Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

1

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary of Transportation, told the 

public of this Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) Labor and World-class Workforce

Subcommittee meeting in a Federal Register notice published November 3, 2010 (75 FR 67805).

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE

Name Affiliation(s)

Patricia A. Friend 

(Subcommittee Chair)

International President Association of Flight Attendants 

(AFA)–Communications Workers of 

America (CWA), American Federation 

of Labor and Congress of Industrial 

Organizations (AFL–CIO)

David Barger President and 

Chief Executive Officer

JetBlue Airways Corporation (JetBlue)

Thella F. Bowens President and 

Chief Executive Officer

San Diego County Regional Airport 

Authority

John Conley International Administrative 

Vice President and Air Transport 

Division Director

Transport Workers Union of America 

(TWU), AFL–CIO

Cynthia M. Egnotovich Segment President, Nacelles and 

Interior Systems

Goodrich Company (Goodrich)

Robert L. Lekites

(by telephone)

President United Parcel Service (UPS) Airlines

Ana McAhron-Schulz Director of Economic and 

Financial Analysis

Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA)
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

2

OTHER OFFICIALS PRESENT

Name Affiliation(s)

Susan Kurland 

(Committee Chair)

(by telephone)

Assistant Secretary for Aviation 

and International Affairs

U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT)

Terri Williams 

(Designated Federal 

Official (DFO))

Director, Center for 

Organizational Excellence

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Regis Milan

(Alternate DFO)

Associate Director and Special 

Assistant to the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs

DOT

OTHER PERSONS PRESENT

Name Affiliation(s)

Jan (Jay) Aul

(by telephone)

FAA

Russ Bailey ALPA

Bob Bergman UPS

James Brough

(by telephone)

FAA

Chris Brown United Airlines, Inc. (United)

Jennifer Cavanaugh JetBlue

Andrew Comparo Aviation Daily/Aviation Week

Ana Corbett

(by telephone)

FAA

Emily Dziedzic PAI Consulting

Christa Fornarotto DOT

Jeffrey Goodell JetBlue

Patty Higginbotham United

Krister Holliday Goodrich

Dean Hubbard TWU, AFL-CIO

Robert Land JetBlue

Bill Mosley DOT

Rick Pyatt Goodrich
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

3

BACKGROUND AND WELCOMING REMARKS

This is the record of the fifth meeting of the Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee of the 

FAAC, a Federal advisory committee formed pursuant to and subject to the requirements of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

Ms. Patricia Friend, Subcommittee Chair, AFA-CWA, called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. 

She welcomed the subcommittee members and members of the public in attendance.

Ms. Friend introduced Ms. Terri Williams, FAA, the DFO for the meeting, and asked her to summarize

FACA requirements. Ms. Williams noted the meeting is conducted under FACA and outlined her 

responsibilities as DFO, including maintaining adherence to the agenda, keeping accurate minutes, and 

adjourning the meeting if necessary.

Ms. Williams noted meetings of the subcommittee are accessible to the public and stated interested 

people have the opportunity to submit comments before each meeting either by email at faac@dot.gov

or by submission to the regulatory docket at www.regulations.gov. She added the minutes of each 

meeting will be made available both in the regulatory docket and on the FAAC Web site at 

http://www.dot.gov/faac.

Ms. Williams read the formal statement required under FACA. She noted although the meeting was 

open to the public and members of the public were attending the meeting, participation in the meeting 

was limited to subcommittee members, their alternates, and Federal officials. She added that only 

subcommittee members and their alternates were entitled to vote on subcommittee business. 

Ms. Williams then turned the meeting back over to Ms. Friend to open substantive discussion.

DISCUSSION

Ms. Friend began the meeting by reminding the subcommittee members that the final FAAC meeting 

will be held on December 15, 2010 and all subcommittees must be ready to present their proposals. 

She stated the agenda for the current subcommittee meeting is to review the focus areas and determine 

if the subcommittee has reached consensus on the issues. She stated any issues that do not reach 

consensus will be included in the template for other areas of significant discussion. She notified the 

subcommittee there is a template for dissent, should any member choose to oppose a topic that has 

reached majority consensus.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)

Ms. Friend stated Focus Area 1 is the STEM proposal. She stated the proposal has been revised to 

include two new sentences in the first paragraph, as well as footnotes citing statistical sources in the 

paper. She noted the removal of the statistic regarding Master of Business Administration graduates, 

per the discussion at the Los Angeles, California, FAAC meeting. Ms. Friend noted the subcommittee 

has been in agreement on this issue from the beginning and the subcommittee members should be 

proud to put their names on it.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

4

Mr. David Barger, JetBlue, stated the STEM curriculum has been mentioned in various settings,

including The Wings Club, school systems, institutions of higher learning, and the National Business 

Aviation Association convention. He stated the Secretary of Transportation needs to help coordinate 

the efforts among these different venues to implement STEM education. Ms. Friend agreed and stated 

the two additional sentences in the first paragraph capture that sentiment.

Ms. Amy Corbett, FAA, stated experts in the field are addressing the issue of working more 

collaboratively to leverage resources. She stated there is substantial discussion between those involved 

with aviation and STEM education to help create a more collaborative environment.

Ms. Friend asked if anyone else had any comments. With no response, Ms. Friend noted Focus Area 1, 

STEM Education, will move forward with full consensus.

State of Labor Management Relations

Ms. Friend moved the discussion to Focus Area 2, State of Labor Management Relations. Focus Area 2

urges the Secretary of Transportation to support and encourage the National Mediation Board (NMB) 

to adopt all recommendations in Dunlop II.

Mr. Bob Bergman, UPS, asked if the subcommittee should revise the proposal to urge the NMB to 

adopt the recommendations in Dunlop II. He stated the proposal may be more effective if it is directed 

at the NMB, rather than involving the Secretary of Transportation. Mr. Barger asked if the intent of the 

proposal is for the Secretary to take action, or to reinforce the proposal. 

Ms. Friend stated the intent was for the Secretary of Transportation and the DOT to lend their weight 

by encouraging the NMB to act. She stated the NMB can choose not to listen; however, the Secretary’s 

status may have a positive influence on the NMB.

Mr. John Conley, TWU, stated after the presentation from Mr. Joshua Javits, Dispute Resolution 

Services, at the October 1, 2010 subcommittee meeting, the subcommittee agreed with all the findings 

of his explanation of Dunlop II. Mr. Conley stated the Secretary of Transportation’s significance and 

title would be beneficial to the NMB.

Ms. Christa Fornarotto, DOT, stated the Secretary of Transportation cannot force entities to change, but 

can advocate for change. She added the proposal should advocate for changes regarding the labor 

workforce. Ms. Ana McAhron-Schulz, ALPA, stated the subcommittee is not asking the Secretary to 

implement Dunlop II; rather, the proposal is asking the Secretary to advocate helping the labor 

workforce issue. 

Mr. Barger asked how the NMB feels about this proposal. Mr. Bob Lekites, UPS, stated he had a 

conversation with the NMB. He noted the NMB believes they can handle this issue without the support 

of the Secretary of Transportation. Mr. Lekites stated the NMB believes this proposal would neither 

hurt nor help them because they are already pursuing the issue.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

5

Ms. Friend stated the NMB is moving too slow, and the point of the proposal is to urge immediate 

implementation of the recommendations in Dunlop II. Mr. Conley stated the subcommittee was in 

agreement on the importance of this issue without having a conversation with the NMB.

Ms. Thella Bowens, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, stated the first part of the 

recommendation urges the Secretary of Transportation to endorse Dunlop II. She stated if the NMB 

believes this proposal would not hurt them, the subcommittee should continue with the proposal. She 

stated the second issue in the proposal deals with funding and resources for the NMB. She noted the 

Secretary cannot find funding for the NMB, so leaving this wording in the proposal is futile.

Ms. Friend noted the focus of all the proposals is advocacy. She stated the subcommittee hopes to go 

on record and for the Secretary of Transportation to add his voice, so the NMB will expeditiously 

endorse and receive funding to implement Dunlop II. Ms. McAhron-Schulz stated the subcommittee 

has recognized the problems with negotiations, and this proposal urges the Secretary to support the 

things that will help the labor situation in the aviation industry.

Ms. Bowens stated the proposal currently looks like two separate ideas: advocacy for the 

implementation of Dunlop II, and funding for the NMB. She stated the first idea is very clear in asking 

the Secretary of Transportation to advocate for the NMB to implement Dunlop II. She stated the 

subcommittee should revise the second idea to ask the Secretary to advocate for adequate

NMB funding. Ms. Friend agreed and revised the proposal to include advocacy wording.

Mr. Bergman asked, to whom is the Secretary of Transportation advocating the funding issue? 

Ms. Bowens stated the Secretary will direct this issue to whoever is responsible for funding the NMB. 

She stated it is not within the scope of the subcommittee to understand how the funding issue works; 

rather, the subcommittee should urge the Secretary to put pressure on the funding source. She stated 

the Secretary must realize that without adequate NMB funding, other entities within the aviation 

industry cannot operate properly.

Mr. Conley asked if it is necessary to include the funding portion of the proposal. He stated if 

Dunlop II is implemented, then funding, resources, and staffing will need to be addressed. 

Ms. McAhron-Schulz noted including the funding issue shows its importance and makes the proposal 

more effective.

Mr. Barger asked if the funding issue should be included in the list of topics for the Labor Management 

Summit proposal. Ms. Friend preferred to put the idea in both a Focus Area template and in the Labor 

Management Summit proposal. Ms. Friend stated the Labor Management Summit will not allow this 

matter to be handled expeditiously, and the NMB needs to focus on moving it forward immediately.

Ms. Cynthia Egnotovich, Goodrich, stated if the subcommittee is comfortable with the proposal, they

should move it forward as a Focus Area. She stated if the NMB had input on the proposal, they should 

have come forward with a formal statement. She added informal communication with the NMB should 

not sway the decision of the subcommittee.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

6

Mr. Lekites reiterated the conversation with the NMB was informal. He stated his support for the 

proposal, even after the discussion with the NMB. Ms. Friend noted the concern is how much credence 

should be given to an informal conversation. She stated the comments should not influence the 

subcommittee.

Mr. Rick Pyatt, Goodrich, stated issues occurring in the aviation and labor industries in the summer of 

2000 impacted the traveling public. He stated the NMB needs to be properly funded so cases can move 

forward expeditiously. He added there is an interest for all stakeholders in aviation, and the funding 

issue belongs in the recommendation.

Ms. Friend thanked Mr. Pyatt for his insight. She re-read the revisions in the proposal and asked if the 

subcommittee agreed with the changes in the wording. She stated the proposal was revised to 

emphasize advocacy of the issues. She stated she will transfer this proposal to the 

Focus Area template.

Ms. Friend stated the subcommittee needs to submit all proposals to the DOT by November 22, 2010. 

This will allow the DOT to sort through proposals, combine like ideas, and have packets to all FAAC 

members before the December 15, 2010, FAAC meeting. Ms. Friend asked how the FAAC will 

determine which proposals have full support. Ms. Fornarotto stated each subcommittee will (1) present 

their proposals at the FAAC meeting, (2) have an opportunity for discussion, and (3) present formal 

recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation on full consensus issues.

Workforce Management Summit

Ms. Friend moved the discussion to Focus Area 3, Workforce Management Summit. She noted there 

have been several revisions since the Los Angeles, California, FAAC meeting, including changing to an 

annual summit and eliminating a standing committee.

Mr. Conley stated he is interested in discussing the summit’s frequency. Ms. Egnotovich stated 

annually seems to be more realistic than twice a year. Mr. Conley stated the whole notion of the 

summit is not convenience, rather the pointed nature of the discussions to be had. He expressed 

concern about not keeping the discussion alive and having issues get pushed to the side. He stated the 

summit should convene twice a year.

Ms. Bowens asked about the summits length and duration. Ms. Friend noted the subcommittee has not 

yet discussed the details. She stated it could be one day, with assignments on issues needing continued 

work. She stated the agenda would vary from summit to summit. Ms. Friend asked of Mr. Conley if 

once a year is too infrequent. Mr. Conley responded, yes, one year is too long in between meetings.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

7

Ms. Bowens agreed with Mr. Conley and stated it takes time to build relationships and find common 

ground because of huge chasms in the industry. She stated this cannot be accomplished in one day, 

once a year. She added the summit’s success depends upon what happens in between the meetings. 

Ms. Bowens commented the expected outcomes and goals must be determined to make the summit 

meaningful. She stated stakeholders in the industry must want to give up their time to convene. She 

added the summit may need to be more than one day and its importance cannot be forgotten 

in between meetings.

Mr. Lekites stated UPS has an annual meeting, where the company discusses high impact items such as 

labor, contracts, and negotiations. He stated it takes time to expedite the solutions to those items, and 

part of the meeting is devoted to developing action plans for expectations of future meetings.

Ms. Egnotovich asked how prescriptive the subcommittee should be regarding the nature of the 

summit. She stated the summit members may want to address the issues of length and duration on 

their own.

Mr. Barger stated the subcommittee must be careful not to load up the criteria and then have them fail. 

He stated having one summit that never reoccurs would be a failure. He added the goals of the summit 

need to be meaningful to ensure its continuation over time.

Ms. Friend suggested revising the proposal to establish a summit within 6 months of the conclusion of 

the FAAC, and thereafter held on a schedule determined by the first summit’s participants. 

Ms. Fornarotto stated the DOT would have great difficulty in implementing the proposal within 

6 months due to resources, staffing, and logistics. She stated if there is flexibility in the scheduling, it 

should be added to the proposal.

Mr. Conley reiterated his stance that a summit once a year loses power. He stated the point of the 

summit is to build relationships. Mr. Conley noted the need to repeatedly come together, tackle hard 

issues, and apply solutions to the industry.

Mr. Barger stated the issue is about scaling time and having the summit continue through 

administrations. He stated the FAAC has already been together for almost one year and it goes by 

quickly. Ms. Friend noted the subcommittee has met in person three times and twice on a 

teleconference. She stated the first two meetings were to get to know each other and have meaningful 

conversations. She added, regarding, the Workforce Management Summit, the participants may vary 

from year to year. She stated the proposal may be implemented initially as a summit, but the summit 

would evolve into a semiannual conference.

Mr. Barger asked whether the summit’s audience will include manufacturers and airports, or if it will be 

airline-specific. Ms. Egnotovich asked if the summit will address only workforce management issues, 

or if it will be broader in scope.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

8

Ms. Friend stated the summit’s agenda will include the issues of joint ventures, foreign repair, and other 

difficult topics to find common ground among airports, manufacturers, and airlines. Ms. Egnotovich 

stated the summit would not be limited to difficult issues, but would also highlight best practices within 

the industry.

Ms. McAhron-Schulz stated the proposal should be kept general to allow summit members to decide 

how to move forward. She stated the first meeting would be to identify issues, and the agendas and 

summits could be determined from there.

Ms. Friend stated she would revise the proposal to delete the annual requirement and allow the 

participants to determine the agenda and frequency of the meetings moving forward. Mr. Conley 

expressed his dissatisfaction with the revisions and stated the summit should meet semiannually.

Ms. Bowens stated twice a year seems frequent, but the subcommittee has met almost monthly and 

there are still issues not being addressed. She stated larger issues will take more time to reach 

consensus. She added it is difficult to see how once a year is beneficial for a divergent group of people 

to discuss difficult problems and challenges.

Ms. Friend asked if the subcommittee should revise the proposal to state the majority of the members 

suggest meeting twice a year. Mr. Barger stated the language was fine before the last revision. He 

commented the participants should be empowered to determine the frequency of meetings. He stated 

the agenda should reflect the participants’ decision about meeting frequency.

Ms. Friend noted the agenda will change as the issues facing the industry change. She stated within the 

last month, there has been a shift in security, with attacks on cargo. She stated new issues will continue 

to be introduced to the industry that will need to be addressed.

Mr. Lekites stated, from a schedule point of view, the summit must convene at least once a year, but 

summit members should be able to reconvene more frequently if necessary. He stated frequency 

should not be mandated because it will change based on what is happening in the world. He suggested 

changing the proposal to state the summit should be held annually and as needed thereafter.

Ms. Egnotovich stated the subcommittee is struggling with frequency, but the important part of the 

summit is the substance. She noted the need for the summit to convene within a certain amount of 

time; however, summit participants should determine the subject, members, and frequency.

Ms. Friend stated the proposal is fairly open now and the summit will be an open meeting without 

specific representatives. She stated all industry professionals are welcome to participate. Mr. Conley 

noted the initial intent was for all stakeholders to participate. He stated the Secretary of Transportation 

could convene the summit, which would encourage industry members to participate. He stated the 

summit would not have a sunset date and would continue to convene to discuss important issues 

affecting the aviation industry.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

9

Ms. Friend stated the proposal title could be changed to a semiannual aviation industry workforce 

conference. She stated the word “summit” evokes an idea of a onetime event. Mr. Barger commented 

he still struggles with prescribing a semiannual meeting. He stated the conference needs to be 

beneficial for customers, employees, and stakeholders. He added it is not how often the summit meets, 

but how effective the summit becomes.

Ms. Fornarotto stated, for practical purposes, it will take the DOT 9 months to formulate the first 

summit. Ms. Friend stated the intent is not to create another committee with designated 

representatives. She stated the summit should be an open forum for workforce and management 

specifically. Ms. Fornarotto stated, even though it is not a formal process, there are still logistics 

to address.

Ms. Friend stated the subcommittee should replace the word “annual” with “semiannual” and leave the 

rest of the proposal as previously drafted. Mr. Bergman stated the date of the first summit could be set 

and the participants could determine future meeting dates.

Ms. Friend stated she would dislike seeing a group come together only to debate the frequency and 

location of meetings. She stated if the summit is held semiannually in Washington, DC, then the 

important issues can be addressed immediately. She noted there is nothing preventing the group from 

adjusting meetings according to the agendas. Ms. Friend stated the proposal should suggest endorsing

and implementing a semiannual conference beginning in September 2011. With this revision, the 

subcommittee reached consensus on the issue.

Incorporating Core Workers’ Human Rights Conventions into International Labor 

Agreements

Ms. Friend moved the discussion to Focus Area 4, Incorporating Core Workers’ Human Rights 

Conventions into International Labor Agreements. She stated the FAAC members heard a presentation 

on the topic at the Los Angeles, California, FAAC meeting. She stated the proposal is for the 

Administration to commit to the adherence of the core conventions, and to include the conventions in 

open skies agreements entered into by the United States. Ms. Friend noted the proposal is to include

the conventions in all future agreements. She added the proposal suggests when the DOT reviews 

whether to grant antitrust agreements, they require a framework agreement committing parties to the 

International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Core Conventions.

Ms. Friend noted the proposal refers to the core workers’ human rights, since there is no common 

understanding of the ILO Core Conventions. She invited the subcommittee to ask questions or add 

comments to the discussion.

Mr. Lekites expressed support for the ILO Core Conventions. He stated, from labor practice, organized 

labor in foreign countries does not represent the integrity seen in the United States. In addition, he 

stated there seems to be conflict between State Governments and Federal Governments concerning

labor laws. He stated, fundamentally, rights for children do not apply to aviation, and this issue needs 

to be addressed by the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Justice, not the FAAC.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

10

Ms. Friend asked if the reference to foreign countries was attributed to the second part of the proposal 

regarding antitrust agreements. Mr. Lekites stated he was referring to organizations using people from 

other countries that do not follow company standards. He stated when labor is misrepresented and 

employees are put in harm’s way, the ILO standards are not being followed. He asked if there is a need 

for an overarching international agreement that conflicts with State and Federal laws.

Ms. Friend stated the DOT grants antitrust immunity and has input into open skies agreements. 

Mr. Lekites clarified his question by inquiring what the ILO brings to the open skies agreements.

Mr. Barger stated the United States has only ratified two of the eight ILO Core Conventions. He stated 

this proposal will be difficult to implement because the United States has not yet ratified all the 

conventions. Ms. Friend stated, although the conventions have not been ratified, the United States is 

complying with them. She stated asking others to comply is not out of line.

Mr. Dean Hubbard, TWU, stated there is concern with the conflicts arising from State law, mainly with 

public sector workers outside of aviation. He stated there is some conflict with the National Labor 

Relations Act (NLRA), but there are no concerns with the Railway Labor Act (RLA). He added there 

are no conflicts between the ILO Core Conventions and the RLA laws within the United States.

Ms. Friend reiterated there have been allegations of conflict with the NLRA, but there are no conflicts 

with the RLA (the act under discussion at this meeting). Mr. Hubbard asked if Mr. Lekites is confusing 

the ILO with some other organization. Ms. Friend stated Mr. Lekites is concerned with the reference to 

the frame agreements with global union federations, which are not the ILO. 

Ms. Friend clarified the International Transport Workers Federation is not associated with the ILO. She 

stated the ILO organizes standards, which member countries adopt and implement. She stated the ILO 

does not organize workers, rather they issue policy. She added these Core Conventions do not conflict 

with U.S. labor laws.

Mr. Lekites stated it is illegal to allow supervisors to be part of organized labor. Mr. Hubbard clarified 

that every country has its own labor laws, including the extent to which supervisors can or cannot be 

part of unions. He stated a country’s laws govern workers who operate within that country. 

Mr. Hubbard also stated the question of joining a union falls under the freedom of association, one of 

the ILO’s Core Conventions. He noted some have looked at allegations that supervisors who join a 

union are not called supervisors. He stated there was a recent ILO decision regarding the supervisory 

status of nurses, and the ILO felt the NLRA was consistent with the freedom of association. He 

commented it would be incorrect to state that if an organization agrees to comply with the Core 

Conventions, then top management would be forced to join a union.

Mr. Lekites asked what would happen if the decision was otherwise. Mr. Hubbard stated the ILO 

would issue a recommendation for the United States to evaluate the situation. He noted the 

United States does not usually change the law and the ILO does not have the power to force changes. 

Mr. Lekites stated the ILO involvement is a consultative process to help labor, management, and 

governments see what makes sense for the country.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

11

Mr. Bergman stated it is troubling the subcommittee is asking that the ILO Core Conventions be 

included in open skies agreements when the United States has not yet ratified all eight conventions. 

Ms. Egnotovich stated the issue is complicated and she is uncomfortable with the proposal since none 

of the subcommittee members are experts in the area. She asked how the parties are held accountable 

in adhering to the ILO Core Conventions.

Ms. Friend stated the organizations who are party to an open skies agreement ensure adherence to the 

agreement. She stated any violation of the agreement would make it null and void. Ms. Egnotovich 

stated that seems difficult because the eight conventions are so broad in scope. She asked how 

oversight would be conducted.

Ms. Bowens stated if the United States has not sanctioned these conventions, then the DOT would be 

unable to enforce them in an agreement. She stated the subcommittee is asking the DOT to do 

something the Federal Government has not done yet.

Ms. Friend stated there is an issue of moral authority in incorporating adherence to the yet unratified 

ILO Core Conventions. She noted there is also a legal authority which lies in the ability to negotiate a 

trade agreement.

Ms. Bowens stated her concern applies to both issues. She asked if the DOT can enforce something the 

Federal Government has not yet adopted. She stated there is a conflict in a country adhering to a 

convention to which the United States does not legally adhere. Ms. Friend stated this issue is not part 

of a legal debate within trade agreement negotiations; rather, it is about the negotiation itself.

Ms. Bowens disagreed with Ms. Friend and stated the United States cannot ask another country to do 

something the United States has not sanctioned. Ms. Bowens stated the subcommittee could modify 

the proposal and ask the DOT to advocate that the government support the ILO Core Conventions. 

This would allow the government to incorporate the conventions into future negotiations.

Ms. McAhron-Schulz stated some of the Core Conventions have not been ratified due to State laws. 

She stated, while the Core Conventions have not been ratified, the United States still complies with the 

conventions. She noted there are countries that do not comply with any conventions, which does not 

allow for a level playing field. Ms. McAhron-Schulz stated there must be minimum labor standards 

regarding child labor and freedom of association.

Mr. Barger suggested this proposal become a point/counterpoint argument since the moral issue seems 

to be dividing the subcommittee. Ms. Friend suggested this issue be put through as a proposal by a 

minority of the subcommittee, with the others filing dissents. Mr. Bergman noted the dissent should be 

used if only one subcommittee member disagrees with a proposal.

Ms. Bowens stated the subcommittee members agree that, morally, this proposal is something every 

organization should live up to. She stated from a legal perspective, there is conflict about putting the 

Secretary of Transportation in a position to support the ILO Core Conventions when they have not been 

ratified in the United States.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

12

Ms. Friend stated she agrees with the moral authority issue of insisting on something the United States

has not ratified. However, she does not understand why the United States would not have the legal 

authority to put any condition into a trade agreement. Ms. Friend stated the ILO Core Conventions 

have never been included in a trade agreement, and the subcommittee has brought the topic up because 

it should be part of the agreements. She commented the United States is already engaged in 

agreements with countries with no protection for workers. She stated it is a humanitarian and moral 

issue, and raises the issue of a level playing field. She asked how the United States can compete with a 

country that does not give their workers any rights.

Mr. Pyatt stated, regarding moral authority, war is morally abhorrent, but the world enters into it 

because of government interests. He stated if the United States was willing, it would adopt and 

incorporate the ILO Core Conventions. Ms. Friend stated the United States is not willing, which is 

why the subcommittee must raise the issue. She stated the issue raises the question of competition on a 

global level playing field.

Ms. Egnotovich asked why the United States has ratified only two of the eight ILO Core Conventions. 

Ms. Friend stated she does not know, but in addition to not being ratified, the other six conventions

have not been submitted. She stated the ILO Core Conventions are similar to International Civil 

Aviation Organization standards, as both are guidance measures. She stated in negotiating trade 

agreements with countries that have no labor protection, it is common sense to request those countries 

adhere to the Core Conventions so their workers are not disadvantaged.

Mr. Barger reiterated this proposal may be better suited for a point/counterpoint argument. 

Ms. McAhron-Schulz suggested the proposal should be amended to first require review by the 

Department of Labor regarding the legality of requiring adherence to ILO core conventions of other 

countries when the US does not adhere to all conventions. And if the Labor Department determined 

there was no legal issue, then the recommendation could be implemented. 

Mr. Conley stated the proposal should encourage the Administration to advocate and promote 

adherence to the ILO Core Conventions. Mr. Bergman stated the issue of promoting adherence still 

seems to be a conflict. Ms. Friend stated, although the Core Conventions have not been ratified, they 

are still followed.

Ms. Bowens asked about accompanying jurisprudence. Mr. Hubbard stated when a party agrees a 

country is violating an agreement, the party can file a complaint. He explained the freedom of 

association recommendations will be applied to the situation to determine an appropriate course of 

behavior, as dictated by community consensus.

Ms. Egnotovich asked, if no one enforces these Core Conventions, then what is accomplished in 

putting the conventions into agreements? Mr. Hubbard explained the ILO Core Conventions do not 

contain specifics; rather, the conventions set up a process for discussion when a country thinks there is 

a problem. He stated if the Core Conventions are put into agreements, then a process is set up to reach 

an agreement if one party thinks the agreement is being broken.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

13

Ms. Friend asked if this process would lead to litigation. She stated if the agreement is broken, the 

parties would follow the dispute resolution process set forth in the contract (similar to what is done in 

other contracts). Mr. Hubbard stated the dispute resolution mechanisms are very open-ended. He 

stated the open skies agreements allow for discussion, rather than litigation.

Mr. Russ Bailey, ALPA, stated the dispute resolution mechanisms in multilateral trade agreements are 

the same as collective bargaining agreements under the RLA. He commented it would not lead to 

traditional litigation in court. He also stated there are processes set up to negotiate, mediate, and 

arbitrate. Mr. Bailey noted there are representatives from both sides that work to avoid arbitration, and 

the United States has been involved in only three arbitrations in the last 25 years. He stated if the 

language in an agreement calls for adherence to the ILO Core Conventions, then the conventions still 

have meaning. He stated there is no strict enforcement, but there is still a requirement to adhere to the 

principles. Mr. Bailey explained there is a fundamental point to adhering to the ILO Core Conventions,

and there should be a requirement to have some process for collective bargaining.

Ms. Friend thanked Mr. Bailey for the clarification. She stated the subcommittee has not come any 

closer to consensus, with three subcommittee members in favor and four members against. She asked 

the DOT how the subcommittee should proceed. Ms. Fornarotto stated, since the subcommittee is split, 

the best template to use is the other topics of significant discussion. She explained the dissent form is 

only used if one subcommittee member disagrees with the proposal.

The subcommittee agreed to remove this topic as a Focus Area proposal, draft a point/counterpoint 

argument, and submit the proposal as a topic of Other Significant Discussion.

Other Significant Discussion

Ms. Friend stated the DOT has provided each subcommittee with a template called Other Significant 

Discussion. She stated the subcommittee should use the template for discussions that have not reached 

consensus. She stated the subcommittee has already discussed and reported on several topics and must 

reach a decision on these items. She stated after the subcommittee finalizes the topics, the papers will 

need to be reduced to paragraph summaries and should be submitted to her by November 18, 2010.

Ms. Friend stated the first issue is joint ventures. Ms. McAhron-Schulz stated the Subcommittee on 

Competitiveness and Viability is addressing this topic. Ms. Friend stated if this subcommittee does not 

address the labor aspect of joint ventures, then a proposal will need to be drafted by a member of this 

subcommittee.

Mr. Bergman stated there are papers on foreign repair stations, submitted by Goodrich and TWU, for a 

point/counterpoint argument. Ms. Friend stated AFA and UPS have addressed foreign ownership. 

Mr. Bergman stated UPS will respond to the AFA point by November 18, 2010. Ms. Friend noted

TWU and JetBlue have addressed the issue of job outsourcing. Mr. Barger stated the paper needs to be 

reviewed and summarized.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

14

Ms. Friend stated UPS, ALPA, and JetBlue have addressed code-sharing and fees for departure. 

Ms. Friend asked if this proposal should be excluded because it has been addressed in the Airline 

Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-216. The 

subcommittee agreed to exclude this topic from the proposal.

Ms. Friend stated UPS, ALPA, and JetBlue have addressed fitness standards for new entrants. 

Ms. Friend stated the DOT believes they already monitor a company’s fitness. Mr. Barger stated a 

concern about being careful regarding this proposal. Ms. McAhron-Schulz stated the standards and 

statutes should be reviewed and updated. She noted the Subcommittee on Competitiveness and 

Viability started to have this discussion, but did not follow through with it.

Ms. Friend stated she would look at the initial submission because its focus was on the initial entry, 

whereas the DOT focuses on the ongoing fitness review. Ms. McAhron-Schulz emphasized the 

standards have been the same for the last 30 years. She stated the standards need to be updated for both 

startups and ongoing entities. Ms. Friend agreed the proposal should be about the accuracy of fitness 

standards for entry. She stated failure of new companies should not occur. She added JetBlue and 

ALPA will have an opportunity to review and revise fitness standards before November 18, 2010.

Ms. Friend stated the topic of updating bankruptcy legislation, as it applies to the airline industry, is 

outstanding. She stated the proposal, as written, is currently out-of-date. She noted the proposal asks 

subcommittee members to support two pieces of legislation that will have to be reintroduced in the new 

Congress. She stated the subcommittee needs to rewrite the proposal to take out the specific bill 

references. Ms. Friend asked the subcommittee’s position on this issue. Mr. Barger noted ALPA was 

going to issue a statement on the issue, and JetBlue will issue a counterpoint to their argument. 

Ms. McAhron-Schulz agreed to revise the proposal to alter the legislation numbers.

Ms. Bowens asked if these topics will be discussed at the Workforce Management Conference. 

Ms. Friend stated these issues will be going to the DOT in the template for other significant 

discussions. She asked if there are any other topics that need to be discussed. The subcommittee did 

not broach any new topics. Ms. Friend reviewed the final six topics of significant discussion: foreign 

repair stations; foreign ownership of U.S. companies; job outsourcing; fitness standards for new 

entrants; updating bankruptcy legislation as it applies to the airline industry; and 

ILO Core Conventions.

CLOSING REMARKS AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

The subcommittee members agreed to send non-consensus paper revisions to Ms. Friend by

November 18, 2010. Ms. Friend stated the next FAAC meeting will be on December 15, 2010,

in Washington, DC.

Ms. Williams requested that the subcommittee ratify the minutes from the September 23, 2010,

meeting and the October 1, 2010, meeting. Ms. Friend requested a motion to approve the minutes. The 

motion was approved and the minutes were ratified.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 15, 2010

Communication Workers of America

Washington, DC

15

ADJOURNMENT

Ms. Williams solicited a motion for adjournment. On motion, duly seconded and approved by the 

majority of the subcommittee members present, the meeting was adjourned.

The meeting adjourned at 2:18 p.m.

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.

Approved by: ____________________________________________

Terri Williams, Designated Federal Official

Dated: __________________________________________________

Ratified on: ______________________________________________