

airspace to do it—and it is working very well. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Is that with the county sheriffs, or—— 

32 

Mr. MCNAMEE. No, that is on behalf of the airport. We are using 

a small UAS now to increase our efficiencies on the ground, in 

terms of facility inspection, perimeter security, wildlife monitoring, 

things like that. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Very good. Thank you very much. And last year, 

you know, our committee spent a great deal of time considering legislation that would have created a private corporation to manage 

our air traffic control system. So could you talk a little bit about 

what you think privatization would have on our contract tower program and also on general aviation airports? 

Mr. MCNAMEE. Certainly there is a concern for small airports. 

The concern would be that if it is a Government corporation, that 

there may be profit motive, and that smaller airports might be in 

jeopardy, particularly their towers, representation on the board, 

making sure that an airport has a seat on the board. 

But really, what is the concern, is that the airlines would have 

a much larger say in how the air transportation system works, the 

network in the sky, and it potentially jeopardizes small airports. 

The drafts I have seen seem to provide some good protections for 

small airports, which I very much appreciate. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Very good, thank you. And one last question is 

do you know the average pilot pay for regional airline pilots, nationwide and locally? Do you believe that paying entry-level pilots 

more would or could mitigate the pilot shortage? 

Mr. MCNAMEE. It will certainly help. I think what you have 

found—and this is what we have experienced at Oxnard Airport, 

and it was mentioned by one of my colleagues, but the reduction 

in fleet at the regional-size aircraft, and then workforce development to generate the number of pilots that we need going into the 

future. You have a large wave of retirements coming, based on that 

mandatory, 65-year age retirement for pilots. 

And so, we do a lot of workforce development locally there, in 

Ventura County. Our flight schools have partnerships with some of 

the regional carriers, to help develop pilots and feed that line. 

But certainly pay seems to be one of those issues where you normally or traditionally have a feeder system going through the 

regionals into the mainlines. Pilots that now qualify to fly for either tend to jump that regional feeder and go right to the mainlines, because they can be paid more there. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Any other solutions that you have for—— 

Mr. MCNAMEE. Again, we facilitate and collaborate with our local 

partners in Ventura County. We are now teaching high school kids 

on operating UAS and providing ground school as—the office of 

education there at the airport is doing. So workforce development 

efforts to try and increase that number of pilots for the future of 

aviation is something that we hold dear to our heart. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. Perry? 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, panel, for being 

here. 

So I am a little interested in the conversation you all were having with Mr. Davis next to me here, in the context of PFCs and 

33 

AIP. Now, each of you, from the looks of it, or sounds of it—I am 

just looking at where you each represent. I am thinking—certainly, 

Mr. Donohue, you have a very different experience. I have been to 

your airport, but I am from around south-central Pennsylvania, 

and we have got Harrisburg International, which struggles, and 

probably—I am thinking we could probably fit maybe 6 or 10 of 

them in your terminal footprint, I am not sure, and it includes the 

runway. 

But that having been said, you know, this conversation about 

PFCs, AIP, and how we fund some of the projects and the infrastructure, maintenance, et cetera, that we have, and potential 

changes, I think, you know, our local airport there struggles, obviously, to bring in carriers and maintain them. Yet people that live 

in the area don’t want to have to travel to this area to fly. 

And I am wondering, especially Mr.—is it Bleiweis? Is that how 

you pronounce that? And maybe Mr.—probably Ventura County is 

probably fairly large, too, but maybe—well, Allegheny, that is—and 

Sea-Tac, that is like—that is out of the program for us, too. But 

I am looking for some perspective on a smaller airport, how these 

changes—if you can kind of envision that. And maybe it is asking 

you to stick up for your competition, right, to a certain extent, but 

how they would affect—how changes would affect some of our 

smaller airports and their ability to stay in business and provide 

that service. 

I am trying to get out of the perspective where we continually 

subsidize and fund them, and—which also draws money away from 

the bigger airports that need it, as well. So just give me some 

thoughts on that. 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. Great question, Congressman. I think allowing 

airports, again, to look at their nonaeronautical land, looking at 

being able to develop and bring in other types of businesses that 

will fund revenue into the airport, will help relieve some of the 

lacking of AIP or the current PFC levels. It is just a matter of how 

much land an airport has. But again—— 

Mr. PERRY. Are there currently prohibitions? 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. No, but there are a lot of hurdles, so to speak, to 

be able to develop land at an airport. Whether it is federally obligated, or not, you still have to go through the FAA process to be 

able to develop that land and get the permission—— 

Mr. PERRY. And that has nothing to do with, like, the clear zone, 

or anything like that. 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. Not at all. 

Mr. PERRY. That is just an airport—— 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. Not at all. I recently in the last few years put a 

gas station/convenience store on my property. It is bringing revenue to the airport. And I had to go through the FAA to get permission to do that before I could even have a conversation with 

them about moving the lease forward. 

So just—again, it is not federally obligated land, but yet they 

still dictate how we control it. Understand the safety aspects, 

and—— 

Mr. PERRY. Sure. 

Mr. BLEIWEIS [continuing]. They are very important. But some of 

the properties that are not near the airfield or not near, you know, 

34 

anything that has an aeronautical purpose should be left up to the 

airport to run the business like a private business, and be able to 

generate revenue, as we are required to do to be self-sufficient as 

possible. 

Mr. PERRY. And I would concur, and maybe we could look at that 

in any modifications we do. 

Ms. Cassotis, do you have any—— 

Ms. CASSOTIS. We have about 3,800 acres of land to be developed, 

and fortunately we have a great relationship with Harrisburg, with 

the ADO. And so we move our projects through quickly, but it does 

take time. And there is quite a bit of work to be done to demonstrate that you are at fair market value, and that the use is, 

frankly, concurrent with something that the FAA would approve 

for the land. So anything we can do to streamline that process 

helps. 

Mr. PERRY. I mean just skipping around here a little bit to a different topic, with a little bit of time left—and Ms. Brownley 

brought it up—I am trying to do some work on the UAS industry. 

We are worried—or maybe ‘‘concerned’’ is a better word—that, 

without some of the infrastructure in place, that the development 

and manufacturing of that keeps on being pushed out of the country because we are just not up to speed. 

Now, this is probably more an issue for the people doing the flying, the traffic management system. But from your perspective— 

she asked you your concerns as facilities managers. And, Mr. 

McNamee, you talked about that a little bit. But I would suspect 

you would support some type of an integrated system for all UAS 

variants? Because, you know, everybody wants to fly them, but 

they want to be the only one doing it, and don’t let anybody else 

do it, right? 

But I just wanted to get—if there is any other perspective I am 

missing from a facilities standpoint that you guys would have. 

Mr. MCNAMEE. So I will field that one. So, really, you do have 

the Drone Advisory Committee working closely with the FAA, and 

I believe they are going to help provide some solutions. You have 

other great minds in NASA looking to implement unmanned traffic 

management systems. And so you do have UAS of all sizes. 

Honestly, now, most of the large UAS, they fly very much like 

a manned aircraft. They file an IFR flight plan, an instrument 

flight plan, and go off and do their work. And there just aren’t that 

many of them. It is the proliferation of the small guys at low altitude, especially around airports where aircraft are arriving and departing, that is of most concern to us. And you have got some great 

minds working to find ways to, through policy, create safe zones 

around airports and technology coming online to help with that, 

with the detect and avoid, and things like that. 

Mr. PERRY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me see. 

To the panel, I am sure, you know, history, and a long history, 

of discrimination in contracting at airports has been obvious, especially in construction and the concessions. Airports are asking, you 

know, Congress to raise the PFC. But these funds are not required 

to meet DOT’s DBE requirements. 

35 

Since the PFC funds don’t have this requirement, how are we to 

be sure that DBE businesses will have a fair shot at the lucrative 

contracts that will likely spring up from our raising of the PFC? 

Mr. Donohue? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, from a DFW Airport perspective, we have 

policies in place that dictate and provide what we are going to do 

to continue to support our minority and women-owned businesses. 

We set goals every year that our board of directors have to approve. We report out to our board of directors on a frequent basis 

on how we are doing in terms of minority and women-owned participation. And, as I said before, we have a very strong program, 

and we want to continue to strengthen it. 

But the biggest issue—or, I think, to answer your question, it is 

the oversight of our board of directors. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Lyttle? 

Mr. LYTTLE. So we are setting more and more aggressive DBE 

small business targets. But to answer the question directly, if you 

look at the trend and what we are asking for, more of the dollars 

associated with construction projects, if we are successful in getting 

the PFC cap raised, will be associated with PFC versus AIP. 

And you are correct, currently there are no DBE requirements 

associated with the PFC, because it is not Federal dollars, it is 

local dollars that is being collected. And I think that is something 

we should take a look at. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Ms. CASSOTIS. So we, like DFW, our board of directors every year 

approves our DBE, WBE, and MBE plans. And we monitor that, 

we do a lot of work in diversity outreach to our community in order 

to get more participation. 

But we have aggressive goals. And on every single project we 

monitor and often exceed them. 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. Congressman, we also approve and look at our 

goals every year. But with smaller airports, the PFC is basically— 

is combined with Federal AIP dollars. So we are pretty much—even 

though we are not—most of our PFC dollars are put into projects 

that we have used with Federal grants, so we would still be obligated to the DBE requirements because it is a combination of funding, not just using PFC dollars for stand-alone projects. 

Mr. PAYNE. Let’s see. Newark Liberty International Airport is in 

my district, and has some of the highest average ticket prices in 

the country. No doubt this is due in part to the constraints on facilities. That is a lack of gates or slots, I guess they are called. 

Can the panel speak to how the lack of slots translates to higher 

ticket prices, those of you that have the issue? Would you say that 

raising the PFC could possibly lead to decreases in ticket prices, 

due to more competition? 

Mr. DONOHUE. From a DFW perspective, we do not have any slot 

constraints. The other competitive dynamic we have at DFW is 

Love Field. And the Wright amendment was just repealed about 2 

years ago, which has created more competition, which has also created lower fares. So, from the DFW region perspective, we don’t 

have that issue, in terms of slot constraints and what they could 

do to pricing. 

36 

Mr. LYTTLE. As I said, one of our major challenges that we have 

at Sea-Tac is gates. And so we have airlines that would like to provide service at our airport, but we just can’t accommodate them, especially during peak, because we do not have the gates. 

And so, the answer to your question is yes. I think there is a possibility that if we can add these additional gates and we have additional airlines, then the prices may very well go down. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Well, I guess my time is up, and I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I would like to recognize that—we are going to 

go to Mr. Sanford. But before we do that, Mr. Larsen for a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent 

to enter into the record a letter from Airports Council International 

representing its support for the DeFazio-Massie bill. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The letter referenced by Congressman Larsen is on page 105.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. And you have a couple of questions for the 

record? 

Mr. LARSEN. And second, yes, I will be entering two questions for 

the record, one on NextGen for DFW and one for Sea-Tac regarding 

the work it has done on its environmental footprint. But I will 

enter those into the record and expect answers back. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Sanford? 

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the chairman. And I will be brief in deference to my colleague from California. I had come in late and, unfortunately, I had another hearing I had to attend. So I apologize 

I wasn’t here for the bulk of your testimony. I appreciate you all’s 

time. 

You know, I would probably be, at least by way of philosophy, 

on the dissenting view on increasing any tax fee or other. And I 

would just like to explore, just for a little bit—for instance, at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, if you look at your alternatives—let’s say the fee wasn’t raised. What would you then do? 

What would be the next step, in terms of where you would look, 

in terms of capital markets or other in supplanting those needs? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Sure. In terms of DFW, Congressman, if the PFC 

was not raised, as we look at future infrastructure needs, the airlines would wind up paying the majority of it through our bond 

issuances, and the airlines pay the debt on those bond issuances. 

Now, again, from an airport perspective, we are fortunate that 

nonaeronautical revenues are a strong—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Can I respectfully—what I would argue is ultimately airlines don’t pay it. I mean, at the end of the day, it is the 

consumer that pays all this stuff, because the cost is not borne by 

the airline, and it is not borne by the local municipality. It is ultimately passed on to the consumer. So—but I hear you. Keep going, 

I am sorry. 

Mr. DONOHUE. And I understand what you are saying. 

Mr. SANFORD. Yes, yes, sure. 

Mr. DONOHUE. I am just saying the mechanism within the airport is they would pay higher fees. 

In terms of our performance from a nonaeronautical perspective, 

where we gain revenues not from the airlines but other sources, we 

37 

would have to step up our performance there, because all of those 

revenues we invest back into the airport. 

As we discussed earlier, I think any discussions around infrastructure and any type of opportunities there would afford us an 

opportunity. P3s—— 

Mr. SANFORD. I guess, again, in just a couple minutes that I 

have, maybe somebody else has an illumination on this front. I 

mean there is no closed system that doesn’t have inefficiency built 

into it. And I would guess, what, it is less than 20 percent of your 

revenue source? Probably much less than that. What is PFC right 

now for you all? 

Mr. DONOHUE. PFC at DFW is about $130 million a year. 

Mr. SANFORD. And percentage of total would be what? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Out of $900 million in revenues. 

Mr. SANFORD. So it is—brain dead at this point in the day—so 

5 percent, is that right? One hundred—no, no—— 

Mr. DONOHUE. No, it would be—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Twenty percent. 

Mr. DONOHUE [continuing]. Ten to fifteen percent. 

Mr. SANFORD. Yes. So it is shy of the 20-percent number. 

So, somehow you are able to navigate the other—for the other 80 

percent. Again, what are other alternatives to raising that fee that 

might be viable? Maybe something that has been done in another 

country, where they have looked at some other creative alternative 

financing vehicle to getting at the needs that you are after without 

ultimately raising the—you know, yet another tax on airlines that 

is borne by the consumer. 

Is there anybody else out there that has, hey, yes, I heard of this, 

they do this in Australia, or they do this in Canada, or they do this 

in Europe? Is there something else out there? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, from a global perspective, Congressman, 

certainly there are examples of other countries who, from a Government perspective, support their aviation industry. I don’t think 

you are going down that path, but that happens, clearly happens 

in other parts of the world. 

And again, I think infrastructure, whatever happens from an infrastructure perspective moving forward, I think offers us an opportunity and—but I am not aware of any other examples that U.S. 

airports have not—— 

Mr. SANFORD. I guess what I am getting at is doesn’t it always— 

I mean it just strikes me that, you know, different—to your point, 

in Pittsburgh different local areas will choose enhancements or 

growth or to be a hub. They will go about competition for that. 

And—because it plays to that local region or that local area’s advantage. We want to add all kinds of different bells and whistles, 

but we want to pass it on to the general flying public though, you 

know, they may or may not go in and out of that airport. 

I mean—and some of this is—it is local development borne by the 

general traveling public. Is that not the case, or you would take exception to that? 

Ms. CASSOTIS. I would take exception to that. I would say that 

the—— 

Mr. SANFORD. I am sure you would. 

38 

Ms. CASSOTIS. Yes, because the people that are paying that PFC 

or contributing to the program are people coming into and out of 

Pittsburgh. They are not connecting. We don’t have a choice. The 

airlines made that choice. And it was the right choice for their 

business model. 

But, you know, I think that the people who—— 

Mr. SANFORD. I will be rude and cut you off, just because I don’t 

want to—or could she finish the question? 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, I don’t want to cut off in the middle, but 

we—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Yes. In fairness to my colleague—— 

Mr. LOBIONDO. The gentleman—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Thank you very much for your time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. The gentleman from California is recognized. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies for 

another committee commitment earlier, too. So I am pleased to be 

able to take part. 

Mr. McNamee, I am from the northern part of the State. We 

have—two of our main hub airports are Chico and Redding, and so 

we probably face similar circumstances to smaller to mid-sized airports with keeping passenger service, as well. So Redding has been 

doing OK. They have managed to maintain lately. Chico has been 

without commercial service since August of 2014, even though they 

had 16,000 boardings in that most recent year. 

So, I guess what I am getting at is what more—you know, you 

have worked with Oxnard there with trying to get that back in 

place, as well. And so, with the access to the small community air 

surface grant program, the commercial service has still eluded you 

in Oxnard. So what kind of strategies could—do you apply to trying 

to get that service back? I mean is all the—is it really the way the 

airport operates, the improvements to the airport, or does it just 

flat come down to the economics and passenger convenience? Do 

passengers want to buy the tickets there—— 

Mr. MCNAMEE. No, it is—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. What kind of things are really the most helpful 

to get that back in place? 

Mr. MCNAMEE. Thank you, Congressman. So at Oxnard we are 

uniquely situated, just under 60 miles from LAX and from Burbank 

and from Santa Barbara to the north. 

Mr. LAMALFA. How far is Santa Barbara? 

Mr. MCNAMEE. About 50 miles, 46 miles, I think, from Oxnard. 

Ventura County is a county of approximately 1 million people. I 

would say about 600,000 of those folks should be using Oxnard Airport. It is a smaller runway, it is 5,500 feet for landing, and only 

100 feet wide. So we are not looking to bring mainline carrier-size 

aircraft. So we are really focused on the regional fleet. And the regional fleet is retiring more aircraft than they are bringing in new 

aircraft. 

And so, it is difficult to find an airline with aircraft that are 

available to serve new routes, particularly ones that are not proven—such as Oxnard—to the Bay Area, which, based on data, on 

market data, shows to be our strongest market if you combine San 

Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco. 

39 

Mr. LAMALFA. Let me ask on that. Is it the newer type of commuter jets are having a bigger challenge than, say, the turbo props 

from before? Is that an aspect that you were just—— 

Mr. MCNAMEE. Most of your regional carriers are now retiring 

the twin engine turbo props, which are what used to serve Oxnard. 

And the 50-seat regional jets are less efficient. So, as fuel prices 

go up, they tend to use those less. 

And, frankly, when you are feeding in to a major hub airport— 

say, San Francisco—when you have to occupy a gate with a 50-passenger jet versus a 200-passenger jet, it just doesn’t work as well 

for that airport. And so Oxnard is open for 70- and 90-seat-sized 

aircraft. We could accommodate that. But again, the airlines are 

risk averse, and so they are very careful where they put the limited 

number of aircraft they have available into which markets. So it 

has been a real challenge for us. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. So that—without that service, you must be 

having a very difficult time maintaining the facilities at a position 

to—— 

Mr. MCNAMEE. So, luckily, we operate a system of two airports 

in Ventura County, and so we are able to move funds from 

Camarillo Airport, where we have a large business park, as well— 

and the business park alone generates about 35 percent of our revenue for the two airports. And so we do have the money to meet 

local match on Federal grants for those infrastructure projects 

needed at both airports. 

And then we do have money in the bank when we do those 

projects that are noneligible to enhance the facility. 

Mr. LAMALFA. The airport improvement program can be quite 

helpful for smaller airports like that. But the $150,000-per-year 

cap, how much of a hindrance is that, especially if there is more 

revenue available to spread around? How important is that cap in 

hindering what you might do to become more—— 

Mr. MCNAMEE. So, if you were to look at some of the documents 

I submitted, and in particular to the grants that have been awarded to Ventura County, we have rolled over that $150,000 for 2 

years at Camarillo and at least 1 year at Oxnard, and probably another year coming. Because, frankly, it is just not enough money 

to do a meaningful project. And—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. They at least allow you to roll it over and accrue 

it, then, though. 

Mr. MCNAMEE. We do. And the biggest problem is competing 

with other airports in the region for the limited AIP funding that 

is there. So we actually stagger some of our projects to fit in—you 

know, we had a big push with the FAA and the runway safety 

areas in 2015. That gobbled up tens of millions of dollars in our 

region. And so those turned out to be rather lean years for 

Camarillo and Oxnard. 

As we get past that now, we have a substantial project this year 

with some new underground infrastructure and taxi lanes, but then 

we have got major runway rehabilitations coming for both airports. 

And I think that is something you are going to see at a lot of airports that—our older facilities, where it is just that cycle. The runways are at the end of their useful life. So I think in small general 

40 

aviation and small commercial service airports you are going to see 

more and more runway reconstruction coming in the near years. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So the cap is an issue. Yes or no? 

Mr. MCNAMEE. It is. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. 

Mr. MCNAMEE. Short answer is yes, it is an issue. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK, thank you. Time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. I have one question for anyone on the 

panel. 

Many airport safety research programs are conducted at the 

FAA’s flagship technical center, which is in my district. Are there 

any safety issues at our airports or in the National Airspace System that you can think of that the committee should be aware of? 

And, if so, how are they being addressed by the aviation community and the FAA? 

This is for anybody who may choose to take it. 

[No response.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. They are all jumping up at once. 

Mr. BLEIWEIS. Chairman, I think the FAA does a tremendous job 

with the safety side of aviation. And I am not aware of any safety 

issues that are not being addressed appropriately. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Everybody else feels—yes, sir? 

Mr. MCNAMEE. Certainly on the general aviation side of things, 

I think you are finding the certification process for general aviation 

aircraft, avionics, things like that, streamlining that process while 

still maintaining a level of safety, I think, is very important for 

general aviation and its future. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Yes, that is high up on our list to address with 

this reauthorization. 

Mr. DONOHUE. I would just say, Chairman, that the FAA continues to do an excellent job, from a safety perspective. I—you 

know, having worked overseas, we do have the safest aviation system in the world. No doubt about it. But, most importantly, I think 

we all agree that we are not complacent about that, and we know 

we can continue to do better, and invest in better use of technology. 

But they are a very good partner, from a safety perspective. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. I would like to thank our witnesses very 

much. I think this was very helpful for us. We appreciate your time 

and energy and your contribution to our effort here. And the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

41 


Insert offset folio 9 here 24654.009

Representative Sam Graves 

Statement for the Record 

Aviation Subcommittee Hearing 

"Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: State of American Airports" 

March 7, 2017 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing to examine the state of our nation's 

airports. In my district, we have numerous general aviation and reliever airports, a regional airport in 

Kirksville, Missouri and Kansas City International. As such, I am familiar with the unique challenges 

airports face. One issue Congress has sought to address in the past, which affects airport funding, is 

revenue diversion from airports. The basic pillar of this policy is that any revenues generated on 

airports should be used for airport-related projects. 

The Congressional history of revenue diversion policy started in 1982 when Congress passed aviation 

legislation requiring "all revenues generated by the airport, if it is a public airport, will be expended 

for the capital or operating costs of the airport, the local airport system, or other local facilities which 

are owned or operated by the owner or operator of the airport and directly related to the actual 

transportation of passengers or property." In 1987, Congress extended that policy to include any local 

taxes on aviation fuel. It is also important to note that in 1994 Congress took steps to clarify 

acceptable uses for utilizing revenues collected on airports. Finally, in 1996 Congress applied the 

revenue diversion policy to private airports which receive federal assistance. 

In 2016 during consideration of the Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act, 

Representatives Rodney Davis (R-Il) and Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced a bipartisan amendment to 

clarify existing state and local taxation prohibitions enacted as part of the 1994 FAA Reauthorization. 

Specifically, the amendment adds to existing state taxation prohibitions under Title 49 

(Transportation Title) by prohibiting the levying or collecting of a tax, fee or other charge at a 

commercial airport unless it already existed prior to date of enactment, is a generally imposed sales 

tax, or the tax is used solely for the airport or aeronautical purposes. The amendment was 

prospective, and did not repeal existing taxes. 

What we are seeing in Kansas City and other areas of the country are local fees and taxes imposed on 

businesses operating at our airports to finance various non-airport projects such as convention 

centers or sports stadiums. It is clearly within Congress' purview to address policies that negatively 

affect interstate commerce. 

During last year's committee debate on the AIRR Act, a couple of questions were raised about how 

airport revenue could be spent and for examples of eligible projects. While I understand Members' 

interest in projects that support the airport both directly and indirectly, the Davis-Cohen amendment 

did not make any changes to long-standing FAA policy on eligible projects established as part of the 

1994 reauthorization of aviation programs and policy. It simply reaffirmed current airport revenue 

diversion policy for any fees that would be grandfathered in under the amendment. In addition, it 

prevents future discriminatory taxes on specific airport businesses. 
42 


Insert offset folio 10 here 24654.010

Testimony of 

Sean Donohue 

CEO, Dallas I Fort Worth International Airport 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

U.S House of Representatives 

Hearing on "Building a 21st Century Infrastructure: State of American Airports" 

Wednesday, March 1, 2017 

Subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo and Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Larsen and 

Ranking Member DeFazio, and distinguished members of the committee, good morning. I'd 

also like to acknowledge a long-time partner of DFW Airport that sits on this 

Subcommittee, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson. Thank you for your continued 

support. I'd like to briefly recognize another friend of DFW Airport, Congressman Blake 

Farenthold. 

On behalf of the nearly 2,000 employees that work for Dallas I Fort Worth International 

Airport and the more than 50,000 men and women who work for our airlines and other 

partners, it is my pleasure to be here today to testify before you on the state of American 

airports, specifically the large hubs that are at the heart of our industry. This hearing is an 

important step in shaping the way forward for our nation's airports, airlines, and 

passengers. 

There is a saying in our industry "if you've seen one airport, you've seen one airport". This 

is mostly true. Each airport is a unique entity with its own benefits, challenges and 

characteristics. 

As you consider to day's testimony and potentially develop plans for greater investment in 

airports, please keep our unique needs in mind. While some airports may need new 

runways, others need new towers or terminals. There is not a one size fits all approach to 

addressing airports' infrastructures. 

The evolution of aviation has meant the world has gotten smaller. More Americans can 

travel the world affordably and in less time than ever, and airports today need to grow and 

evolve with the aviation industry. We need to think about airports beyond just runways, 

taxiways, and terminals. There arc real infrastructure and facility challenges in today's 

airport environment. 

DFW is ranked 3'" in the world in airport operations and lOth in terms of passengers and 

contributes over $37 billion in economic activity across North Texas. DFW has non-stop 

flights to 217 destinations around the world- 55 international and 162 domestic. In fact, 

you can fly from DFW to London in the same time it takes to drive from DFW to El Paso, TX. 
43 


Insert offset folio 11 here 24654.011

Large hubs airports like DFW, with 73% of total customer traffic in the country, have needs 

that are truly "supersized". For example, building and improving terminals, a necessity for 

the long-term success of an airport, are not just simple construction projects. They are 

multi-year ventures entailing billions of dollars in costs. 

Airport financing remains the most significant issue we are facing today. U.S. airports 

owned by state or local governments are required by the federal government to be as selfsustaining as possible and receive little or no taxpayer support. To that end we must 

operate like a business, funding operations from revenue, and strategically planning 

funding for major improvement projects, which are, to say the least, incredibly expensive. 

Additionally, the ever-increasing security needs of airports go beyond law enforcement 

resources, and now extend into rethinking the very infrastructure of our airports. 

Airports, capital markets, the airlines and their passengers provide funds to help pay for 

these long-term projects. Utilizing a combination of airline fees, Airport Improvement 

Program grants, the Passenger Facility Charge, critical municipal bonds and commercial 

revenues, airports must cobble together enough funding to build the massive infrastructure 

needed to keep our industry moving at peak efficiency. 

But even the healthiest of airports have found their revenues stretched to keep up with the 

ever-growing needs of the traveling public and aviation industry. Indeed, recent studies 

have found airports' infrastructure needs for 2017 through 2021, adjusted for inflation, are 

almost $100 billion, or nearly $20 billion annualized. These are not cosmetic projects 

designed to put a shiny new look on airports, but the necessary developments required to 

keep up with an ever growing and changing aviation industry. 

Airport Financing Options 

Bonds 

Airports frequently turn to the capital markets to finance long-term construction projects. Bond 

proceeds are the largest sources of funds for airport capital needs, accounting for approximately 

54% of the total funds historically. Airports utilize numerous types of municipal bonds to finance 

airport capital projects. 

The Passenger Facility Charge 

We also rely on the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program. The PFC program allows the 

collection of fees up to $4.50 for every enplaned passenger at commercial airports controlled by 

public agencies, with a maximum of two PFCs charged on a one-way trip or four PFCs on a round 

trip, for a maximum of$18 total. Airports use these fees to fund FAA-approved projects that 

enhance safety, security, or capacity; reduce noise or increase air carrier competition. Revenues 

from PFCs are local funds, not federal, and are collected by the airlines and remitted to the airports 

monthly. Airlines retain 11 o/o of the amount collected to reimburse them for collection costs. 

At DFW, we have filed ten PFC applications since the program was implemented. Nine applications 

have been closed and DFW is currently collecting funds under Application #10 at $4.50. All of 
44 


Insert offset folio 12 here 24654.012

DFW's PFC revenues are programed to pay the debt service of the approved projects. In FY16, DFW 

collected $127 million in PFC and used $130 million for eligible debt service which helped reduce 

airlines costs 

The FAA is still authorized to approve all PFC applications and projects even though PFC funds do 

not emanate from the federal government. PFC projects that are eligible are generally the same as 

projects eligible for AlP funding. Areas of DFW that are excluded are specific projects or terminal 

areas that generate revenue, or are related to repairs and maintenance. For example, our SkyLink's 

Maintenance Facility was deemed ineligible for PFC funding while terminals are typically partially 

eligible. Congress should consider increasing the categories of projects that are eligible for PFC's. 

The PFC program was originally designed to be similar to the AlP program, where airports will 

submit projects for FAA approval and be authorized to collect funds for pay-go construction. 

Around 2000, airports began to leverage PFCs for large projects by either issuing bonds backed 

solely by PFC revenues, or as DFW currently does, pledge PFC's as part of gross airport revenues to 

cover a share of the debt service for eligible projects. This new approach extended applications 

from a few years for pay-as-go projects to applications extending 30 years over the life of the bonds 

that were issued. 

Our primary problem remains that PFC funds are local funds, not federal funds, but the federal 

government (FAA) still has authority over how PFC funds are allocated. Airports know best which 

projects would provide the greatest benefit to the traveling public, and the airport should be 

allowed to use PFC funds for any project that benefits our customers. 

Airport Improvement Program 

The Airport Improvement Program (AlP) program is a federal grant provided by the FAA 

on an annual basis. Funds for these grants are provided by a federal tax on airline tickets, 

and approximately $3 billion in AlP grants are available nationwide. AlP funds are allocated 

by region, with the regional FAA office given the authority to award available funding 

through grants. 

Prior to the selection process, each airport receives a calculated entitlement amount that is 

predicated on passenger and cargo totals. These entitlement payments are paid first from 

available grant funds. If an airport is utilizing PFC funding, tbe airport's entitlement 

payments are reduced. The $4.50 PFC typically reduces an airport's entitlement by 75%. 

After entitlements grants are awarded, any remaining funds are awarded through 

discretionary grants, with Letters of Intent awarded first. Any remaining discretionary 

funds are awarded at the discretion of the regional office, based on a ranking system, which 

evaluates projects offered by the airports within the region. VALE grants are for 

environmental projects and can also become available to regular discretionary funding. 

Large hub airports do not receive a proportional amount of funding relative to the amount 

of taxes collected 

DFW's 25% entitlement funds total roughly $9 million annually, while FAA's regional office 

informed DFW to anticipate $15 million per year as DFW's share of discretionary funds 
45 


Insert offset folio 13 here 24654.013

In FY16, DFW received $40 million ($9 million of entitlement funds, $28 million of 

discretionary funds and $3 from a VALE grant). In FY 2015, the Airport received $23 

million and in FY 2014$24 million. DFW's Treasury Management team estimated that 

approximately 9% of the Aviation Trust fund was collected at DFW, yet DFW receives only 

1% of the available grants 

Carrier Fees 

Airports are primarily supported by user fees, because of this we are true partners with air 

carriers. Landing fees, terminal usage fees and other air carrier associated fees are the main 

source of revenue for DFW. 

Security Infrastructure 

AT DFW, it is our hope that we can modernize funding policies and enable airports to 

utilize all financing methods available to meet security infrastructure needs. Security 

infrastructure is becoming a larger and larger challenge for airports. No US airport was 

designed with today's security footprint in mind- all pre-date the heightened security 

checks that are now common. 

Noise 

We also continue to address the always present noise issues inevitable in the aviation 

sector and we have worked for years to develop a proactive plan to mitigate noise 

complaints. 

FAA and lCAO regulations continue to be updated to keep pace with new developments in 

air travel. Constant advances in airframe and engine technology have resulted in quieter 

planes. 

At DFW, we continually monitor sound from aircraft operations and local community 

activities. 

Our Noise Compatibility Office monitors aircraft flight tracks, via FAA radar data feeds to 

continually understand our impact on our surrounding community. And NextGen efficiency 

improvements are enabling FAA to guide and track aircraft more precisely on direct routes, 

reducing congestion, delays, fuel burn emissions and noise. 

Airports are responsible and liable for aviation noise despite the fact that they do not 

control airline schedules (airlines) or flight paths (FAA). Airports are also responsible for 

protecting its environment by ensuring compatible land use development even if it doesn't 

control the land (per Grant Assurances). 

Departing flights at DFW generally use runways closest to the terminal which maximize the 

distance between takeoff noise and local communities. Outboard runways are typically 

closed from llpm- 6am- this action consolidates night operations to DFW's main runways, 

reducing overflights of local communities affected. 
46 


Insert offset folio 14 here 24654.014

DFW staff actively monitors aircraft noise levels through 26 permanently mounted noise 

monitors located in nine cities and three counties to ensure actual aircraft noise levels are 

consistent with predicted noise levels. 

DFW staff also actively monitors aircraft flight paths over local communities to ensure 

flight paths are compliant with agreed commitments with local communities 

DFW continually engages with local communities on noise, operational changes and FAA 

NextGen and focuses on two-way education, engagement and advocacy. DFW also notifies 

local communities in advance of any changes to normal operations such as weekend or 

extended runway closures. 

As a result of our ongoing Community Engagement initiatives, DFW has more than 1,800 

operations and less than two noise complaints each day. 

In addition, DFW has made significant investments to reach its sustainability objectives. 

I'm proud to share with you that DFW is the first domestic and largest airport globally to 

achieve carbon neutral status. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and !look forward to answering any 

questions you may have. 
47 


Insert offset folio 15 here 24654.015

Sean Donohue, Chief Executive Officer, Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, 

Responses to Questions for the Record issued by Hon. Mark Meadows, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina 

Questions for the Record submitted by Han. Mark Meadows: 

1. Can you elaborate on the types of commercial surface transportation options operating at or 

serving your airport? Is your airport also served by public transportation operators, if so, please 

describe the service. How do you ensure surface transportation operators, both public and 

private, are afforded fair and equitable access to airport curbsides? 

ANSWERS: 

1. Commercial surface transportation options: as of March 25, 2017 

Taxis 

Shared-Ride 

limousines 

Transp Network Company (TN C) 

Courtesy Van 

Charter Bus 

2. Public transportation operators: 

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) 

Number of Companies 

34 

3 

255 

3 

94 

45 

Rail station is located at Terminal A, Lower Level Curb, Entry A-10. 

Bus Route 408 Airport Service serves DFW Remote South parking lot. 

Trinity Railway Express (TRE). 

Number of Vehicles 

1,234 

145 

1,007 

7,316 

245 

529 

Cooperative service provided by the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) and Dallas Area Rapid 

Transit (DART). DFW Airport Board bus service from/to Airport and TRE CentrePorte/DFW Airport Station. 

3. Curbside accessibility: 

All surface transportation operators will enter and exit the Airport Central Terminal Area using one of the Control 

Plazas located at North or South end of the Airport or by using a crossover gate. Rates are based on time inside the 

Central Terminal Areas. Commercial operators have fixed access rate for first two (2) hours, additional time is public 

parkers rate. 

Curbside zoning is designated by the following criteria: 

Safe environment for pedestrians and motorists 

Customer expectations/Terminal access 

Adequate spacing 

Ability to control and enforce 

Revenues received from each class of service 

Competition among ground transportation operators 

Curbside zone priority order, from highest to lowest, for the upper level roadway at DFW are as follows: Terminal Link 

shuttle, taxicab, pre-arranged limo, shared ride, passenger pick-up, based on dose proximity to baggage daim areas. 

The lower level roadways at DFW are as follows: Rental Cars shuttle, Express Parking shuttle, Remote Parking shuttle, 

Employee shuttle, courtesy vans {hotel and off-property parking), passenger drop-offs in private vehicles based on 

airlines sky cap service, Dart Rail Station (Terminal A Only), concession deliveries and charter buses. Terminal Link, 

Rental Cars, Express Parking, Remote Parking, Employee shuttles are airport operated courtesy products. 
48 


Insert offset folio 16 here 24654.016

Questions for the Record from Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington, to Sean Donohue, CEO, Dallas Fort Worth International Airport 

Question for the Record from Representative larsen: 

Mr. Donohue, in your written testimony, you describe how NextGen improvements are 

enabling the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to guide and track aircraft more 

precisely, reducing congestion, delays, fuel burn emissions, and noise. Could you please 

describe any NextGen benefits that DFW has experienced? 

Benefits DFW Airport Receives from NextGen 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss how DFW Airport has profited from NextGen implementations in 

the North Texas Metroplex. DFW Airport has benefitted primarily from two significant NextGen initiatives: 

Area Navigation (RNAV) in 2005. 

Metroplex- North Texas in 2014. 

RNAV Departures (September 2005) 

FAA implemented RNAV off the Ground Uet departures) at DFW 

Airport in September 2005. Utilizing RNAV allows us to use satellite 

navigation instead of ground-based navigation, facilitating improved 

direct routing, consistent flight paths and enhanced departure 

throughput. 

Other Benefits of RNAV Departures 

Increased plane departures (Approximately 15 to 20 percent 

increase per hour). 

More efficient and improved pilot-to-controller verbal communications ( 40 percent improvement) and 

less miscommunication risks. 

Reduced area population noise level exposure (DNL noise level by 22 percent). 

Reduced fuel costs for airlines. 

EX: American Airlines saves $10-$12 million in annual fuel costs using RNAV off the ground. 
49 


Insert offset folio 17 here 24654.017

Questions for the Record from Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington, to Sean Donohue, CEO, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport 

METROPLEX- North Texas (September 2014) 

Dallas Fort Worth Airport and the local North Texas airspace have realized several significant and 

beneficial changes since implementing performance-based navigation and the Metroplex North Texas 

initiative. The airport has specifically targeted and realized improved efficiencies in moving aircraft on 

and off the airfield and into the overhead stream. 

DFW Airport and Love Field Airport are both large and active hub airports (Located eight miles apart). 

The Metroplex initiative has provided more direct and efficient path routing and helped both airports 

operate independently and without interruption. 

Data Comm digital communications between air traffic controllers and pilots has helped the Airport 

provide faster and safer rerouting of planes (especially important to our area which experiences extreme 

thunderstorms), have fewer airplane travel delays (important since DFW Airport has about 900 departures 

daily) and increased accuracy and efficiency in airport and airline operations. 

Other Benefits of Metroplex- North Texas: 

More precise and efficient use of airspace through satellite guidance navigation and enhanced 

collaboration with stakeholders. 

Reduced carbon emissions (Approximately 22,400 metric tons annually) and reduction of 

approximately 300 to 500 pounds of fuel per flight. 

Enabled aircraft (through Optimized Profile Descents- OPD) to descend at near idle power, avoiding 

the tradition stair-step descent, reducing fuel burn, 

emissions and noise on approaches. 

Estimated environmental benefits ($4.5 to $6.5 

million in fuel savings annually resulting in more 

than $10 million aircraft operator savings). 

Faster aircraft departures and arrivals. 

Less aircraft flying miles. 

Benefit EX: The North Texas Metroplex made history in Sept. 2014 by turning on 80 new procedures in a 

single day. 

If you have any questions or need more information, please contact Robert Horton, V.P. Environmental 

Affairs at rhorton@dfwairport.com. 
50 


Insert offset folio 18 here 24654.018

Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois 

Questions for the Record to Sean Donohue, Chief Executive Officer, 

Dallas Fort Worth International Airport 

1. Airport Vehicles & Zero Emissions Technology 

The Voluntary Airport Low Emission (VALE) Program was originally created "to reduce all 

sources of airport ground emission and help airport sponsors meet their state-related air 

quality responsibilities under the Clean Air Act." Several airports have used VALE funds for 

projects like gate electrification, ground support equipment and central PCA systems 

including Seattle-Tacoma, which replaced 73 gates through the VALE program. 

However, zero emission vehicles are not being pursued by airports, but are becoming 

commonplace on American roads. Consumer sales are at an all-time high and other sectors, 

such as transit and delivery services, are deploying zero-emission vehicles as part of daily 

operations. Mr. Donohue, as your airport has used the VALE program--can you describe 

your experience with pursuing VALE funds and if there are limitations preventing you from 

doing more? Do you have airport shuttles and would you use VALE to replace those 

vehicles? 

2. Federal Acquisition Regulations 

Federal procurement rules are in place for agencies procuring engineering services on 

highway and transit projects; these rules are based on the Federal Acquisition Regulations. 

They were enacted by Congress to protect the taxpayer by making sure the agency is 

receiving the most qualified technical services and by regulating expenses that can be 

charged to the agency. They're also helpful to the engineering firms because the system 

provides a uniform and consistent standard for firms of all sizes competing for work. These 

rules apply to most federally funded transportation projects, but they do not currently apply 

to all airport projects. I understand this is creating some problems. 

Mr. Donohue, can you describe how your airport works with local engineering and design 

firms, and what policies you have in place to ensure robust competition and fair 

compensation? 
51 


Insert offset folio 19 here 24654.019

DFW Airport Response to Airport Vehicles & Zero Emissions Technology 

(VALE Program) 

History and Background 

In 2001, DFW Airport was one of the first airports selected by the FAA for VALE's pilot program 

(Inherently Low Emission Vehicle Airport Pilot Program). DFW has since used VALE funding for: 

Gate electrification and preconditioned air systems at 37 gates { 100 percent of DFW's gates 

are now electrified). 

Electric vehicle fast charging (18 stations)- allowing airlines to replace 144 gasoline and 

diesel GSE vehicles. 

Currently, DFW is currently pursuing a VALE grant to provide ground electrification and preconditioned air systems (PCA) for aircraft hardstand parking. We are interested in pursuing 

future VALE and FAA Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) grants to support all-electric airport busses 

and shuttles. 

NOTE: Aircraft represent 90 percent of airport emissions. DFW Airport's current priority is to 

maintain carbon neutrality by reducing facility and fleet emissions. 

Limitations of DFW Airport using VALE Grants 

DFW Airport's primary limitations in converting to all-electric vehicles are due to the: 

Economic viability of electric vehicles. 

NOTE: Electric transit bus cost is almost twice the cost of CNG. When we converted from 

diesel to CNG, our transportation fleet emissions were reduced by 20-25 percent. The cost 

to convert our CNG fleet to electric would not be economically viable without access to grant 

programs and new battery technologies. DFW is currently pursuing other clean technology 

strategies such as Renewable Natural gas (RNG), which could potentially reduce fleet 

emissions by -79 percent. 

Operational range limitations of past battery technologies. However, battery technology 

is evolving rapidly so we will continue to evaluate this through ongoing studies. 

Buy American obligations can limit our competitive choices (In years past, we have not 

been able to identify eligible vehicles that meet VALE Buy American requirements). 

Summary 

DFW Airport will continue to pursue VALE grant opportunities in support of new innovative 

technologies that reduce emissions. The Airport is also exploring other environmental and 

sustainability grant programs, including those funded by the EPA, the Department of Energy 

and capital funds due to financial settlements realized from court-obligated payouts such as the 

Volkswagen penalties. 

If you have any questions or need more information, please contact Robert Horton, V.P. 

Environmental Affairs at rhorton@dfwairport.com. 
52 


Insert offset folio 20 here 24654.020

DFW Airport response to question #2 on Federal Acquisition Regulations 

DFW procures all professional design and consulting services on a qualifications basis in 

accordance with all applicable Federal and State laws. OFW has proactively tailored its 

professional design and consulting services contracts to best fit the local market and provide 

more opportunities for the most qualified firms. 

OFW, in the past 12-months, has awarded ten (10) professional, design and consufting 

contracts; historically these services would have been captured in just four (4) contracts. These 

ten (10) contracts are valued at over $100 million. 

Lastly, OFW has modified its compensation provisions to provide additional methods for 

compensating services outside of typical "cost plus fixed margin" arrangement These 

additional methods provide opportunities for both prime and sub-consultants to provide the best 

value to the Airport and improve their margins. 

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact Erik J. Prince at 

eprince@dfwairport.com. 
53 


Insert offset folio 21 here 24654.021

Port =•· - Written Testimony of Lance Lyttle 

of Seattle' Managing Director of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

United States House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee 

Aviation Subcommittee 

March 1, 2017 

Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, Chairman Shuster, and 

Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the Subcommittee for your leadership on 

ensuring 21st century competitiveness for US airports, and for inviting me to testify 

today. It is an honor for me to be here. 

I would also like to especially thank Representative Larsen, who is a great champion 

for Washington state and our airports. It is a pleasure to be able to thank you in 

person for your efforts to ensure the competitiveness of our aviation and aerospace 

industry. 

My name is Lance Lyttle, and I am the Managing Director of Seattle-Tacoma 

International Airport. Accommodating passenger growth and building world-class 

aviation infrastructure is a critical priority for airport operators and members of the 

Subcommittee, and I would like to focus my remarks this morning on laying out the 

challenge we face at Sea-Tac in creating the needed facilities to support our rapid 

growth, how we think about financing our required investments and how we work to 

ensure that the benefits of our growth are shared by our surrounding communities. I 

would also like to touch on how we think Congress can help, in particular by 

removing the federal cap on the Passenger Facility Charge. 

2016 marked the sixth year in a row of record-breaking growth at Sea-Tac: 
54 


Insert offset folio 22 here 24654.022

Lyttle Aviation Subcommittee Testimony 

March 1, 2017 

• We served over 45 million passengers, an 8% increase, after 2015's 13% 

increase. 

• International travel also increased- up 11% from 2015- and total air cargo 

went up for the 5th straight year, increasing 10%. 

• This vaults Sea-Tac to the 9th busiest U.S. airport based on passenger volume 

and we now work with over 2 dozen airlines flying direct routes to more than 

80 domestic and 24 international destinations. 

• We supported 110,000 jobs, including 18,000 jobs at the airport. 

• We generated $6.1 billion in personal income, $16.3 billion in business 

revenue, and $565 million in state and local taxes. 

• We do all this with an operational area that is one of the smallest footprints 

for a major US airport. 

At Sea-Tac, our focus is not growth for growth's sake. We're proud of our growth 

because it reflects the increasing economic dynamism and global relevance of the 

Puget Sound region and Washington state overall. With innovative companies such 

as Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks along with disruptive start-ups in 

biotech, global health, retail, manufacturing and IT, our economy is booming, and 

the Seattle area has one of the fastest growing populations in the country. A globally 

competitive airport- making travel to the Seattle region for business and tourism 

both convenient and accessible -is an essential part of this economic vitality. 

But it is not just the robust Seattle economy that requires Sea-Tac Airport to 

scramble to handle this extraordinary increase in airline traffic. In fact, Sea-Tac is 

playing an increasingly important role in the National Airspace System (NAS). Each 

and every new flight came to Seattle as a result of an airline decision. Last year, our 

2 
55 


Insert offset folio 23 here 24654.023

Lyttle Aviation Subcommittee Testimony 

March 1, 2017 

major carriers expanded flights, destinations and plane sizes while we welcomed 

two additional international carriers. These decisions were in part a result of very 

significant changes in the global aviation marketplace. As aircraft technology has 

evolved and as foreign flag airlines have initiated non-stop service from cities across 

Asia to U.S. cities, Seattle's role as a critical U.S. gateway to Asia has become more 

pronounced. This circumstance has certainly benefited the Seattle region, but, more 

importantly, it has made the NAS more efficient by effectively replacing a Northeast 

Asia hub with a U.S. gateway hub. Quite logically, there is a growing amount of 

"feed" traffic from all over the United States to Seattle to make the most efficient 

use of a gateway that is closer than any other in the US to the vast majority of Asian 

destinations. 

The Challenge: Financing Infrastructure Investment to Keep Pace 

With all of those factors, our essential mission as an airport is to avoid being a 

chokepoint, either for our region, for our customers or for the NAS. We are the 

infrastructure for sustainable regional prosperity and increasing global connectivity, 

and our success is shared by people throughout the state, the country and the world. 

Conversely, if we fail to provide needed capacity, we put countless opportunities at 

risk for all of our partners. 

Sea-Tac's experience is not unique. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

estimates that U.S. airport enplanements will grow to more than 1.24 billion over 

the next 20 years. But it is an excellent case study in the real-world challenges that 

the American airport industry faces today. 

3 
56 


Insert offset folio 24 here 24654.024

Lyttle Aviation Subcommittee Testimony 

March 1, 2017 

To accommodate more passengers and airlines, the Port is currently investing more 

than $3.2 billion in capital improvement projects during the next eight years, 

including our $550 million North Satellite Modernization project, a new $660 million 

International Arrivals Facility and a new $317 million baggage handling system. Our 

capital improvement projects will add eight additional gates to the airport, create a 

direct connection to the terminal for international travelers and more than double 

North Satellite dining and retail establishments. Funding this capital plan will use 

essentially all of Sea-Tac's anticipated PFC collections through 2035, and most of 

the PFC collections through 2047, to pay revenue bond debt service on PFC eligible 

projects. 

Vet despite this significant investment, Sea-Tac will not be able to keep up with 

airline or passenger demands. In 2021- even after adding the eight new gates- we 

expect that the airlines will need to load and unload some flights by transporting 

passengers by bus because we will not have enough gates for all the aircraft who 

want to come to Sea-Tac. 

At the same time, we are in the midst of updating our 20-year master plan. The 

current forecast indicates that the region's economy will need Sea-Tac to handle 66 

million annual passengers by 2034- 20 million more than we did last. Sea-Tac, like 

most of the nation's large airports, is more than 40 years old, and it's a challenge to 

update and maintain the infrastructure. The combination of basic infrastructure 

upgrades, coupled with the need to meet anticipated passenger growth over the next 

20 years, drives our capital program quite high. Sea-Tac will need to add 35 more 

gates, dramatically expand our ticketing/check-in facilities, and substantially 

rebuild our airport access roadways. Without readily available expansion space, we 

4 
57 


Insert offset folio 25 here 24654.025

Lyttle Aviation Subcommittee Testimony 

March 1, 2017 

will likely need to move three airline maintenance hangars, several cargo buildings, 

and an Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) station to construct gates and hold 

aircraft positions. At this point we believe these capital expenditures will cost at 

least $10 billion to implement- above and beyond our current capital plan and 

financing plan. 

The Need: Sufficient Tools and Flexibility to Fund Infrastructure Investments 

I would like to share with the Subcommittee how we approach this massive 

investment challenge. We have limited options to remain competitive with our 

airlines' rates and charges, which is critical to retain the international growth we 

have experienced. Unlike origin and destination traffic that is organic to Sea-Tac 

alone, airlines have choices in how they choose to get to Asia. If we are unable to 

remain competitive in our airline rates and charges, we may see traffic relocate to 

another U.S. airport. 

We have four main revenue sources to meet our infrastructure needs: increasing 

non-airline revenue; securing additional Airport Improvement Program grants; 

increasing local taxes on King County residents; and raising the Passenger Facility 

Charge. Let me highlight each of these briefly. 

First is airport net operating income. Per FAA guidelines, aeronautical revenues are 

set to recover costs, and so essentially all of the net operating income out of Sea-Tac 

is generated from non-aeronautical sources such as parking, rental cars and airport 

dining and retail concessions. While this is a critical source of revenue, it is not 

sufficient to meet our capital needs. 

5 
58 


Insert offset folio 26 here 24654.026

Lyttle Aviation Subcommittee Testimony 

March 1, 2017 

Second is federal Airport Improvement Program funding. While I am sure all of 

today's panelists would welcome as much direct federal investment as possible, the 

reality is that fewer and fewer of these scarce dollars are available for projects. And 

those dollars that are available are limited to uses that do not include some of our 

biggest terminal investment needs. 

Third, the Port of Seattle has limited property taxing authority, which we almost 

never use for airport capital project financing. More to the point, though, as we 

consider airport investments and the NAS, only about one third of Sea-Tac 

passengers are King County residents (those who would pay increased property 

taxes). It would be highly inequitable to require all King County taxpayersincluding those who seldom or never use the airport- to pay for facilities used by 

travelers from all over Washington state, the United States, and all over the world. 

The fourth option is the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) -the funding source that, 

at Sea-Tac, is directly aligned with the passengers who use the airport. PFCs can and 

must be a critical part of the funding plan for Sea-Tac to meet the needs of our 

region and the NAS. As you are aware, the PFC is a locally generated and approved 

user fee, not federal funding. The federal government never touches the fees and the 

decision to charge a PFC is made on an airport-by-airport basis by local airport 

governing bodies. In the case of Sea-Tac Airport, that would be the directly-elected 

{by the voters of King County) Port of Seattle Commission. While airlines and 

community stakeholders play a role in the PFC approval process, the decision about 

whether to charge a PFC user fee and use it as a funding source is truly a local 

decision and impacts only those passengers that utilize each airport's facilities. This 

allows airports and their governing bodies to make decisions that are in the best 

6 
59 


Insert offset folio 27 here 24654.027

Lyttle Aviation Subcommittee Testimony 

March 1, 2017 

interest of their region to encourage competition among carriers, increase capacity 

and support economic growth through a passenger's direct investment in local 

airport infrastructure. As public institutions accountable to local voters, airports 

balance the very real need to keep costs low while ensuring that aviation specific 

infrastructure meets regional demand. 

This current federal cap on the PFC means that, in 2017, it is worth less than half of 

its spending power when the cap was adjusted in 2000. The outdated cap on the PFC 

prevents airports like Sea-Tac from making the capital investments required to meet 

the air travel needs of both our communities and the nation. In addition, the federal 

cap substitutes a federal one-size-fits-all decision making for that of locally-elected 

officials regarding appropriate fees for passengers at individual airports. 

As I mentioned previously, funding our existing capital plan will use essentially all of 

Sea-Tac's anticipated PFC collections through 2035, and most PFC collections 

through 2047, to pay revenue bond debt service on PFC eligible projects. Therefore, 

there will be little available PFC capacity to pay for the projects identified as part of 

the master plan that are necessary to add capacity to meet regional demand through 

2036. Without additional PFC authority, our debt service on the bonds to fund 

master plan projects would flow directly into the airline rate base, driving airport 

costs to airlines at Sea-Tac, most likely to the highest in the nation. This would not 

be financially feasible for the airlines serving Sea-Tac and it would not be workable 

for the region. 

If Congress would modernize the PFC by removing the federal cap, the new funds 

would be dollars that do not have to be included in airline rates and charges. Again, 

7 
60 


Insert offset folio 28 here 24654.028

Lyttle Aviation Subcommittee Testimony 

March 1, 2017 

we understand that an uncapped PFC would give us the authority to raise the fee, 

but that our decision would have to be balanced with the need to keep our costs 

competitive with other U.S. airports. 

I should mention that increased investment flexibility also allows us to address the 

greatest challenge facing US airports: security. Airports have increasingly become 

targets, and infrastructure development is a key part of the solution, not only 

building out new checkpoints and other perimeter security facilities, but also 

reducing congestion. Last year's FAA extension was a great help to our airport on the 

security side, in part because of the TSA provisions that were included. While I know 

that is not the jurisdiction of this committee, I am hopeful that we can find ways to 

work with the House and Senate to continue to make progress in this area, 

particularly related to the availability of passenger screening canine teams. 

The Opportunity: Increasing the Benefits of Airport Growth 

The true measure of our success in developing our facilities is not only 

accommodating increased passenger volumes but also using being a great 

community steward. Our commissioners and our staff are committed to being the 

most efficient and customer-service focused airport in the country, while being a 

leader in growing responsibly and helping our residents benefit from our growth. 

First, we do this through economic and workforce development, as we work to 

increase the percentage of funds spent with qualified small businesses to 40%, 

including a significant focus on DBE utilization in federally assisted projects. We 

have also set aggressive goals around apprenticeship utilization and diversity goals 

for the contractors on all of our large construction projects. 

8 
61 


Insert offset folio 29 here 24654.029

Lyttle Aviation Subcommittee Testimony 

March 1, 2017 

Second, we are committed to creating a sustainable airport that minimizes the 

environmental impacts of our operations; we already have a range of highly 

successful environmental programs in water quality, recycling, wildlife 

management, air quality, climate and noise reduction. Many of these programs have 

been recognized nationally as models for other airports. We understand that in order 

for our region to continue to grow and thrive in the 21st Century, we must find ways 

to do more while using fewer of our planet's scarce natural resources. This isn't just 

an environmental strategy; it is critical for our "permission to grow" and is of 

paramount importance for our economic future and the vitality of the Pacific 

Northwest community that we serve. 

Our commitment to environmental quality and sustainable development remains as 

strong as ever. Earlier this year, the Port of Seattle, Alaska Airlines and the Boeing 

Company announced the release of a Biofuellnfrastructure Feasibility Study that 

assesses costs and infrastructure necessary to deliver a blend of aviation biofuel and 

conventional jet fuel to aircraft at Sea-Tac, a crucial step toward routine biofuel use 

in the future. The objective of the feasibility study was to identify sites that could 

support the receipt, blending, storage and delivery infrastructure required to supply 

Sea-Tac Airport with up to 50 million gallons per year (and to double to 100 million 

after 2025) of aviation biofuel. Because these biofuels are not produced yet in 

Washington State, they must be imported by truck, rail or barge and then be blended 

with regular petroleum-based jet fuel. Our ultimate goal is to power every flight 

fueled at Sea-Tac with sustainable aviation biofuel, which has a lifecycle carbon 

footprint typically 50 to 80 percent lower than regular jet fuel. 

9 
62 


Insert offset folio 30 here 24654.030

Lyttle Aviation Subcommittee Testimony 

March 1, 2017 

Third, we strive to minimize the issue that is of most vocal community concern: 

aircraft noise. Our airport offers one of the most comprehensive aircraft noise 

reduction programs in the nation, and we work closely with the FAA, our airlines and 

local communities to monitor existing noise programs and develop new ways of 

reducing airport and aircraft noise. However, there are a number of ways that the 

FAA could be an even more valuable partner in noise-related issues, and this again is 

an important area offocus for the next FAA bill. 

At Sea-Tac, our primary focus around noise has been sound insulation programs and 

noise abatement programs. Almost 10,000 single-family homes near our airport have 

been insulated since our program began in 1985, as well as six condominium 

complexes, fourteen community college building, three private schools, two 

churches and one convalescent center. We also acquired 1,400 single-family home 

parcels and relocated the residents, and acquired and relocated the residents at five 

mobile home parks. 

In addition, following an agreement reached in 2002 between the High line School 

District, the FAA, and the Port of Seattle, the Port and FAA have also provided 

funding assistance for sound insulation in noise impacted public school buildings. 

We have completed about half of the 15 schools identified in the MOA, and we are 

working closely with the FAA to ensure that we complete this essential commitment 

to local school children. 

In closing, Sea-Tac International Airport sees the federal government and Congress 

as essential partners. By granting us increased local authority on the PFC, greater 

tools and flexibility on addressing community impact, and greater investment in 

10 
63 


Insert offset folio 31 here 24654.031

Lyttle Aviation Subcommittee Testimony 

March 1, 2017 

security, you will help us once again make America's airports the envy of the world. I 

am grateful to have an audience with you today, and I am confident that with your 

leadership we can capitalize on this opportunity to be one of the key facilitators of 

US economic growth and make improvements to the benefit of all U.S. passengers. 

Thank you. 

11 

Insert offset folio 32 here 24654.032

Nearly 46 mif1ion annual passengers 

Over 366,000 annual metric tons of <:argo Over two dozen airlines 

EXPECTED INCREASES IN 

AIRPORT ACTIVITY llV 2034 

£:_£0N01!11C 

More than 80 domestic and 24 international 

destinations 

More than 1,100 daily takeoffs and landings 

GROWTI-l!N TOTAL. 

2016 2034 

GROWTH IN 

AIRCRAFT OPEnATlONS 

2016 2034 

Insert offset folio 33 here 24654.033

IN E 

There are exdting first-dass upgrades in store. 0VJ.Ot the next several years, we will complete a !I of the following: 

Expanding and renovating the 40-year-old North Sate!Hte with Build a new expanded International Arrivals Facility that will 

new gates, enhanced am<>nitles and a rooftop Alaska Airlines feature an iconic aerial walkway from the South S<Hel!ite, acro~s lounge. The North Sat<>llite will increase by 2tJl,OOO ~quare feet the top of Concatme A, to the new structure. The walkway 

Gate> will im:rease from 12 to 20, dining and retail space will will be 85 feet In the air and span a taxiway lane below. This 

more than double, and a new mezzanine :eve! will feature full- <:xpans.on will inc tease passenger capadty by nearly 60 

ESf!MATEO COMPLETION DATE 

percent and nearly double the number of gates capable of 

servingwide·bodyalrcraft 

, $550mi!J!on ESTIMATED COMPlETION DATE, , .......... 2021 

Streamline the way checked bags get to aircraft by replacing 

six aging baggage-screening systems with one centralized 

system that wll! maximize capacity. Some interim measures wi!l 

help better utilize the exi>ting baggage systems until the new 

ESTIMATED BUDGET. • , , $660 million 

0 GATES HARDSTAND TERMINAL 

Help meet existing and expected dem;md by construtting a 

facii!ty to nandie D Gate pammgers, who Wili be bused to and 

from aircraft parked away from the main terminal, known as 

2024 :~~~~t=~:~o~:r:~:~sTION DATE 201& 

ESTIMATED BUDGET., . S3S.4 mll!on 

Create ~pace for new dining and re:tail busines~e5 expeded to Renovate Sea-Tac's South Satei!ite, the cur rem location of the 

open throughout the airport. Included will be new mezzanine· U.S, Customs area for arriving international pass1mgers, a her 

level re~taurants and pl<.~y areas for children. Visitors nm look the new International Arrivals Facility iswmplete. The gates 

forward to seeing a variHy of heW dining and retail options, In this o;atdiite serve both international and domestic tr.we!er$ 

both fam!liar national brand names and local businesse> with and flights. 

Pacific Northwest flair, EST!Mi\iW COMPLETION DATE 

R 

The Port recently rebuilt the aging .::enter runway, wplaced 

or reeonfigured four taxiways and lnstaHed new lightlng and 

a system that will detect birds and foreign objects on the 

runway, making the entire 11!rfw.!d ready to serve the public 

foryearstocome. 

COMPlErED 

0 
66 


Insert offset folio 34 here 24654.034

Response by lance Lyttle, 

Managing Director, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

to U.S. Representative Mark Meadows 

Question for the Record for the March 1, 2017 House Aviation Subcommittee 

Hearing on "Building a 21" Century Infrastructure for America: 

State of American Airports" 

QUESTION FROM REP. MARK MEADOWS (R-NC): Can you elaborate on the types of commercial surface 

transportation options operating at or serving your airport? Is your airport also served by public 

transportation operators, if so, please describe the service. How do you ensure surface transportation 

operators, both public and private, are afforded fair and equitable access to airport curbsides? 

ANSWER: Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac) is well-served by a wide diversity of surface 

transportation options. The approximately 46 million passengers and 18,000 employees who utilize our 

airport rely on these choices- as well as their personal vehicles- to ensure efficient and reliable access to 

and from Sea-Tac. 

Two public transportation operators serve Sea-Tac: 1) Sound Transit, a three-county regional transit agency 

that operates light rail and express bus services to the airport, and 2) King County Metro, our county-wide 

bus agency. Pertinent to your question, Sound Transit light rail connects to the parking garage adjacent to 

the terminal building, Sound Transit express buses to the south end of the airport curbsides and Metro buses 

to the local roads offsite. As the Puget Sound region grows, our residents have approved significant increases 

in investment in these services (including a $54 billion Sound Transit ballot measure passed in 2016), and we 

expect public transportation to support a growing number of passengers over the next two decades. 

Complementing these public options are multiple commercial services, listed below with a notation of the 

locations of pick-up and drop-off for each: 

On-demand taxis and limousines: drop off on the airport curbside and pick up at a designated 

location in the airport parking garage; 

Prearranged taxi and limousine services: drop off and pick up on the airport curbside; 

Shared ride vehicles, such as on-demand vans and buses: drop off on the airport curbside and pick 

up at a designated location in the airport parking garage; 

Courtesy vehicles from local hotels and offsite parking garages: drop off and pick up in the airport 

parking garage; 

Charter vehicles that transport large groups, such as sports teams and cruise ship passengers: drop 

off and pick up at the south end of the airport curb sides; and 

Transportation network vehicles (TNCs), such as Uber and lyft: drop off on the airport curbside and 

pick up at a designated location in the airport parking garage. 

As you can see above, we provide very limited access to our airport curbsides for pick-ups, mainly because of 

the extremely space-constrained nature of our airport and to reduce congestion on the drives. To that end, 

we focus on fair and equitable access to the airport overall, rather than using the curbside as the main 

destination for these providers. As Sea-Tac continues to grow (we have been the fastest-growing airport in 

the country for the last three years), we are committed to continuing to ensure that the surface 

transportation options we offer to are affordable, convenient and high quality. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this question, and please let us know if you would like additional 

information. 
67 


Insert offset folio 35 here 24654.035

Response by lance Lyttle, 

Managing Director, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

to U.S. Representative Rick Larsen 

Question for the Record for the March 1, 2017 House Aviation Subcommittee 

Hearing on "Building a 2151 Century Infrastructure for America: 

State of American Airports" 

QUESTION FROM REP. RICK LARSEN (0-WA): Mr. Lyttle, I applaud Sea-Tac for its commitment to creating a 

sustainable airport minimizing its environmental footprint. Sea-Tac's efforts are not only important to the 

Pacific Northwest, but can benefit communities across the globe. Please describe some of Sea-Tac's most 

successful environmental programs and how they could be used at other U.S. airports. 

ANSWER: The Port of Seattle understands that, in order for our region to continue to grow and thrive in the 

21st century, we must find ways to do more while using fewer of our planet's scarce natural resources. That 

is why we have set a goal to be the greenest, most energy efficient port in North America. We have engaged 

in numerous strategies to achieve this vision, but there are four approaches in particular that we believe 

stand as best practices for airports across the country: 1) using thorough analysis to determine goals and to 

engage airport leadership; 2) partnering to tackle bold and innovative efforts; 3) understanding the unique 

priorities of our region and 4) leveraging contracting language to address issues beyond the airport's direct 

control. 

First, in terms of analysis, we began our work a decade ago to develop a comprehensive environmental 

strategy by measuring our "environmental footprint," based on a range of air, water, waste and noise 

impacts that Sea-Tac operations have on the environment. By starting with a baseline, we were able to 

develop more targeted and impactful strategies to reduce our footprint. This data-driven consensus on the 

largest drivers of our environmental impact and the most effective ways to reduce it then allowed us to more 

easily get buy-in from airport leadership and other key stakeholders who could help us ensure we had the 

resources and organizational commitment to succeed. It also allowed us to develop a clear set of 

environmental performance indicators to measure our progress and demonstrate success. 

Second, partnership has been essential to addressing the largest driver of airport emissions: airplane 

operations. In collaboration with Alaska Airlines and the Boeing Company, we are working together to power 

every flight fueled at Sea-Tac with sustainable aviation biofue!, which has a lifecyc!e carbon footprint typically 

50 to 80 percent lower than regular jet fuel. Already, Alaska has flown several flights using biofuels, including 

this past November's first ever commercial flight using a new sustainable alternative jet fuel made from 

forest residuals from the Pacific Northwest. In January, we recently released a study on the infrastructure 

needed to bring aviation biofuels to Sea-Tac, and we'll shortly release a study on the economic incentives 

necessary to create the market for production. We were also a founding member of Sustainable Aviation 

Fuels Northwest (SAFN), a group of more than 40 regional stakeholders including biofuels companies, 

technology providers, environmental and energy advocates, agriculture and forestry managers government 

officials and other experts. 

Third, a good example of understanding the unique aspects of our environmental priorities has been our 

approach to water. The Pacific Northwest does not have as much pressure for water conservation, due to our 

abundant natural water sources and consistent rainfall, but water quality management is essential because 

our airport is responsible for 1,600 aces of drainage area that flows directly into three local streams and the 

Puget Sound. In order to protect these aquatic resources, the airport has implemented numerous best 

management practices to remove pollutants, reduce flooding and prevent spills from discharging into the 

environment. Sea-Tac's network of stormwater collection piping, retention ponds, stormwater best 

1 
68 


Insert offset folio 36 here 24654.036

Response by Lance Lyttle, 

Managing Director, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

to U.S. Representative Rick Larsen 

Question for the Record for the March 1, 2017 House Aviation Subcommittee 

Hearing on "Building a 21'1 Century Infrastructure for America: 

State of American Airports" 

management practices, and wastewater treatment facilities effectively manage the risk to local waterways. 

The Port of Seattle is proud to have earned certification as "Salmon Safe. 

Fourth, we have used innovative contracting to achieve progress in areas we otherwise would not have been 

able to impact. For example, the taxi services who contract with the airport- and now the TNCs who serve 

our airport- are required to meet strict environmental standards that incent those companies to use high 

efficiency vehicles and operate more efficiently. Similarly, we now require our airport dining concessionaires 

to use compostable flatware and utensils, which helps us reach our goal of reducing 60 percent of sand waste 

generated at airport operated facilities by 2020. Our commitment to waste reduction has also translated into 

a significant effort around food donation; concessionaire meals that would have been trashed or composted 

are now donated to families in our local communities, providing over 45,000 meals per year. 

There are many other environmental programs with significant impact at Sea-Tac- from our provision of preconditioned air at each gate that removes the need for aircraft to run their engines for air circulation 

(reducing emissions by more than 50,000 metric tons of C02) to our installation of electric ground support 

equipment charging infrastructure onto our airfield or even the airport 1

S nRamp Tower", whlch cuts aircraft 

taxi times and thus reduces emissions by about 5%- but we believe that these four best practices are 

innovative approaches that can be adapted for use by airports throughout the country. Although every 

airport has unique needs and may not be able to adopt the specific initiatives we have, thorough analysis, 

partnering, local focus and contract leverage can always help lead to successful environmental programs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this question, and please let us know if you would like additional 

information. 

2 
69 


Insert offset folio 37 here 24654.037

Response by lance Lyttle, 

Managing Director, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

to U.S. Representative Dan Lipinski 

Question for the Record for the March 1, 2017 House Aviation Subcommittee 

Hearing on "Building a 21" Century Infrastructure for America: 

State of American Airports" 

QUESTION FROM REP. DAN LIPINSKI (O-IL): The Voluntary Airport Low Emission (VALE) Program was 

originally created "to reduce all sources of airport ground emission and help airport sponsors meet their 

state-related air quality responsibilities under the Clean Air Act." Several airports have used VALE funds for 

projects like gate electrification, ground support equipment and central PCA systems including Seattle· 

Tacoma, which replaced 73 gates through the VALE program. However, zero emission vehicles are not being 

pursued by airports, but are becoming commonplace on American roads. Consumer sales are at an all-time 

high and other sectors, such as transit and delivery services, are deploying zero-emission vehicles as part of 

daily operations. Mr. Donohue and Mr. Lyttle: as both your airports have used the VALE program· can you 

describe your experience with pursuing VALE funds and if there are limitations preventing you from doing 

more? Do you have airport shuttles and would you use VALE to replace those vehicles? 

ANSWER: The Port of Seattle aims to be the greenest, most energy efficient port in North America. Our 

Commission's "Century Agenda" outlines our commitment to creating a sustainable airport that minimizes 

the environmental impacts of our operations; we already have a range of highly successful environmental 

programs in water quality, recycling, wildlife management, air quality, climate and noise reduction. Many of 

these programs have been recognized nationally as models for other airports. We understand that in order 

for our region to continue to grow and thrive in the 21st Century, we must find ways to do more while using 

fewer of our planet's scarce natural resources. 

We welcome federal funding to help us achieve these goals, and the VALE program has been key to the 

installation of several key emission reduction technologies at our airport. In fact, since 2010, Seattle-Tacoma 

International Airport (Sea-Tac) has received over $27 million in federal VALE grants to bring Pre-Conditioned 

Air (PCA) to our gates and electric ground support equipment (eGSE) charging infrastructure onto our 

airfield. Our experience with the VALE program has had mixed results, however. While our PCA program has 

been a success, Sea-Tac returned over $5.5 million in VALE funds in 2016, due in large part to difficulties 

aligning federal grant requirements with airport and other federal agency procurement procedures. 

Specifically, Sea-Tac received a $3.5 million grant from the US Department of Energy (DOE) to purchase eGSE 

charging equipment needed for half of all airport concourses, but in order to get the best pricing and have 

one interchangeable charging system throughout the airport- the RFP issued for the charging equipment 

was intended to allow for future purchases, including the chargers for the other half of the airport. This 

procurement followed Port and federal procurement policy, and the costs were allowed by DOE. However, 

when Sea-Tac received an additional $5.5 million in VALE funds to install eGSE charging stations for the 

second half of the airport, the FAA required Sea· Tac to re-bid the entire purchase for the remaining charging 

stations. This would have added at least 6 months to the project and risked the installation of incompatible 

and/or more expensive charging equipment. Negotiations with FAA did not provide a resolution to these 

issues, and Sea-Tac ultimately decided to return the funds. 

Finally, Sea-Tac strongly supports transitioning our fossil-fueled vehicles to clean electricity. Currently, we 

utilize a dedicated fleet of 45 40-foot transit-style compressed natural gas (CNG) buses that provides regular 

bus service to both our rental car facility and our employee parking lot. Transitioning this fleet to electric or 

other zero-emission vehicles would be very much aligned with our environmental goals, and so we would 

1 
70 


Insert offset folio 38 here 24654.038

Response by lance Lyttle, 

Managing Director, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

to U.S. Representative Dan Lipinski 

Question for the Record for the March 1, 2017 House Aviation Subcommittee 

Hearing on "Building a 21" Century Infrastructure for America: 

State of American Airports" 

absolutely be interested in purchasing electric airport buses. If VALE funds were available and program 

requirements were aligned with Port timelines and more flexible in meeting our procurement needs, we 

would pursue those grants. On a related note, Sea-Tac is committed to additional vehicle electrification, both 

transitioning our motor pool from fossil-fueled to electric vehicles as well as providing 48 publicly-available 

charging stations in our public parking garage. We would also welcome the opportunity to pursue additional 

VALE grant funds for this work if it becomes available. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this question, and please let us know if you would like additional 

information. 
71 


Insert offset folio 39 here 24654.039

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT 

Christina Cassotis 

CEO, Allegheny County Airport Autho[ity, 

eittsburghJnternatiirp.ort 

Testimony Before The 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Transportation & lnfrast[ucture 

Suhc.ommittee on Aviation 

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, Chairman Shuster and Ranking 

Member DeFazio, Members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting me to 

provide testimony regarding infrastructure needs and funding challenges facing 

medium-size airports across our country, particularly in the heartland. 

In roy previous job as an airport consultant, I worked with airports around the 

world. Now I am lucky enough to run two of them. I am the CEO of the 

Allegheny County Airport Authority which owns and operates Pittsburgh 

International Airport and Allegheny County Airport - our region's premier 

General Aviation and business jet facility. 

My purpose here today is to give you a snapshot of the infrastructure needs of 

medium-size airports and the challenges we have in funding them. The way the 

airline industry serves Pittsburgh and many other medium-size markets in the 

U.S. has gone through a transformation. Where once many of us in the Midwest 

were large mega hubs, we are now medium-size origin-and-destination markets 

served by a mix of legacy, ultra-low cost and regional carriers. 

Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Memphis, Milwaukee, Saint Louis, RaleighDurham, Nashville and others were among the airports that used to carry 

millions more passengers per year. Those passengers are gone because the 

hubs are gone, but our infrastructure remains. The Pittsburgh terminal, which 

was designed and sized to accommodate 32 million passengers a year, of 

which 70 percent were connecting, now handles 8.3 million passengers. Our 

facilities are aging, costly and not designed for the local passengers that make 
72 


Insert offset folio 40 here 24654.040

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT 

up the majority of our traffic today. For example, in Pittsburgh, our TSA 

checkpoint is inadequately sized. Our international arrivals facility required a 

security checkpoint just for people to leave and get to their car, and our 

parking garage is far too small for our snow-belt city. In Cincinnati, their aging 

roadway and curb-front infrastructure is undersized for local passenger traffic, 

while an outdated baggage system is not sized or configured for current 

operations. 

Airports are capital-intensive businesses whose annual expenses are largely 

fixed. None of us got to declare bankruptcy after our hub airlines left our cities. 

We have been paying down the debt on these facilities for more than a decade 

and our current carriers are stuck paying for space that no one needs. 

We have been good stewards of public money by prudently managing finances 

to prioritize debt repayment and have done everything we can to stay 

competitive in a global market. And yet, each of us is left with a large number 

of capital projects we have had to defer and infrastructure needs totaling 

nearly $12 billion. At Pittsburgh International, we have over $74 million of 

deferred maintenance projects such as replacing and rehabbing baggage 

handling systems, electrical switchgears, people movers, escalators, elevators, 

maintenance vehicles, pavement and more, most of which are more than 25 

years old. And, we are not alone - St. Louis has $87 million in deferred 

projects including a $30 million airfield maintenance facility and a $23 million 

generator replacement. In Cincinnati, there is an estimated $75-80 million in 

deferred maintenance including terminal roofing that continues to be patched 

as opposed to a much needed $10 million replacement and aging elevators 

and escalators continue to be pieced together instead of being replaced at a 

cost of $15 million. 

Airport infrastructure is largely funded through a combination of (1) federal 

grants from the Airport Improvement Program (AlP), funded entirely by aviation 

taxes, (2) locally imposed Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), which are collected 

based on passenger volume, and (3) for the larger airports, tax-exempt 

municipal bonds. All three of these crucial sources of funding are under 
73 


Insert offset folio 41 here 24654.041

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT 

pressure. AlP grant allocations have not increased since 2001. PFCs have been 

capped at the same level since 2000. And Congress is considering revoking the 

tax-exempt status of municipal bond interest earnings, which would raise 

borrowing costs for municipal bond issuers. 

Our cost structures have radically changed over the past two decades but 

federal funding mechanisms remain unchanged. To be frank, medium-size 

airports are getting hammered in the current funding framework. I've attached a 

chart that illustrates the problem. 

Small airports are funded at the highest levels; large hub airports get the least 

because what they don't get in AlP money, they make up for in volume through 

PFC dollars; and medium-size airports should be in the middle, but we're not. 

We're funded at the same discounted levels as large hub airports only we 

can't make up that money in PFCs because we don't have the passenger 

volume. We have similar problems to large hub markets but none of the 

benefits. We're not asking for a federal windfall. We're simply asking for our fair 

share. We are getting squeezed, and here's how: 

When AlP discretionary grants are distributed, priority is placed on projects that 

increase capacity. Historically, the FAA has set aside 50 percent of the annual 

appropriated discretionary funding for projects under Letters of Intent (LOis). 

LOis are only awarded for multi-year capacity enhancement projects. In some 

cases for medium-size airports, there are capacity needs. However, as noted 

earlier, we have capacity where it is not needed and AlP funding does not 

prioritize preserving or modernizing infrastructure. 

In order to address our infrastructure needs at many of our medium-size 

airports, we need to right-size, modernize and upgrade our costly, inefficient, 

oversized and out-of-date facilities - none of which is prioritized in the current 

funding rules. So we can't fix our baggage system; we can't reduce costly space 

that is no longer needed. But, these are the things medium-size airports need 

to do to be right-sized and right-priced in order to attract the air service that 

will allow our communities to grow. 
74 


Insert offset folio 42 here 24654.042

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT 

We see five areas that need to be addressed. 

First, the Significant Contribution requirement must be eliminated from PFC 

funding criteria for medium-size airports. Under current regulations, before 

approving a PFC application at a level greater than $3, the FAA must make a 

determination that the project makes a significant contribution to improving air 

safety and security, increasing competition among air carriers, reducing 

congestion, or reducing noise impact on neighboring communities. It has been 

challenging, if not elusive, for large and medium-size airports, even with airline 

support, to convince the FAA that preserving capacity and infrastructure makes 

a significant contribution. 

Second, medium hubs should not be required to take the same AlP haircut as 

large hubs. When large and medium-size airports levy a $3 PFC, they must 

forgo 50 percent of their annual AlP entitlement allocations while PFCs above 

$3 must take a 75 percent reduction. In Pittsburgh, that leaves us with $1.8 

million of AlP funding annually when we could be getting $7.2 million. Mediumsize airports must be grouped differently because our reality is different. In the 

17 years of Pittsburgh International's PFC program, the airport has foregone 

roughly $95 million in AlP entitlement grants as a result of this provision. 

Third, the PFC must be raised and or uncapped. It has not kept pace with 

inflation, leaving medium-size airports in financially-challenging situations. U.S. 

airports as a whole have already committed their PFC collections for the next 

15 years, meaning there is little to no capacity to take on new projects. For 

Pittsburgh, due to the legacy airline debt from the abandoned hub, the 

authority has dedicated most of its PFC revenue to reduce debt service since 

2001. 

We understand that airlines have objected to raising the PFC in the past. 

However, we also understand airlines should be permitted to have meaningful 

input on capital expenditures, and we would be willing to figure out a way to 

engage the airlines to make that happen so we can all benefit from more 

efficient facilities. 
75 


Insert offset folio 43 here 24654.043

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT 

Fourth, the FAA must discontinue its arbitrary restriction on AlP and PFC eligible 

projects. The types of programs that qualify for funding must be expanded to 

include projects such as cargo facilities and airport facility maintenance. 

Lastly, regulations must be reduced. Current regulations seek a 30 percent 

design completion in order to leverage federal money which is an unnecessary 

and onerous undertaking for cash-strapped medium airports. This huge ask 

often leaves us unable to seek federal assistance for much-needed projects, or 

delays them for years. 

Large airports can easily afford to get to 30 percent design and therefore can 

present projects that gobble up federal resources. The 30 percent design rule is 

an expensive roadblock that must be removed. 

Committee Members, airports of our size have come very far on our own, 

sweating our assets by increasing non-aeronautical revenue in creative and 

innovative ways. But we need your help to move the needle further. Investing 

our fair share of federal resources back into medium-size airports is a gamechanger for our country's aviation system. We are in a Catch 22 here. 

We need to invest in our facilities in order to be sure that we can offer a 

cost-competitive environment for airlines to grow and serve our markets so that 

our economies can grow. Nonstop air service matters to communities. And while 

we don't expect the traditional network carriers to abandon the hub and spoke 

structure, we do expect that any nonstop service we can support will be more 

appealing if it is cost efficient and our facility is appropriately sized for today's 

passengers and airline partners. 

We've had a lot of recent success in Pittsburgh. In fact, it's so swift that it's 

caught the attention of the industry. In January, Air Transport World magazine, 

a respected industry publication, selected Pittsburgh as its 2017 airport of the 

year the first U.S. airport to win. But Pittsburgh and airports like us can do 

more and must do more to stay competitive. By focusing on streamlining 

processes the federal government can ensure medium-size airports can stay 

competitive and the communities they serve can prosper. 

Insert offset folio 44 here 24654.044

Medium-size US airports should receive a 

higher proportion of federal grants 

100.0% 

90.0% 

c: 

0 80.0% 

·.;::::; 

::::J 

..0 70.0% ·c: 

+-' 

c: 

0 

u 60.0% 

>< 

50.0% 

Vl 

> 

Vl 40.0% +-' 

c: 

rn 

,_ 

<...:) 30.0% 

4-

0 

'*- 20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 

Rank by Passengers 

140 

8Small 

Medi

Large 

Insert offset folio 45 here 24654.045

Medium-size airports are treated similarly to 

large airports 

20.0% 

18.0% 

c: 16.0% 

0 

·.;::; 

_g 14.0% ·;;:: 

...... 

c: 8 12.0% 

>< ~ 10.0% 

Vl 

> 

Vl 

...... 8.0% 

c: 

ro 

,_ 

<..::> 6.0% 

........ 

0 

'* 4.0% 

2.0% 

0.0% 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

Rank by Passengers 

Small 

Medi

Large 
78 


Insert offset folio 46 here 24654.046

Source: CY ACA!S 

FAA Airports 

Calendar Year 2015 Revenue Enp!anements at Commercial Service Airports 

City Airport Name 

10/31/2016 

I 

%Change I 

I 
79 


Insert offset folio 47 here 24654.047

Hon. Mark Meadows, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina, 

Questions for the Record to Christina Cassotis, Chief Executive Officer, 

Allegheny County Airport Authority 

Questions for the Record submitted by Hon. Mark Meadows: 

1. Can you elaborate on the types of commercial surface transportation options operating at or 

serving your airport? Is your airport also served by public transportation operators, if so, please 

describe the service. How do you ensure surface transportation operators, both public and 

private, are afforded fair and equitable access to airport curbs ides? 
80 


Insert offset folio 48 here 24654.048

March 20, 2017 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT 

The Honorable Mark Meadows 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Meadows, 

This document is in response to your question regarding commercial surface 

transportation options serving Pittsburgh International Airport. 

Responding to passenger demands is very important to us at Pittsburgh 

International Airport. Because of that, the airport is served by a variety of 

commercial transportation options, including limousines, taxis, charter buses, 

shared-ride vans, off-airport parking shuttles and hotel courtesy shuttles. Public 

transportation via bus from the Port Authority of Allegheny County also picks 

up from our curb approximately every 30 minutes daily. 

We were among the first airports in the country to allow pickups by 

Transportation Network Companies Uber and Lyft, which have co-existed well 

since their arrival nearly two years ago. 

We have more than 700 feet of commercial curb space available at our 

terminal, with each service classification allotted equal space. A curb attendant 

is on duty to ensure curb operations run smoothly. 

Our policies are a result of listening to our passengers and responding to their 

needs, as well as responding to the changing marketplace. All of these providers 
81 


Insert offset folio 49 here 24654.049

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT 

are essential to the success of the airport, and we value their partnership. 

These are customer amenities and we are happy to allow for a wide-range of 

services. 

Please feel free to contact me with additional questions. 

Best, 

Christina Cassotis 

Chief Executive Officer 
82 


Insert offset folio 50 here 24654.050

Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois 

Questions for the Record to Christina Cassotis, Chief Executive Officer, 

Allegheny County Airport Authority 

L Airport Vehicles & Zero Emissions Technology 

The Voluntary Airport Low Emission (VALE) Program was originally created "to reduce all 

sources of airport ground emission and help airport sponsors meet their state-related air 

quality responsibilities under the Clean Air Act." Several airports have used VALE funds for 

projects like gate electrification, ground support equipment and central PCA systems 

including Seattle-Tacoma, which replaced 73 gates through the VALE program. 

However, zero emission vehicles are not being pursued by airports, but arc becoming 

commonplace on American roads. Consumer sales are at an all-time high and other sectors, 

such as transit and delivery services, are deploying zero-emission vehicles as part of daily 

operations. Dallas Fort Worth International Airport and Seattle-Tacoma Internal Airport have 

used the VALE program. 

Conversely, Ms. Cassotis, is there a reason your airport didn't pursue VALE funds? Is it 

because qualification limitations or project eligibility? Do you think there would be more use 

of this program if it supported projects like deployment of airport vehicles? 
83 


Insert offset folio 51 here 24654.051

April 6, 2017 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT 

The Honorable Daniel Lipinski 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Lipinski, 

This document is in response to your question regarding the Voluntary Airport 

Low Emission (VALE) program. 

To date, Pittsburgh International Airport has not pursued VALE funding because 

the eligible projects do not match our needs or, in other cases, it would not 

be cost efficient to implement. The following types of projects you mentioned 

do not fit our current needs: 

• Gate Electrificatioo_aru:LRe~ouruLP_ower - All airside terminal gates at 

Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) are already equipped with pre-conditioned 

air (PCA) and ground power units allowing aircraft to completely shut down 

at the gate and use terminal HVAC and power. This was designed into the 

terminal when constructed. 

• Underground Fuel Hydrant Systems - PIT already has an underground aircraft 

fueling hydrant system. It was also designed into the terminal project when 

constructed. 

• Ground Support Equipment - PIT does not have any airport-owned belt 

loaders, cargo loaders, cargo tugs, or pushback tractors so we did not apply 

for funding to replace these types of eligible units. All of these types of 
84 


Insert offset folio 52 here 24654.052

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT 

vehicles and equipment at PIT are owned by the air carriers or their ground 

support contractors. 

We are in favor of expanding grant programs and eligible projects. For us, 

the current grant structure within VALE does not make it economically 

feasible to switch to Alternative Fueled Vehicles or AFVs. We have thoroughly 

explored these opportunities and found challenges with our return on 

investment and maintenance. Specifically, the airport would have to maintain 

two types of maintenance facilities. Since VALE only funds the difference 

between the cost of the AFV and the same traditional vehicle, it would take 

the airport up to 20 years in some cases to convert its fleet. During that 

time, the airport would have to first install new AFV routine maintenance and 

fueling equipment and then maintain such systems for both AFVs and 

traditional vehicles. 

Nevertheless, we continue to monitor all available grant funding and explore 

ways to work toward zero emission technology in all facets of our operation. 

Please feel free to contact me with additional questions. 

Best, 

Christina Cassotis 

Chief Executive Officer 
85 


Insert offset folio 53 here 24654.053

Statement of 

Lew Bleiweis 

Executive Director, 

Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority 

Before the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

U.S. House of Representatives 

March 1, 2017 

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the Transportation and 

Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation, thank you for inviting me to participate in this 

important hearing titled "Building a 21" Century Infrastructure: State of American Airports." 

I'm Lew Bleiweis, Executive Director of Asheville Regional Airport in Western North Carolina, 

the fourth largest airport in North Carolina after Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro. We 

served just over 826,000 passengers in 2016, the largest in the airport's history with almost a 

six percent increase over the previous year which makes it the third straight year with record 

setting numbers. 

I am here today representing the small and non-hub classifications of the country's commercial 

service airports, including Asheville Regional Airport. While the small and non-hub airports only 

account for 11.8 percent of the national passenger traffic, we make up 89 percent (484 of 544) 

of the commercial service airports in this country. 

While there are multiple issues affecting all size airports, I will briefly touch on items that have 

an overwhelming impact on the smaller airports. 

1. Based on Airports Council International- North America's (ACI-NA) biannual Infrastructure 

Needs Survey that will be officially released next week, airports' infrastructure needs for 2017 

through 2021, adjusted for inflation, is nearly $100 billion, or almost $20 billion annualized. 

Small and non-hub airports account for approximately 14 percent of this total number. Please 

keep in mind that these numbers are averaged over the five-year period and do not account for 

peaks and valleys for individual years. 

Funding for small and non-hub airports is critical, and at the same time limited because AlP 

entitlement grants and PFC user-fee revenue is based on passenger enplanements. The smaller 

the enplanement numbers, the lower the AlP and PFC funds. 

We all know that the expense of a capital project does not vary because of the size of an 

airport. As an example, a runway rehabilitation project still costs the same millions of dollars in 

Asheville as it does in Dallas or Pittsburgh. 
86 


Insert offset folio 54 here 24654.054

Let me briefly detail the major airfield redevelopment project occurring in Asheville. The 

airport consists of a single runway 8000' in length serving both commercial and general aviation 

aircraft. The original airfield was over 50 years old and coming to the end of its useful life. We 

had two safety deficiencies that were out of compliance with current FAA standards. One was 

the separation distance between the runway and the parallel taxiway, and the second was line 

of sight along the length of the entire runway. We presented the redevelopment project to the 

FAA eight years ago in 2009 and it took five years to program and fund the project. Even with 

that, the FAA required us to phase the approximately $79 million project over four years 

because of funding availability. Capital projects for small airports under AlP are traditionally 

funded at 90 percent, with a 10 percent local match. Currently our project is only funded at 

approximately 72 percent leaving Asheville to fund approximately $18 million. We have been 

able to increase our fund balance over several years to cover the project, but it's been at the 

expense of deferring other capital aviation projects at the airport. 

During this same time, as our passenger traffic has grown, our parking availability reached 

capacity, and we had to move forward several years earlier than anticipated with the 

construction of a $21 million parking garage facility to accommodate our growth. Due to lack of 

full funding on the airfield redevelopment project, the airport was forced to go into debt for the 

parking garage. A modernized PFC would have allowed us to recoup our cost for the airfield 

project sooner and would have provided us with more of our own funds to apply towards the 

garage. 

An airport like mine has to make choices and be prudent about how we use our money. The 

airlines will tell you that they will just pay for it. That's not the case at small and non-hubs like 

Asheville. I'm fighting to keep my costs low to maintain service, and if I raise my rates too high 

to cover capital projects like my airfield, airlines will leave our community and operate at 

airports with lower costs. My story is not dissimilar from the stories of my colleagues in 

communities, especially small communities, across the country. The choices we make in terms 

of capital projects and the funding available do impact our abilities to truly meet our overall 

infrastructure needs. 

Congress and the industry must work together to find a sustainable funding solution for the 

future. That is why our leading airport funding issues this year are removing the outdated 

federal cap on the PFC and enhancing the AlP. 

2. Small and non-hub airports have difficulties attracting and maintaining air service for their 

communities. The consolidation of the airline industry has left a dominance of just four major 

carriers. These carriers decide which communities to serve, leaving many communities with 

little or no air service. In fact, over the past couple of years, approximately 50 small 

communities have lost commercial air service. 

During a speech late last month, a recently retired airline CEO explained that larger airplanes 

reduce the fuel cost per seat, meaning that small planes servicing smaller airports are becoming 

harder to justify the economic feasibility, which questions the viability of the smaller airports. 
87 


Insert offset folio 55 here 24654.055

All communities, but more specifically smaller communities benefit economically from a viable 

airport. In an analysis recently conducted, based on the FAA's Economic Impact Study on 

Commercial Aviation in the United States, small and non-hub airports contribute $121 billion 

economic output supporting 1.1 million jobs. Drilling down a bit more, airports contribute 

123,400 jobs in North Carolina and $31 billion economic output or seven percent of our state's 

GDP. Locally in Asheville, the Asheville Regional Airport provides 1, 700 direct, indirect, and 

induced jobs while providing $556 million of economic output. 

The industry must find a way to keep air service inexpensive, and available to the majority of 

the country. 

3. Lastly, small and non-hub airports, as with all airports, are required by the FAA to be as selfsufficient as possible and yet the FAA overregulates any airport development on any parcel of 

land- including sponsor donated or funded land. These onerous requirements, not actually 

found in federal law, trigger extensive and expensive federal environmental analysis, which 

unduly delays projects and often causes developers to look elsewhere to build their projects. 

This deprives airports of the ability to compete for development opportunities to generate nonaeronautical revenues, bogs down FAA staff in unnecessary review/analysis of project planning 

(at a time when FAA says it does not have sufficient resources to perform all of the functions it 

must do in a timely manner), and generates inefficiencies without any benefits. 

We believe the federal government should only impose restrictions based on safety and 

efficiency concerns, and ensure that fair market value is received for non-aeronautical use of 

the land. The FAA bureaucracy does not need to get involved in every local land use decision at 

an airport. 

Congress should encourage or mandate that FAA roll back its current Airport Layout Plan (ALP) 

policy to limit the statutory requirements, so that FAA has a role only with respect to issues 

affecting the safety, efficiency, or utility of the airport or federal facilities. 

Thank you for your leadership on these important issues. I look forward to working with you, 

the members of the Aviation Subcommittee, and our industry partners to ensure a strong 

airport and aviation system for the 21st century. 
88 


Insert offset folio 56 here 24654.056

Hen. Mark Meadows, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina, 

Questions for the Record to Lew Bleiweis, Executive Director, 

Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority 

Questions for the Record submitted by Hon. Mark Meadows: 

1. Can you elaborate on the types of commercial surface transportation options operating at or 

serving your airport? Is your airport also served by public transportation operators, if so, please 

describe the service. How do you ensure surface transportation operators, both public and 

private, are afforded fair and equitable access to airport curbs ides? 
89 


Insert offset folio 57 here 24654.057

~Jy m~lwxm~ Take the easy way out, 

March 17, 2017 

The Honorable Frank LoBiondo 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman LoBiondo: 

Thank you for your continued interest in the issues affecting airports throughout the country. 

Below is my response to the question submitted by Representative Mark Meadows in your letter 

dated March 13, 2017 following the March 1, 2017 hearing of the aviation subcommittee: 

The Asheville Regional Airport allows any commercial ground transportation provider 

to operate at the airport, provided they obtain the appropriate permits from the 

airport and pay the associated fees. The airport is currently serviced by the 

following types of commercial transportation: 

• Taxis 

• TNCs (Uber and Lyft) 

• For Hire (Limos and Motor Coaches) 

• Hotel Shuttles 

The airport is also served by two regional public bus lines: 1) Asheville 

Redefines Transit (ART) and 2) Apple Country Transit. ART serves the City 

of Asheville and Apple Country serves Henderson County. 

Airport policies provide for a number of spaces along the curbside for 

commercial transportation services with a secondary holding lot, a short 

distance away, for overflow vehicles. 

The public transportation services do not operate from the airport curbside 

because of the lack of curb frontage. Airport staff worked with both 

transportation entities to locate a site a short distance from the terminal 

where a separate drop off/pick up area was constructed. 

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

(]:_ 

Lew Bleiweis, A.A. E. 

Executive Director 

cc: Representative Mark Meadows 

61 Tc-nDmal Drive, Su•te 1 • Fl0tcher, NC 28132 • 828-684-?226 • fly:wl.tom 
90 


Insert offset folio 58 here 24654.058

Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois 

Questions for the Record to Lew Bleiweis, Executive Director, 

Greater Asheville Regional Airport Authority 

1. Airoort Vehicles & Zero Emissions Technology 

The Voluntary Airport Low Emission (VALE) Program was originally created "to reduce all 

sources of airport ground emission and help airport sponsors meet their state-related air 

quality responsibilities under the Clean Air Act." Several airports have used VALE funds for 

projects like gate electrification, ground support equipment and central PCA systems 

including Seattle-Tacoma, which replaced 73 gates through the VALE program. 

However, zero emission vehicles are not being pursued by airports, but are becoming 

commonplace on American roads. Consumer sales are at an all-time high and other sectors, 

such as transit and delivery services, are deploying zero-emission vehicles as part of daily 

operations. Dallas Fort Worth International Airp01t and Seattle-Tacoma Internal Airport have 

used the VALE program. 

Conversely, Mr. Bleiwcis, is there a reason your airport didn't pursue VALE funds? Is it 

because qualification limitations or project eligibility? Do you think there would be more usc 

of this program if it supported projects like deployment of airport vehicles? 

2. State Airport Design Standards 

Prior to last year, the Illinois Division of Aeronautics utilized a standard that was approved 

by the FAA back in 1985. However, an FAA review of state standards resulted in a 

determination that no states were pennitted to use their own specific standards due to 

statutory constraints. 

As a result, a standard used for 30 years that had a proven track record of durability and 

safety was tossed out in favor of a nationwide specification. This natiomvide specification is 

driving up project costs by nearly 25% as the aggregate needed cannot be sourced in the state 

of Illinois. This results in less utilization of local business and less efficient use of 

infrastructure funds with little benefit. Illinois is joined by states like North Carolina and 

Michigan in dealing with this issue and many construction stakeholders are concerned. 

Mr. Bleiweis, I would be interested to know if this reversal of policy is affecting Asheville's 

construction projects and costs? Are you able to source material locally? 
91 


Insert offset folio 59 here 24654.059

March 14, 2017 

The Honorable Daniel Lipinski 

United States House of Representatives 

2346 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-1303 

Dear Representative Lipinski: 

Thank you for your continued interest in the issues affecting airports throughout the 

country. Below are my responses to the questions submitted in your letter dated March 

7, 2017 to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee following the March 1, 2017 hearing of the aviation 

subcommittee. 

1. Airport Vehicles & Zero Emissions Technology 

Asheville, NC is located in a nonattainment area and therefore is not eligible for 

VALE grants. We have participated in the past with the State of North Carolina and 

awarded state grant funds for a diesel reduction grant where the airport purchased 

several electric ground support vehicles to replace diesel vehicles. We would very 

much like to see the federal requirements change so we can take advantage of 

VALE or similar grants. 

3. State Airport Design Standards 

Asheville has been utilizing the FAA standards for many years when it comes to 

federally funded projects. I believe the FAA standards - which have been developed 

based on decades of airport pavement specific research and take into account the 

unique pavement loading characteristics, environmental exposure, and construction 

processes associated with airfield pavements - are much more appropriate than 

applying state DOT standards for highway pavements that were not developed for 

aircraft. We can source material locally which helps keep the cost down. 

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

0:~ Lew Bleiweis, A.A.E. 

Executive Director 
92 


Insert offset folio 60 here 24654.060

Statement of 

Todd McNamee, A.A.E., C.A.E. 

Director of Airports 

County of Ventura Department of Airports 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

March 1, 2017 

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the House Transportation and 

Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation. Thank you for inviting me to participate in today's 

hearing on "Building a 21 ''Century Infrastructure: State of American Airports." It's an honor 

for me to be back with you today. 

My name is Todd McNamee. I am the Director of Airports for the County of Ventura 

Department of Airports, which is located in Southern California. I'm also pleased to serve on the 

Executive Committee for the American Association of Airport Executives and enjoy being a 

general aviation pilot. 

Ventura County operates two airports: Camarillo and Oxnard Airports. Camarillo is a general 

aviation reliever airport considered a national asset by the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA). The airport, which has served as a general aviation facility since 1976, is the proud 

home of over 550 general aviation aircraft. We have between 150,000 and 200,000 takeoffs and 

landings per year. 

The Camarillo Airport community also includes several aviation-related businesses including 

those that provide flight instruction for fixed-wing and helicopter pilots, aircraft maintenance, 

and aircraft charter and storage. Based on a 2008 economic benefit study, the airport provides 

$163 million annually in positive economic benefit to the local community and supports over 

800 jobs. I'm confident that number is far higher today. 

Oxnard Airport is classified as a non-hub commercial service airport. However, after losing 

commercial air service in 2010, Oxnard functions as a general aviation airport today. The airport 

has two full service fixed-base operators, which provide services such as aircraft charters and 

aircraft maintenance. The airport has over 70,000 general aviation operations annually and over 

125 based aircraft. 
93 


Insert offset folio 61 here 24654.061

Investing in general aviation airports and promoting the general aviation industry pays big 

dividends. According to the FAA, nonairline operators at general aviation airports spent over 

$12 billion in 2009 and flew an estimated 27 million flights including those for emergency 

medical services, firefighting and law enforcement missions. Overall, general aviation 

contributes $219 billion in total economic activity and supports 1.1 million jobs. 

General aviation airports make significant contributions to our aviation system and help our 

partners at commercial service airports. Pilots learn to fly at Camarillo and other general 

aviation airports, and many go on to become commercial airline pilots. General aviation airports 

also help to minimize congestion at nearby commercial service airports and provide critical 

community access for rural communities. 

Mr. Chairman, before describing some suggestions from the general aviation perspective, I 

would like thank you and your colleagues for the enormous amount of time and effort that you 

and your staffs have devoted to the FAA reauthorization bill. The multi-year bill that this 

Committee approved last year and the latest extension included a number of welcome provisions, 

and I truly appreciate your efforts to reach out to airports as you prepare to resume consideration 

of the FAA bill this year. 

I realize that many are understandably calling for expediting the implementation of the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System. Just as we need to transition to a satellite-based 

navigation system to increase capacity and efficiency in the air, we also need to increase capacity 

and efficiency on the ground by upping our investment in airside and lands ide projects at airports 

around the country. With that in mind, I would like to highlight some recommendations that 

would help general aviation and commercial airports meet the challenges of the 21" century. 

Help General Aviation and Commercial Service Airports 

Upgrade Aging Facilities; Build Infrastructure Projects 

Mr. Chairman, this Committee can assist airports in building a 21st century infrastructure by 

providing them with the resources they need to repair aging facilities and advance critical safety, 

security, and capacity projects. The following includes some key actions that this Committee 

can take to prepare airports for the challenges ahead. 

Increase AlP Funding: Increasing Airport Improvement Program (AlP) funding, which this 

Committee proposed to do last year, would help fund critical safety, security, and capacity 

projects at general aviation and commercial service airports. As you know, no general fund 

revenues are used for federal A IP grants. The AlP program is supported entirely by users of the 

aviation system through various taxes and fees deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust 

Fund. 

AlP is a particularly key source of revenue for general aviation and smaller commercial airports 

that have more limited funding options than our colleagues at larger commercial service airports. 

In Ventura County, we are planning to use AlP funds to rehabilitate and reconstruct runways at 

both airports. 
94 


Insert offset folio 62 here 24654.062

H.R. 4441, the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act, initially proposed 

to increase AlP funding by about 2 percent annually to slightly more than $3.8 billion in Fiscal 

Year 2022. During the markup last year, the Committee adopted an amendment offered by Rep. 

Lou Barletta to ratchet up that amount to almost $4 billion by FY22. 

I would like to thank Rep. Barletta for taking the lead on this amendment and for proposing to 

provide airports with some much-needed additional revenue. Both the underlying bill and the 

Barletta proposal represented welcome steps in the right direction and acknowledged that an 

increase in AlP funding is long overdue. 

Despite enormous demand and construction cost inflation that has eroded the purchasing power 

of artificially-capped Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) and restrained the AlP program, 

Congress has provided only flat funding for airport grants in recent years. Stagnant AlP funding 

is particularly noticeable for general aviation and other non-primary airports, which are currently 

eligible to receive only $150,000 in entitlements per year. 

Airports are facing substantial capital needs and limited federal funding. The FAA's 2017 

National Plan of Integrated Airports System (NPIAS) indicates that airports will have $32.5 

billion in AlP-eligible projects between 2017 and 2021 -approximately $6.5 billion per 

year. That's twice the $3.2 billion designated for airport capital projects as part of the program's 

$3.35 billion annual funding level. 

Raising AlP funding to $4 billion by FY22 would certainly help. But increasing AlP funding by 

a small amount each year is not nearly enough to cover all the AlP-eligible projects today let 

alone potentially higher demands in the years ahead. I encourage you and your colleagues to 

increase AlP funding to at least the same amount that the Committee approved last year. I would 

note that the Senate proposed an even higher funding level for AlP in FY17. 

I also urge you to work with airports and other aviation stakeholders to ensure that there is 

enough funding available for general aviation airports. Many busy general aviation and other 

non-primary airports need far more than $150,000 to cover their capital projects, and they are 

often forced to repeatedly roll over their entitlements before they proceed with a much needed 

capital project. 

As I mentioned previously, we are planning to use AlP funds to rehabilitate and reconstruct 

runways at both airports in the next few years. Rehabilitating the runway at Oxnard Airport is 

expected to cost $6.7 million and reconstructing nearby taxiways will cost another $5 million. 

Reconstructing the runway at the Camarillo Airport is expected to cost $18 million. 

With FAA shortfalls in discretionary funding and only $150,000 entitlement funds per year for 

each airport, we have had to postpone projects, bank our AlP entitlements, and wait for limited 

discretionary funds to make up the difference. Our local FAA officials have been terrific to 

work with, but there must be a better way to distribute funds to general aviation airports that 

have significant needs. I know other aviation stakeholders are reviewing this issue as well, and I 

hope we can work with you to explore some ways to improve the non-primary entitlement. 
95 


Insert offset folio 63 here 24654.063

Eliminate the PFC Cap: Perhaps the single most important action that Congress can take to 

prepare airports for rising passenger levels and increasing demand is to eliminate the PFC cap. 

Congress hasn't adjusted the cap in 17 years. Eliminating the cap now would be the easiest way 

to provide more funding for capital projects at commercial service airports in California and 

throughout the country. 

There is a significant amount of demand for airport capital projects in the near term. The latest 

Airport Capital Needs Survey from Airports Council International-North America estimates that 

airports will have $100 billion in capital needs between 2017 and 2021 - approximately $20 

billion annually for AlP-eligible and other necessary projects. That's three times the $6.4 billion 

that airports are expected to receive in AlP funds and PFC revenue this year. 

Some may have the wrong impression that PFCs only help large airports. But that is simply not 

the case. Small commercial service airports around the country also rely on PFCs to supplement 

their federal grants, upgrade aging facilities, and fund other critical projects. Although general 

aviation airports don't collect PFCs, they benefit from those commercial services airports that 

do. 

As you may know, large and medium hub airports that collect PFCs have up to 75 percent of 

their AlP entitlements withheld. The FAA then distributes 87.5 percent of those funds to general 

aviation and small commercial service airports through the Small Airport Fund. General aviation 

and commercial service airports could benefit even more if Congress eliminated the PFC cap and 

focused limited federal funds on smaller airports that need federal assistance the most. 

General aviation airports could also benefit from an uncapped PFC because allowing commercial 

service airports to generate more revenue for capital projects would improve our nation's airport 

infrastructure. We're all part of the same integrated airport system. Just as general aviation and 

reliever airports help reduce congestion at larger commercial service airports, improving our 

nation's airport infrastructure would help all of us. 

Airports are pleased that Republicans and Democrats on this Committee support eliminating the 

PFC cap. I would like to thank Rep. Thomas Massie for cosponsoring a bill last year that called 

for eliminating the cap. And I would be remiss if I didn't commend full committee Ranking 

Member Peter DeFazio for helping to create the program in 1990 and for proposing to eliminate 

the PFC cap as part of his budget-neutral plan to increase infrastructure investment. 
96 


Insert offset folio 64 here 24654.064

Support Programs that Help Airports in Small Communities 

Protect the Contract Tower Program: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the 253 airports with FAA 

contract towers at their facilities, I would like to thank members of this Committee for your 

strong support for the Contract Tower Program. This successful public-private partnership 

allows Oxnard and other airports in 46 states to have cost-effective air traffic control services 

that enhance aviation safety. 

I would like to commend this Committee for including provisions in the AIRR Act that would 

ensure the FAA uses a fair and balanced cost benefit analysis for airports that participate in the 

Contract Tower Program. I urge you to include that same language in the FAA reauthorization 

bill that you introduce and consider this year. 

As you know, the Contract Tower Program continues to enjoy strong bipartisan and bicameral 

support for the way it enhances aviation safety and provides significant cost savings to the FAA 

and U.S. taxpayers. The enormous benefits of this highly-regarded government-industry 

partnership have been validated repeatedly by the Department of Transportation's Office of 

Inspector General. 

I would also like to thank Rep. Julia Brownley, a strong supporter of the Contract Tower 

Program and tireless advocate for our Ventura County airports. Late last year, she helped 

spearhead a letter to then President-elect Trump that calls on the new Administration to support 

the Contract Tower Program. More than 100 House members including many on this 

Committee- signed that bipartisan Jetter. 1 know all of us who rely on contract towers for safe 

operations are grateful for your support. 

Almost half of all military operations at civilian airports in the U.S. occur at contract towers and 

approximately 70 percent of all contract controllers are veterans. Contract towers operate 

together with FAA-staffed facilities throughout the country as part of a unified national air traffic 

control system. Without this federal program and critical support from this Committee, many 

contract towers could be forced to close. 

Support the Small Community Air Service Development Program: I also urge you to support 

the Small Community Air Service Development Program. This program, which Congress 

created as part ofH.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 

21" Century, has helped numerous small communities suffering from insufficient air service or 

unreasonably high fares. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) officials have pointed out that small community grants 

fund a variety of projects including financial incentives for airlines and marketing initiatives. At 

a time when small airports are trying to do everything they can to hold on to commercial air 

service and attract new service, the Small Community Air Service Development Program can 

help. 

It is worth noting that small communities that participate in the program bring significant local 

funds to the table. When announcing grant recipients last year, DOT noted that "nearly all the 
97 


Insert offset folio 65 here 24654.065

communities pledged local cash and/or in-kind contributions from local, state, airport, or private 

sources to complement their requests for Federal assistance.'' 

Oxnard and small commercial service airports around the country face numerous challenges 

including a consolidated airline industry and the loss of regional jets. Since many small 

communities are struggling to maintain and attract new commercial service it is now more 

important than ever to fund this program. 

Vision 100 authorized $35 million per year for the Small Community Air Service Development 

Program, and Congress reduced that level to $6 million annually in the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012. I urge you to increase funding for this program in the next FAA 

reauthorization bill without taking away funds for airport construction projects. 

Additionally, I would like to thank the Committee for including a provision in the AIRR Act that 

that would allow current small hub and smaller airports to be eligible to participate in the 

program -not just those that were classified as small airports in 1997. I encourage you to 

include that same provision in the next FAA reauthorization bill and provide additional 

flexibility to communities that participate in the program. 

Address Small Community Challenges: l also urge this Committee to work with airports, 

airlines, and other aviation stakeholders to address the ongoing pilot shortage and other small 

community challenges while maintaining the highest level of safety. As I indicated earlier in my 

statement, Oxnard Airport has been without commercial air service since 2010 so improving 

small community air service has been a top priority of ours. 

Ventura County has a population of almost l million people with a direct catchment area for 

Oxnard Airport of almost 600,000. Even with the promise of a Small Community Air Service 

Development grant, restoring commercial air service has eluded our local community. 

Unfortunately. Oxnard is one of the airports that has lost commercial air service all together. 

There may be a number of reasons why some small communities are struggling to restore, retain, 

or attract new commercial service including industry consolidation and the decline of regional 

jets. But small- and medium-sized communities are continuing to experience commercial air 

service reductions, in part, because carriers say that there are not enough qualified pilots to 

operate their flights. 

This problem may get worse before it gets better. A 2016 University of North Dakota study 

indicates that there will be a pilot deficit of 15,000 by 2026-just nine years from now. The 

report points out that approximately 30,000 pilots will reach the mandatory retirement age by the 

same date. 

The last FAA extension required DOT to establish a "Working Group on Improving Air Service 

to Small Communities. As part of its assignment, the panel is expected to examine "obstacles to 

attracting and maintaining air transportation services to and from small communities." Late last 

year, DOT selected 25 aviation stakeholders to participate in the group, and I'm pleased that 

their deliberations are already underway. By continuing to work together, I am hopeful we can 
98 


Insert offset folio 66 here 24654.066

come up with proposals to enhance small community air service and ensure that we have enough 

pilots in the pipeline. 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Finally, I would like to thank members of this Committee and 

your colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee for taking a number of steps to address the 

challenges related to the proliferation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Safely integrating UAS 

into the National Airspace System will be a key component of a 21" century aviation system. 

While Congress is playing an important oversight role on UAS matters, the FAA's Drone 

Advisory Committee is also working to come up with recommendations for UAS integration. 

The DAC includes an impressive and wide cross-section ofUAS stakeholders, and I'm confident 

that the group will play a key role in ensuring the successful and safe integration ofUAS into our 

aviation system. In Ventura County, we operate a small UAS on behalf of the airport under the 

recently enacted FAA Part I 07 regulations, and hope to be a model example of how to safely 

integrate and operate small UAS on and around airports for the rest of the country. 

Conclusion 

Chainnan LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the House Transportation and 

Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation, thank you for inviting me to participate in today's 

hearing "Building a 21st Century Infrastructure: State of American Airports." I hope you tlnd my 

testimony of value, and I look forward to working with you as you continue your work on the 

next FAA reauthorization bill. 
99 


Insert offset folio 67 here 24654.067

Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois 

Questions for the Record to Todd McNamee, A.A.E., C.A.E., Director of Airports, 

County ofVentura Department of Airports 

1. Airport Vehicles & Zero Emissions Technology 

The Voluntary Airport Low Emission (VALE) Program was originally created "to reduce all 

sources of airport ground emission and help airport sponsors meet their state-related air 

quality responsibilities under the Clean Air Act." Several airports have used VALE funds for 

projects like gate electrification, ground support equipment and central PCA systems 

including Seattle-Tacoma, which replaced 73 gates through the VALE program. 

However, zero emission vehicles are not being pursued by airports, but are becoming 

commonplace on American roads. Consumer sales are at an all-time high and other sectors, 

such as transit and delivery services, are deploying zero-emission vehicles as part of daily 

operations. Dallas Fort Worth International Airport and Seattle-Tacoma Internal Airport have 

used the VALE program. 

Conversely, Mr. McNamee, is there a reason your airport didn't pursue VALE funds? Is it 

because qualification limitations or project eligibility? Do you think there would be more use 

of this program if it supported projects like deployment of airport vehicles? 
100 


Insert offset folio 68 here 24654.068

' COUNTYOFVE~/ OX" f CMA 

DEPARTMENT OF A RPORTS 

March 10, 2017 

Honorable Daniel Lipinski 

2346 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC, 20515-1303 

RE: Airport Vehicles & Zero Emissions Technology 

Honorable Daniel Lipinski: 

SSS AIRPORT WAY, SUITE B 

CAMARILLO, CA 9301 0 

PHONE! {SOSl 388~4274 

VAX; {8051 3SS~4366 

iVWW.V£NTURA.•OR@AlRPOR!rS 

WWW.ll'"t.. mXNA!fPtCQM 

Thank you for your inquiry regarding our use of Zero Emissions Vehicles and use of the 

FAA's Voluntary Airport Low Emission Program (VALE) program. The FAA VALE 

program was established in 2005 under the AlP and PFC Programs to provide sponsors 

with funding for low-emission projects to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The 

program is available to only commercial service airports located in EPA-designated 

nonattainment and maintenance areas. As general aviation (GA) facilities, neither 

Camarillo nor Oxnard airports qualify for funding under the VALE program. Additionally, 

as GA airports, neither provides airport shuttle service or ground handling of airline type 

aircraft. 

The vehicle fleet for the two airports is less than a dozen total vehicles for maintenance 

and operations. These are specific, heavy duty vehicles and trucks, and are typically 

driven less miles per year than an average vehicle. We have utilized hybrid electric 

vehicles for operations, but have found them more prone to damage when operating in 

the airport operations and maintenance environment that often requires operating them 

in unimproved areas of the airports. 

Ventura County is planning solar project installation to reduce emissions and cost of 

electricity at both airports. We would certainly consider the VALE program funding if GA 

airports qualified, and it did not jeopardize grant funding for other critical infrastructure 

projects. 

Thank you again for your inquiry and I may be reached at 805-388-4200 should you have 

any additional questions. 

Sincerely, 

/J2Vv1~ TODD L. McNAMEE, AAE 

Director of Airports 
101 


Insert offset folio 69 here 24654.069

Oil] Ct:fl L 

AIRPORT LF.CISIATIVF ALLIANC~. A!RP(iRT ALERT 

DeFazio and Massie Introduce Bipartisan PFC Bill 

March 1, 2017 

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), the Ranking Member ofthe House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee, and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) today introduced a bipartisan bill (H.R. 1265) to 

eliminate the federal cap on local PFCs. The two lawmakers unveiled the PFC legislation on the 

same day that airport executives are slated to appear before the House Aviation Subcommittee. 

The fact that the top Democrat on the Transportation Committee introduced a bipartisan bill to 

completely eliminate the PFC cap is an important development. DeFazio helped create the PFC 

program in 1990, and he is well-respected on both sides of the aisle for his knowledge of 

aviation-related matters. Having him come out and support airport calls to completely eliminate 

the cap 17 years later is meaningful. 

DeFazio teamed up with Massie, a Republican lawmaker who also serves on the Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee. By joining forces, the unlikely duo represents both ends of the 

political spectrum and shows that eliminating the PFC cap is a proposal supported by both 

Democrats and Republicans. AAAE President and CEO Todd Hauptli commended both lawmakers 

for spearheading the PFC effort: 

"We are gratified to see two leaders on opposite ends of the political spectrum stand up on a 

bipartisan basis to give local airport authorities the tools they need to address their pressing 

infrastructure investment needs through the elimination of the antiquated federal cap on local 

airport user fees," Hauptli said. "We believe strongly that this straightforward, bipartisan 

legislation offers a blueprint for expediting critical airport infrastructure improvements, and we 

thank Representatives DeFazio and Massie for their leadership and strong support for the 

nation's airports and the traveling public." 

In exchange for an unlimited PFC, the DeFazio-Massie bill proposes to cut AlP funding by $400 

million annually and eliminate entitlements for large hub airports. This is similar to a bill that 
102 


Insert offset folio 70 here 24654.070

former Rep. David Jolly (R-FL) and Massie proposed last year. It is also similar to an Obama 

Administration plan to raise the PFC cap from $4.50 to $8 and cut AlP by $450 million annually. 

But the new DeFazio-Massie bill excludes some of the tradeoffs and airline sweeteners contained 

in Jolly's plan. For instance, the Jolly bill would have set up a new system for DOTto consider 

complaints about PFCs and allowed the Secretary to determine whether a specific PFC is 

"reasonable." It also would have reduced aviation excise taxes from 7.5 to 7 percent. Neither 

provision is in the new DeFazio-Massie bill. 

We urge you to reach out to your own Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor the 

bipartisan DeFazio-Massie bill to eliminate the PFC cap. Doing away with the cap would 

provide airports with additional resources they need to finance critical infrastructure projects. 

7 

Joel Bacon, Executive Vice President 

Brad Van Dam, Senior Vice President 

Stephanie Gupta, Senior Vice President 

Justin Towles, Vice President 

Adam Snider, Director 

Maribeth Sarnecki, Coordinator 

Washington Legislative Conference 

March 21- 22, 2017 Washington, DC 

0 

AAAE, 601 Madison Street, Suite 400, Alexandria, VA 22314 

~eu ns11 bsc:di:le "' fl,_9£he_U:::.<JJT@f!vsltJDY~r._t;Qm 

IJJ:lQjjte_f'mfii!C I 1\b__o_~LLoJJo>"L'LLG"-I:lmYLcJer 

Sent by Qr£Q-"L9ill!£0l@aaae.org 

r 1 
103 


Insert offset folio 71 here 24654.071

March 1, 2017 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

Ranking Member 

U.S. TRAVEL 

ASSOCIATION 

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

2164 Rayburn Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Thomas Massie 

Member of Congress 

2453 Rayburn Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Ranking Member DeFazio and Congressman Massie: 

On behalf of America's travel and tourism industry, I write in strong support of the "Investing in 

America: Rebuilding America's Airport Infrastructure Act". By eliminating the arbitrary federal 

limitation on passenger facility charge (PFC) rates, the bill unlocks desperately needed investments in 

airport infrastructure that will improve the passenger experience, facilitate growth in domestic and 

international air travel, and make America's economy more globally competitive. 

Air traveler spending in the United States generates significant economic activity, supports millions of 

American jobs, and improves our nation's quality of life. In 2015, domestic and inbound international air 

passengers spent $409 billion, which directly supported 3.4 million American jobs. Over the next 

decade, air travel is forecast to grow from 776 million to 926 million enplanements per year, which could 

add an additional $224 billion in annual travel spending and support 750,000 new American jobs. 

Unfortunately, this gtowth is threatened by the poor condition and performance of our nation's airports. 

As a result of misguided federal policies, too many of our nation's airports are outdated, congested and 

unable to hanclle passenger demand. These problems are forecasted to gtow and will soon be 

unstainable. Within the next four years, the top 30 U.S. airports will experience passenger volumes, 

congestion and delays equal to the day before Thanksgiving at least once per week. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) predicts that travel demand will exceed capacity at many of tbe nation's largest 

airports within the next 15 years, unless airports achieve sustainable levels of capital investment. 

The "Investing in America: Rebuilding America's Airport Infrastructure Act" provides a fiscally 

responsible and revenue neutral solution to these challenges. The bill removes the misguided federal 

limitation on PFC rates and, instead, allows each airport authority to tailor its PFC rate on a project-byproject basis in order to maximize efficiency, reduce project costs and ensure fiscal responsibility. Since 

this would allow airports to rely more heavily on user-fee funding, the bill also reduces the Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP) authorization by $400 million per year and directs large hub airports to 

forgo AIP passenger entitlements if their PFC exceeds $4.50. If these provisions were included as part 

of a broader air traffic control reform bill, it would provide Congress with the option to lower federal 

passenger ticket ta,.'<eS. 

Taken together, these changes empower local airport authorities to accelerate investments in projects that 

improve efficiency, strengthen security, increase capacity and enhance airline competition. These 

U.S. TRAVEL ASSOCIATION TEL 202 408 8422 FAX 202 4081255 

1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 450 Washington, DC 20005-3934 ustrave\.org 
104 


Insert offset folio 72 here 24654.072

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

The Honorable Thomas Massie 

March 1, 2017 

Page2 

remedies are exactly what America's air travel system needs and the benefits would stretch far beyond 

airports themselves -ultimately providing a better travel experience, facilitating economic growth, and 

keeping America's travel industry globally competitive. 

Thank you for your continued leadership to revitalize America's airports and improve the travel experience. 

I look forward to working with you on this and other important aviation issues in the upcoming FAA 

reauthorization bill. 

Sincerely, 

Roger]. Dow 

President and CEO 

U.S. Travel Association 

1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20005-3934 ustravel.org U.S. TRAVEL 
105 


Insert offset folio 73 here 24654.073

• 

AIRPORTS COUNCIL 

INTERNATIONAl 

March 1, 2017 

Dear Representatives DeFazio and Massie: 

On behalf of Airports Council International-North America, which represents local, regional, and 

state governing bodies that own and operate commercial airports throughout the United 

States, I am writing in strong support of the Investing in America: Rebuilding America's Airport 

Infrastructure Act. 

This important bill would benefit commercial-service airports across the United States by giving 

local airports the ability to control their own Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) user fees based on 

their unique infrastructure and passenger needs. 

Airports of all sizes need approximately $20 billion annually in infrastructure improvements to 

renovate aging runways and terminals, relieve congestion and delays, improve safety and 

security, and spur new airlines competition- far more than the approximately $6 billion that 

airports receive each year from both local PFCs and federal grants. 

At a time when there is mounting pressure to reduce federal spending, eliminating the federal 

government's PFC cap is the most free-market option for providing airports with the locally 

controlled self-help they need to finance vital infrastructure projects. 

Thank you for your efforts to improve the aviation infrastructure and passenger experience at 

America's airports. I look forward to working with you on these important issues. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin M. Burke 

President and CEO 

Airports Council International- North America 
106 


Insert offset folio 74 here 24654.074

TROUTMAN 

SANDERS Memorandum 

TO: Chairman Lobiondo, Transportation Committee of the US House, Subcommittee 

on Aviation 

FROM: Richard Garcia 

Mayor of Edinburg/EEDC Board President 

Agustin Garcia 

EEDC Executive Director 

H.R. BertPena, Esq. 

DATE: March 8, 2017 

RE: Funding for Expansion of the Edinburg Airport Runway 

C'JOod morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Aviation and 

Environment. I am Richard Garcia, Mayor from the City of Edinburg, Texas, located in the 15'h 

Congressional District of Texas. 

Today, I appear before you to share with you some very important economic statistics 

from the City of Edinburg as well as important jobs the City is creating as we speak. Edinburg L~ 

located deep in South Texas, approximately 15 miles from the Texas/Mexican border. We are a 

city of 77 thousand inhabitants. Edinburg also assists 7 other rural areas known as colonias in 

South Texas where we provide sewer and water treatment, fire fighting assistance, police 

assistance, emergency management assistance and airport services in case of an emergency or 

natural act of God that requires people living in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas to seek a port of 

entry or egress, such as our airport and highways located north of the Texas/Mexican border. Our 

airport is slowly becoming a commercial airport, since it used to be a defense airport and 

converted to general aviation after WWII. Since then, the City has grown from less than 20,000 

Active 30548112vl 880575.POOOOI 
107 


Insert offset folio 75 here 24654.075

TROUTMAN 

SANDERS Page 2 

in 1960 to over 83,000 in 2016 and is now the fastest growing city in South Texas. Recently, we 

had the grand opening of two major manufacturing and produce facilities which will added over 

1600 jobs to the City's employment rolls. These two new plants arc of enormous importance not 

only to the City but to a 11 of the USA, since they are two important examples of what a City can 

do during the challenging economic times. SANTANA Textiles is the largest denim 

manufacturer in the world, and through the help of Governor Rick Perry of Texas and State of 

Texas Enterprise Zone Program as well as the City of Edinburg thru tax breaks, Santana's plant 

hires 800 new employees to make denim in Edinburg, by sourcing US cotton and exporting the 

product all over the world. The other plant is a major produce plant formerly located in Chicago, 

Don Hugo, and opened its doors in 2012. Don Hugo also hires 800 new employees. Don Hugo is 

a produce importer and is moving toE din burg because of Edinburg's proximity to the border of 

Mexico and the fact that Mexico is shipping all of its produce to South Texas via Edinburg and 

other areas which will make South Texas the largest importer of Mexican produce in the USA. 

Don Hugo is also taking advantage of similar tax breaks from the City and will become one of 

the biggest employers in the area. Also, Fed Ex Ground has opened a new ground station in 

Edinburg close to our airport. These arc but three important new businesses that I can share with 

you today, and please make note that the City is working as hard as ever to make certain that its 

citizens have the amenities they need to function as well as the businesses who have invested in 

the City. 

Thus, today, while the City fully understands that the Congress is out of the earmark 

business, I am here today to share with you a major dilemma the City faces regarding its sewer 

plant and water plants. The City's population continues to grow because the City is working hard 

Active 30548112vl 880575.POOOOI 
108 


Insert offset folio 76 here 24654.076

TROUTMAN 

SANDERS 

to add jobs, fight off the devastating economic effects of the recession and do our part to 

stimulate the economy. 

Page 3 

The same goes for our airport, when FAA tells us that we need more volume in order to 

access money from the Airport Improvement Act to expand the runway, and the City responds 

that it cannot get more volume with a runway that is too short for commercial planes. This is a 

good example of good government run amok. Today, I encourage you to work with us, and take 

time from your important schedules in Washington, hold a hearing in Edinburg, tour the airport, 

the 7local colonias that Edinburg services and let us show you exactly why we need help from 

the federal government. The dollars that we need from the federal government will be used 

carefully to help the City continue to be able to support its population growth as well as prove to 

you that the City is doing its part to stimulate the economy. Come down to Edinburg, let me 

escort you to tour the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, see the Mexican border frrst hand, as Speaker 

Ryan, Senator Cornyn R TX, Senator Heller R NV, Congressman Rouser R NC did on Tuesday, 

21 February 2017 to see the issues we face with drought and the need for irrigation, see the 

impressive farm land for sugar cane, feed grains, cotton, cittus, vegetables and cattle, hogs and 

sheep, as well as the oil and gas industry and what these industries mean to Edinburg and South 

Texas in terms ofjobs,jobs,jobs. Wind, solar and renewable fuels are also a major part of the 

RGV. The Gulf of Mexico is about 75 miles from Edinburg, and you should tour the South Padre 

Island seashore to sec nature at its best. Birding is a $140 million economic boost to the great 

State of Texas as well as Edinburg and South Texas. Our area is one of the fastest growing areas 

in the USA, and we need help from the federal government to make certain we continue to grow 

add jobs and allow the people of Edinburg and South Texas to prosper. Because of our proximity 

Active 30548112vl 880575.P00001 
109 


Insert offset folio 77 here 24654.077

TROUTMAN 

SANDERS Page 4 

to the Texas/Mexican border, we also need federal dollars to spend on border security, due to the 

horrible problems that Mexico is allowing to spill over into the Texas side of our border with 

Mexico. The Mexican violence is most heart wrenching, but it is truly due to the failed policies 

of the Mexican Government, since it has allowed the drug trade to flourish in Mexico. Thank you 

again for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Aviation Appropriations today, 

and of course, I am prepared to answer any questions you may have for me or the City. 

Active 305481!2vl 880575.POOOOI 
110 


Insert offset folio 78 here 24654.078

CITY OF EDINBURG 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST 

BACKGROUND: 

The Rio Grande Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the United States. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the McAllen-Edinburg-Mission Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA) had an estimated population of 842,304 as of July, 2015. It is 

considered the fastest growing MSA in the State of Texas and the 4'h fastest in the 

United States. Studies conducted by the Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1 have 

indicated that Hidalgo County and the Rio Grande Valley are extremely vulnerable to 

extensive flooding. Realizing the potential risk for flooding in Hidalgo County, the 

Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1 recently passed a $100 million bond issue in 

order to address critical drainage issues within the Rio Grande Valley. Attached please 

find information on the bond issue, as prepared and presented by the Hidalgo County 

Drainage District No. 1. However, the improvements approved through the bond issue 

will not solve the critical issue of disaster preparedness and post disaster recovery 

efforts within the County and Region. 

The City has been threatened five (5) times by major hurricanes during the past six (6) 

years. The airport has historically played a key role during, floods, fire and other natural 

disasters. City officials have received and granted requests from various agencies to 

utilize the South Texas International Airport in Edinburg {"Airport") as a mobilization or 

staging area in order to provide hazard mitigation and disaster recovery to all areas of 

the Rio Grande Valley. These agencies include: 

• Texas Air National Guard 

• Texas Army National Guard 

• Texas Task Force 1 (federally designated Texas urban search and rescue 

team) 

• Texas Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Management 

• American Red Cross 

In the event that a national emergency is declared by the President of the United States 

or Congress, the government shall have the right to make exclusive or non-exclusive 

use and maintain control and possession of the airport. With this in mind, the United 

States Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection Agency has 

approached the City and expressed interest in utilizing the airport to store supplies 

during disaster relief efforts. 

Located within the Edinburg City Limits, the South Texas International Airport at 

Edinburg is situated north of any major urban developments and obstructions, and is the 

least likely to flood in the region. Further, the Airport is situated adjacent to U.S. 

Highway 281, providing expressway access to all points within the County. 

PROBLEM: 

Currently, the Airport runway does not have the capacity (runway length, width and 

load bearing capacity) to support large aircrafts needed for transporting supplies, 

equipment and manpower for emergency first responders and support personnel 

associated with the agencies listed above. 
111 


Insert offset folio 79 here 24654.079

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 

A longer runway is needed to support larger aircrafts. The City of Edinburg is seeking 

funding for continued development and enhancement of the Airport. Funding will 

support efforts to improve the airport's infrastructure in order to adequately support the 

designation as a regional staging area for State and Federal emergency response, 

hazard mitigation and disaster recovery. Improvements will also create conditions for 

investment in infrastructure critical to the airport's ability to perform profitably and 

sustainably, and to become a vibrant catalyst for growth, placing the airport at the 

center of regional development, connecting workers, suppliers, and goods. Potential 

funding sources include, but are not limited to the following agencies: 

• Federal Aviation Administration {FAA) 

• Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

• Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) 

• Department of Defense {DOD) 

• U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) Economic Development 

Administration (EDA) 

• Military Airport Program (MAP) 

This project includes the following improvements: 

• Property Acquisition 

• Staging Area for Regional First Responders 

• Extension of Runway 14-32 to 7,800' x 150' with turnaround and parallel 

taxiway system 

• Drainage Improvements 

• Airfield Lighting Improvements 

• Construction of Facilities and establishment of Aircraft Rescue and Fire 

Fighting (ARFF) Station with Aircraft Rescue Fire Engine 

The estimated project cost breakdown is as follows: 

Property Acquisition and Construction of Airport Improvements $ 45,250,000 

associated with runway_extension 

$4;500,i)QQ !-Aircraft Rescue and·· Fire Fighting (ARFF) Facility, Personnel and 

~guipment 

Total Request $49,750,000 

The City of Edinburg has completed and adopted the 2010·2030 Airport Master Plan 

Update and Airport Layout Plan, as well as preparing the plans to widen and extend the 

Runway. 

2 
112 


Insert offset folio 80 here 24654.080

. OVERVIEW OF THE SOUTH TEXAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AT EDINBURG: 

The Airport developed from an initial 296 acre tract of land of the formerly Edinburg 

Auxiliary Field No 1 to Moore Army Air Field which was conveyed to the City from the 

Federal Government on March 26, 1947 pursuant to Executive Order 9689 dated 

January 31, 1946, under the authority of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, 

On March 31, 1949, the City of Edinburg received an additional108 acres of land from 

the Baker's Subdivision pursuant to the Reorganization Plan One of 1947 (12 Federal 

Regulation 4534) under authority of the Surplus Property Act of 1944. 

Between 1984 and 1996, the City purchased an additional148.50 acres of land; and in 

2009 the City purchased approximately 347 acres specifically for future airport 

development. The Airport currently occupies 894 acres of land. The City is seeking to 

purchase an additional 236 acres for the proposed airport development. 

The Airport has one northwest-southeast (14-32) oriented runway with one full-length 

parallel taxiway, a helipad, a large General Aviation Apron, and fourteen (14) tie downs. 

Runway 14-32 is 5,000 feet long by 75 feet wide. The weight bearing capacity is 30,000 

pounds per wheel load. 

Navigational aids consist of Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) lights, Medium 

Intensity Runway Edge Lights (MIRL), lighted windcone, beacon light tower, and 

Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS). 

Activities at the Airport consist of based and transient operations, including corporate 

flights, ambulance transport, law enforcement and recreational flying. Aviation fuel is 

stored in three (3) 10,000 gallon underground storage tanks containing AV gas and Jet 

"A" fuel, available through a self-service credit card operated fuel system. 

There are twelve (12) small (40' X 40') hangar spaces one (1) large (100' X 100') 

hangar facility and three (3) (50' X 60') box hangars. The Terminal Building constructed 

in 2001 consists of a large lobby, pilot's lounge, meeting room, office spaces and 

restroom facilities. A 50,000 square foot air cargo building was completed in 2007; 

which will be a full service facility that will support third party logistic services such as 

traditional warehouse, bonded warehouse, in-house U.S. Customs brokerage, storage, 

handling and distribution of goods. 

The South Texas International Airport at Edinburg is designated as a User Fee Airport 

by U,S, Customs and as a Foreign Trade Zone by the U.S. Department of 

Commerce. A User Fee Airport is a small airport which has been approved by the 

Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to receive, for a fee, 

the services of a CBP Officer for the processing of aircraft entering the United States 

and their passengers and cargo. 

Currently, the City is actively pursuing construction of an on-field U.S. Customs 

Passenger Facility. Development of the User Fee Customs Facility will attract 

international flights, increase commercial activity, generate additional air cargo, 

heighten transient traffic operations, and stimulate the local and regional economy 

through development of the airport's industrial park, job creation and increased tax 

base. 

3 
113 


Insert offset folio 81 here 24654.081

Foreign Trade Zones are areas in the United States where importers may store, exhibit 

and process foreign goods without paying customs duties (import taxes). Foreign Trade 

Zones allow businesses to save costs through the reduction, elimination or deferral of 

custom duties and other benefits which improve U.S. firms' competitiveness in the 

global market. 

The South Texas International Airport at Edinburg Aviation Demand Forecasts is 

outlined in the 2010-2030 Airport Master Plan. In summary, the Plan identifies based 

aircraft forecast, market share analysis, historical aircraft operations, reasonable service 

access area, socioeconomic factors, aircraft operations forecast, military activity, air 

taxi/charter services, instrument activity forecasts, air cargo forecast, demand/capacity 

analysis which include runway capacity, airspace capacity, terminal area capacity, 

itinerant aircraft apron, aircraft tie-down area, hangar development, auto parking and 

airport ground access. Based on all these analysis, the South Texas International 

Airport at Edinburg Improvements Project is justified. 

Since 1976, the City of Edinburg and the Edinburg Economic Development Corporation, 

in cooperation with State and Federal agencies, have contributed funding in order to 

construct or improve infrastructure, drainage, and hangar facilities at the Airport. The 

following is a summary of past funding participation: 

-

. Ci!}' of Edinburg I Edinburg Ecom>rni<:P.ev(llpJ>ment C~ration $6,924,043 

Federal - State $7,763,634 

__ .. ·-·----·· Total 14,687,677 

The above capital improvements has resulted in an increase of general aviation activity 

and anticipated cargo use. However, major challenges exist due to runway expansion 

needs. 

The City of Edinburg seeks additional funding which would allow the South Texas 

International Airport at Edinburg to become the regional staging site for State and 

Federal Emergency Response and would enable the City to best promote public health 

and safety as well as improve the quality of life of this community. 

4 
114 


Insert offset folio 82 here 24654.082

DEVELOPMENTS COST SUMMARY 

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2010 TO 2030 

AT 

SOUTH TEXAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT at EDINBURG 

EDINBURG, TEXAS 

PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION COST - Phase 1-A 

Runway 14L-32R Exte?sion and P~lallel 

Taxiw<IY_System Imor 7800 x 150 

Airfield Drainaqe Improvements 

ARFF and Fire Station with a Aircraft 

Rescue Fire Engine 

Land Acquisition Proqram (560 Acres) 

Project Development an Administration 

Cost 

Total Projected Construction Cost: 

Projected Construction Cost - Phase 1-B 

Runway 14L-32R Exte{~ion and P~lallel Taxiway_ System Impr 2200 x 150 

$15,500,000 

Airfield Navk)ational System Impr (R/W 32 

ILS with ALS 

$2,500,000 

Gen~)al Aviation Hangars & Apron (10 units 

$1,200,000 

Air Cargo Fa~~ities Improvements (50,000 SF and Apron 

$6,000,000 

Patrol Roads and Drainaqe Improvements $750 000 

Water and Wastewater System 

Installations ( wi\~ Lift Station & Force 

Main to TDCJ site 

I $2,100,000 

Project Development and Administration 

Cost 

$2,200,000 

Total Proiected Construction C:::l)st: 

$34,600,00 

$1 750 000 

$4,500,000 

$4 500 000 

$4,400,000 

~49,750,000 

~30,250,00_()_ 
Æ 


Insert offset folio 83 here 24654.083

Airport Development Worksheet 

AIRPORT PROJECT HISTORY 

Airport: SOUTH TEXAS INTERNATIONAL 

Associated City: EDINBURG NPIAS Site#: 48·0333 

Airport ID: KEBG 

FAA Site#: 23804*A 

FYR Agency Local($) State($) Federal($) TOTAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

1916 jFAA i i i $39,641.00 i $39,641.MiA.MP;R. DIXON SPEAS 

·:tiisi-iF"AA"·-------r--------------:---------------:----$34z~soo~aor·---·s34i.'iiiio.ooTsE'A.I-R.W-14t:=32R'(5o<fo·x·1-ooYA'N"6-sfus;·co'NsfR.-u

: J J J ! iPARTIAL PARALLEL TW AND ACCESS ROAD; RELOCA

J J J J J !BEACON· MIRL; SEGMENTED CIRCLE '1!iaa·tF'AA'""""··--:---------·------:---------------:----$35'f33:rat:-··---s:i5"7,333.fi71i:\MENDMENT-fc:Yf:"AA-F;R.oJEcT-83:-o-i;i'NcR:E'i\s'E·A.'M

l J i J J iTO $357 333.07 ·------+.------------i---------------+---------------t---------------::l-----------------t----------"-------------------------------------------------------

1994 :FAA l $1,888.00: $1,888.00: $33.984.oo: $37,760.00:Airport Master Plan ·------·rcii'Y ________ 1 _____ $3so~ooo~o0i·-------------·j··------------·t···--s35o,o'iio.ooi'Mairi-Ffaii9ar-an(n:.r;;-n·9;;ir_A ___________________________________

·;996-·!Txc>oTiCiWi··---$23s~799~ooi··sz~149~19Toat··------------·t··-$2,3e7.900.ooii:\cai:iiR'E-R'Pz-R"v\T14(9.65-A'cf&-oF=A'-R"w-32(3ii~54'Ac

i i l l i iRECON RW 14-32 (5000 X 75), TW TO RW 14 (850 X 35

J J J J J !(825 X 35), APRON (500 X 250); REPLACE MIRL'S (5000 

J J J J J \ROTATING BEACON & TOWER, LIGHTEDWINDCONE 

J J i J i !SEGMENTED CIRCLE, VASI-2 W/PAPI-2 RW 14-32; IMP

i i i i i !DRAINAGE; INSTALL FENCING, INSTALL TW CL REFL

~=fi!~i![~~~]~lli~~I~~I~

.~9~.!..-l~~!'::'~'!.::: ... L-~~~~~~:~~~:~~--------------.l----~-~~~~~~:~'l---~3.:~.

:!~~9~1~Lr'-£!?!.9..<:?.'?.\!~sJJ!1~L~J~.Q_<!£9~_Q.r!Y~-~-l},!lll!>!J.T.P.C •••.......•

. ~9~_8 __ l.~'?.!!?2~L .... !~~~::SY-:~'i----~~I:::~?~~~?L 

_____________ l_ ____ ~~~.S:~~_8~9~J!:!~ng~~E-------------------------------------------------------

zooe lTXDOTICITY l $411,107.oo: $1,196,59s.oo: l $1,607,702.00lAir Cargo Apron 

:~~~~~!~~~?~~~~~~:t~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~:~:~~:~~~~~t:~~~~~~:~~~~~~t::~~~~~~~~~~~j~~~~~!:~~~:q£~~!~~~!~£~~r!¥~~~9~~§!~~~~:::~~~~~~~:~:~:~:~:~

2010 :TXDOTICITY l $86,225.00J $1,638,275.00: l $1,724,500.00:REHAB Project TOTAL PROJECT ($) $6,924,043.00 $5,381,991.00 $2,381 ,643.01 $14,687,677.or-------------·--------------------····---------------------------