Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Airc raft Company Wichita, Kansas

1 Public Announcement
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Of fice of the Secretary of Transportation, told the public of this Future of Aviation Advisory Comm ittee (FAAC) Subcommittee on Financing meeting in a Federal Register notice published June 16, 2010 (75 FR 34202).

Subcommittee Members in Attendance

Name Affiliation(s) Jack J. Pelton, ( Subcommittee Chair ) Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna)

Severin Borenstein 1 Professor Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley
Thella F. Bowens 1 President and Chief Executive Officer San Diego County Regional Airport Authority

John Hennigan ( Designated Federal Official (DFO) ) Federal Aviation Administration

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

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

Daniel McKenzie 1 U.S. Airlines Research Analyst Hudson Securities, Inc.

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

Committee Members Not in Attendance

Name Affiliation(s) Raul Regalado President and Chief Executive Officer Metropolitan Nashville Airports Authority

Glenn Tilton Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer UAL Corporation (United)

Christopher Williams Chairman, Founder, and Chief Executive Officer The Williams Capital Group, L.P.

1 By phone.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Airc raft Company Wichita, Kansas

2 Other Persons Present

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

B ACKGROUND AND W ELCOMING R EMARKS

This is the record of the first meeting of the S ubcommittee on Financing of the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC), a federal advisory co mmittee formed pursuant to and subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

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

Mr. John Hennigan read the formal statement requir ed under FACA, and then turned the meeting back over to Mr. Pelton to open substantive discussion.

D ISCUSSION

Mr. Pelton outlined the subcommittee’s agenda. He began by reviewing the purpose of the FAAC and the five main areas of concern for the committee. He noted that financing was one of those five areas, and this subcommittee was formed in response. He noted there was background material on aviation system funding and financing of airports from the in itial meeting of the FAAC that should be reviewed by the subcommittee members. Mr. Pelton stated the main task of the subcommittee is to identify three to four topics regarding avia tion financing issues that can be presented to the FAAC as potential actionable items for the Secretary of Transportation. He reminded th e subcommittee that the Secretary was interested in near-term actions, but stated that long-term issues should be considered as well. Mr. Pelton stated his belief that many of the financing issues are long term, and cautioned the subcommittee not to become overly focused on immedi ate issues. He explai ned the purpose of the subcommittee is to identify key fi nancing issues affecting the industr y and to bring them to the FAAC for action. He then noted that th e final goal for the subcommittee was to have its work completed in time for the FAAC’s final meeting December 15, 2010.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Airc raft Company Wichita, Kansas

3 Mr. Hennigan reviewed the meeting schedule for the FAAC, stating that meetings would occur July 14, 2010, in Atlanta, Georgia, and August 25, 2010, and October 20, 2010, in locations yet to be determined. He stated that there would be a total of five FAAC mee tings, two to four of which are to be used to compile and considerrecommendations from the subc ommittees. He added the final meeting in Washington, DC, December 15, 2010, would be a report out to the Secretary of Transportation. He reminded the subcommittee that a report would be written, and stated it was critical to have recommendations to the Secretary in December. Mr. Pelton reminded the subcommittee that notices for its meetings must be published in the Federa l Register at least 2 weeks before the date of the meeting, and each subcommittee meeting should take place at least 2 weeks before the next FAAC meeting.

Mr. Pelton reviewed public comments the subcommittee received, stating that submissions had been received from the Air Line Pilots Association, Internati onal Air Transport Associ ation; Airports Council International – North America; a nd United Airlines, along with a repor t on the airline industry from Mr. Daniel McKenzie, Hudson Securi ties, Inc. He also noted a s ubmission from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association was received just before the meeting, and it would be posted to the docket and distributed to subcommittee members. Mr. Pelton asked if all subcommittee members had received the public comments. Ms. Thella Bowens, San Diego Regional Airport Authority, stated she had not received copies of the comments from Daniel McKe nzie or the Air Transport Association. Mr. Pelton took an action to ensure Ms. Bo wen receives the comments.

Because of the length of the documents submitted by the commenters, they were not reviewed at the subcommittee meeting. Mr. Hennigan reminded the subcommittee of the importance of the public comments, and stated that even though some may be duplicates of those sent to other (or all) subcommittees, there were some comments directed sp ecifically to the individual subcommittees. He further stated that the public comments contained valuable information, and they would need to be discussed by the subcommittee. Mr. Pelton agreed and stated the subcommittee should have enough time to review them by the next meeting and would work to address the comments then.

Mr. Hennigan emphasized that all subcommitt ee members would have access to the FAAC SharePoint site, and going forwar d, this would be the central location for sharing documents among members. He reminded subcommittee members that procedures for accessing Sh arePoint were in the summary document provided by Ms. Pam Hamilton, F AA, the Designated Federal Official for the FAAC. Mr. Michael Derrick, PAI Consulting, provid ed a brief update on the status of SharePoint

access.

Identification of Issues for the FAAC
Mr. Pelton began the discussion by stating his belief that the issues surroundi ng financing essentially could be derived from aviation systemand airport funding. He further st ated his belief th at all of these issues revolve around the Next Generation Air Tran sportation System (NextGen) and the equipment that will be needed to operate in the future aviation system. Mr. Pelton stated he believes it is very important for operators to recogni ze the benefits of NextGen and how to transition into the future environment. He proposed that a roadmap for the transition to NextGen, with tangible benefits toFuture of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Airc raft Company Wichita, Kansas

4 operators, and a plan for transition are needed and asked the subcommittee members for their input. Mr. Joseph Kolshak, United Airlines, expressed his agreement with the need to identify key elements and requirements for NextGen. He cited recommendations made by RTCA, Inc. (RTCA), on NextGen equipage, procedures, a nd separation standards that serv e as a roadmap for NextGen, but these recommendations are not an industry product and he was unsure if there was consensus around them. Mr. Kolshak expressed concern that the 2020 target date for equipping for NextGen was quite distant at this point and th at operators had little incentive to equi p their aircraft at present. As an example, he noted that United Airlines recently retir ed 100 aircraft, some of which had equipment that had never been used in the National Airspace System (NAS). He reiter ated that visible benefits were needed before operators would equip aircraft ahead of mandatory dates.

Mr. Severn Borenstein, Haas School of Business, expr essed his belief that id entifying a funding source for NextGen is important. Mr. Pelton asked if any me mbers had a point of contac t that could brief this issue. Mr. Hennigan stated he could assist in providing background materials to the subcommittee.

Mr. Kolshak expressed concern over early equipage of aircraft wit hout clearly visible incentives. He stated it was not clear to opera tors that, if they equip early in 2013, they will receive any benefit over another operator that waits until the 2020 deadline.

( Mr. McKenzie joined the mee ting at 1:18 p.m. via telephone. )

Mr. Pelton cited automatic dependent surveillance–broadcast (ADS–B) as an example that has recently garnered attention, and stated that th e real benefits of the system will not be realized until the rollout of ADS–B In (information received by aircraft). Mr. Kols hak agreed, but also stated that until all aircraft are equipped, present separation standa rds will remain, and this is wher e a benefit of early equipage can be realized. Mr. Pelton stated that eliminating older equipment from th e system can bring cost savings. Mr. Kolshak agreed, but expressed his belief that the capacity improvements th at would be realized by decreased separation standards (suc h as in areas with limited radar coverage) would bring the greatest benefit. An observing member of the public, Mr . Jens Hennig, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, offered that an FAA study on the cost of removal for ground-based radar systems may be of interest to the subcommittee and sugge sted a point of contact to obtain it.

Mr. Borenstein suggested it would be a good pr ocess for the subcommittee to obtain background documents on NextGen for reference, because it may be a major focus of the subcommittee. Mr. Kolshak suggested the RTCA Taskforce 5 pa per. Mr. Pelton suggested reading background material and bringing in experts for briefings at the next subcommittee meeting; Mr. Borenstein agreed. Mr. Borenstein and Mr. Pelton then had a brief discussion on NextGen funding sources, which led to a discussion on incentives for early equipage of aircraft. Mr. Kolshak cited an example of reduced vertical separation minima (RVSM), in which airc raft separation was reduced from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet in high altitude airspace. He noted that aircra ft operators were paid to equip their aircraft to meet the requirements to participate in RVSM, and th ey got direct benefits from being able to use the airspace. He observed that tangib le benefits such as this would be necessary to incentivize early equipage by operators for NextGen.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Airc raft Company Wichita, Kansas

5 Several subcommittee members noted that the airsp ace capacity gains brought by NextGen may be lost on capacity constraints in the term inal environment, and this con cern had been raised by RTCA and others. Mr. Hennigan raised th e theory of “best equipped, best served,” and Mr. Hennigan, Mr. Kolshak, and Mr. Pelton discussed varying potent ial levels of access to ai rspace based on aircraft equipment, using RVSM and categ ory 3 approaches as examples.

Mr. Pelton shifted the discussion to incentivizing airc raft operators for early equipage. He expressed his belief that clear benefits to operators are e ssential, because many are financially constrained and reluctant to spend resources to equip aircraft without knowing preci sely what benefits they would receive. Mr. Kolshak agreed, stating that operato rs need to see a return on their investment. Mr. Stan Van Ostran, Metropolitan Nashville Air ports Authority, asked if airports were being considered in the equation. Mr. Kolshak replied th ey were, particularly la rge airports. He cited Chicago O’Hare International Airpor t as an example, stating it can ha ndle 112 operations per hour on a good-weather day, but bad weather cuts the operation rate in half. He noted a capacity improvement that could reduce that loss to only 10 to 20 pe rcent would be a clear benefit to operators.

Ms. Bowens stated that most of the discussion so far had centered on how airc raft operators would fund improvements, but it was an equa lly important issue for airports. She remarked that there was no identification of funding for airport improvement s, and present funding mechanisms are seen as onerous by air carriers. She pointed out the need for a ba lance between the needs of airports and the needs of air carriers. Mr. Pelton asked for clarification on the needs of airports. Ms. Bowens replied that infrastructure was the primary need, includi ng runways, navigation aids, and airport terminal buildings and equipment. She expressed her conc ern that as the aviation system becomes more efficient, airports will not be able to keep up with the demand for more gate space and other infrastructure because the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program is not adequate to support future projects.

Mr. Pelton asked for clarification on whether Ms. Bowens was concerne d that as en route capacity grows, adequate facilities at airports will not be available to support it . She confirmed this was one of her concerns. Mr. Pelton asked Ms. Bowens for furt her clarification on airpor t funding. She explained the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, Airport Improveme nt Program (AIP), and PFC Program. She cited examples of funding shortfalls for airport prog rams, and expressed her belief that PFC Program funding cannot possibly fund all airport projects in the future. She de scribed other sources of airport revenue, such as parking and other businesses located on airports. Mr. Pelton asked if PFC funds could be used in places other than facilities. Ms. Bowe ns replied that PFC funds are typically used for facilities projects, but could be used for other appropriate projects, such as noise mitigation. Ms. Bowens further discussed airport funding issues and stated new funding s ources were needed, but also noted air carriers are sens itive to additional burdens.

Mr. Kolshak noted that a document submitted by Mr. Christopher Williams, The Williams Capital Group, L.P., included discussion of PFC f unding and of the relations hip between PFC and AIP funding. He suggested airports receiving more PFC funding could receive less AIP funding. Ms. Bowens responded this may work for large airports, but likely would not for smaller airports, because they generate less PFC funding. She ad ded that such a relationship could leave moreFuture of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Airc raft Company Wichita, Kansas

6 AIP funding available for smaller airports, because they don’t generate as much funding through PFC. Mr. Van Ostran remarked that there is an incentiv e for medium and large ai rports to shift to PFC funding; Ms. Bowens agreed. Both agreed that the funding should be used for airfield projects, because the users (passengers) are paying for them. Mr. Kolshak cautioned that air carriers may not be in favor of raising PFC fees for passengers and - ot her costs passed to passengers, while agreeing there are projects more appropriately funded through PFC. They further discussed the use of PFC funding and the amount of fees and taxes paid by the air carriers during a period of heavy financial losses.

Mr. Borenstein reminded the subcommittee to stay focu sed on the future, as opposed to past losses. He stated there is a need to identify appropriate inve stments in facilities, infr astructure, aircraft, and airports, and then discuss methods of funding, generation of revenue by air carriers, and future methods of funding. Mr. Pelton noted there is an obvious need for the moderniza tion of infrastructure, as some portions are extremely old. He pos ed the question of how to fund the operating costs of the system. Mr. McKenzie responded that air ca rrier pricing is tied to capacity, and they do not have the pricing power to simply raise fares. He expressed belief th at the solution is to redu ce capacity, because pricing is a derivative of capacity. He not ed the industry is very competitiv e, and such an action would likely not happen unless all air carriers follow ed suit. Mr. Borenstein agreed on the reduction in capacity, and remarked that the FAAC may have to realize that the present level of air carrier access and capacity may not be sustainable, and negative side effects of fewer routes and ai r carrier jobs would have to be tolerated.

Mr. Pelton questioned how forced capacity cuts woul d be possible in an unr egulated environment, because a reduction in capacity by on e air carrier can be offset by anot her air carrier ad ding capacity. Mr. McKenzie raised the subject of the smaller numb er of startup air carriers and revised policies by the DOT. He agreed that capacity cuts are diffic ult, and added that labor agreements at some air carriers may prevent them. Mr. Kolshak sugges ted there may be fewer st artup air carriers because of a lack of available capital, rather than revised policies. Mr. McKenzie, Mr. Kolshak, and Mr. Borenstein further discussed re cent startup air carrie rs, and the DOT policies affecting them. They also noted this issue may overlap with the work of the Subcommittee on Competitiveness and Viability.

Mr. Borenstein noted a sense of agreement among the subcommittee that investment was needed for non-aircraft components of the aviation system, as we ll as in equipment for ai rcraft. He stated a projected 10-year outcome may be seen as beneficial , but questioned how it is reached when there is no funding at present. He noted the need for fundi ng, but also expressed rese rvation about using the Congressional general fund. Mr. Van Ostran noted th ere is disagreement in the industry over the use of PFC funding, because air carriers want to see a transition from PFC-funded pr ojects, yet the results may not be obvious. He stated agreement is possibl e between airports and ai r carriers on PFC-funded projects, but he was unsure of a pa th to consensus. Ms. Bowens a dded that air carri ers do have the ability to comment on PFC-funded projects at airports, and ofte n do. She acknowledged airports attempt to work with air carriers when contempla ting PFC-funded projects and they can participate in the process. She added that the FAA occasionally asks that an airport project be removed from consideration for PFC funding.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Airc raft Company Wichita, Kansas

7 Mr. Kolshak sought confirmation that several su bcommittee members had reached a common theme, citing the need for a comprehensive long-term fundi ng plan for airports, in addition to airspace and other infrastructure needs. He questioned whether these needs had b een balanced comprehensively. Mr. McKenzie noted a recently proposed funding m echanism of a $25 flat fee that would have generated approximately $500 million of revenue wa s not approved by Congress. Mr. Borenstein asked if the fee was per passenger, or per aircraft. Mr. Pelton confirmed the f ee to be per aircraft, and added that an increased tax on jet fuel was pr oposed in its place, which would cover funding for NextGen. Mr. McKenzie maintained that a user f ee is a sensible funding mechanism that could be considered. Mr. Pelton noted potential difficulti es of collection from private operators and the responsibilities for doing so. He added that there are long-term pl ans for the U.S. aviation system, including the Operational Evolution Plan, which apparently has supersed ed the NextGen plan. Mr. Pelton questioned who had responsibility for the Operational Evolution Pla n, and was given a point of contact. He suggested a briefi ng to the subcommittee would be help ful. Mr. Pelton added that the subcommittee should consider the RTCA Task Force 5 report as a reference on NextGen, in addition to the Operational Evolution Plan.

Mr. Pelton shifted the discussion to incentives for aircraft operators, and whether there has been research or discussion in the subcommittee memb ers’ respective communities on this subject. He added there had not been much discussion in the business aviation sector, and again cited RVSM as an enhancement to the aviation system with clearl y defined benefits. Mr. Kolshak asserted it was difficult to visualize long-term be nefits, and that clearly defined be nefits or direct funding would be needed to get consensus among operators. Mr. Pelton agreed that clear benef its would be needed to incentivize operators to equip ah ead of a 2020 deadline, and he th eorized many would elect not to equip until the deadline without incentives. He also asked for clarification of the phrase “best equipped, best served” used by RTCA. Mr. Henniga n attempted to provide some insight, and added that aircraft equipment needs go further than ju st ADS–B, citing required navigation performance (RNP) as another need. Mr. Kolshak agreed and stat ed, as an example, that if RNP were implemented at the 35 largest airports and could keep the U. S. aviation system at 80 percent capacity during inclement weather, air carriers w ould likely be purchasing equipment and training flight crews in the near term. Mr. Hennigan acknowledged the points ma de. Mr. Borenstein suggested varying fees for aircraft operators, based on the level of equipment installed on their aircraft, especially for aircraft that do not meet a set standard for a certain airport. Discussion followed on the logi stics of collecting such fees, the potential impacts on the general aviation sect or, and whether it made sense to discourage some aircraft operators from using certain airports unless they were equipped to an appropriate level. Several subcommittee members advocated for congestion base d pricing or other policy changes from the DOT at capacity-constrained airports.

Mr. Hennigan asked for the subcommittee’s thoughts on whether congestion-based pricing was an issue for this subcommittee or the Competitiveness and Viability Subcommittee, while acknowledging that the FAAC was aware of overlap between several subj ects. Mr. Pelton replied that he doesn’t believe airports causing delays (direct a nd indirect) to 30 per cent of the U.S. aviation system would be a competitiveness issue. He added that landing fees c ould be adjusted for aircraft operators that equip early as a clearly defined benefit.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Airc raft Company Wichita, Kansas

8 Mr. McKenzie raised the issue of FAA approval of new equipment and procedures. He cited an example wherein RNP approach procedures have been designed and flightcrews have been trained for their use, yet the applica tion took a year to be approved (NOTE: it was unclear if this was a general or specific situation). He asked whethe r this work could be outsourced to expedite the approval process. Several subcommittee members expressed frustration w ith the length of the appr oval process in general and cited various examples of inefficiencies. Mr . Hennigan observed while th ere is a focus on area navigation (RNAV) and RNP procedur es, the aviation industry is seeki ng new approach procedures, as opposed to RNAV overlays of existing procedures. He stated there is much more work taking place to approve equipment and procedures than is apparent . Mr. Pelton suggested a briefing by an expert in this area may be helpful to the subcommittee’s work. He also questioned whether the delay in passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act is affecting the availability of pers onnel for the approval process. Mr. Hennigan stated he did not believe this was a factor.

Mr. Pelton recapped an issue area the subcommittee ha d identified: incentives for early equipage by aircraft operators and the need for clearly defined benefits for doing s o. He again expressed a need to know of strategic plans and implementation timelin es for NextGen. Several subcommittee members agreed that clear realizati on of benefits from investments made by ai rcraft operators is a critical issue.

The subcommittee revisited funding issues, discussi ng the PFC Program and possible changes to the program in the pending FAA Reauthorization Act. Mr. Pelton raised the issue of Federal versus local funding of aviation projects, and asked for thoughts from the airport community. Mr. Van Ostran stated that airports are facing increased costs without a correspond ing increase in revenues, mainly because of the unchanged level of PFC funding and tax revenues that have not ke pt pace with increased costs. Mr. Borenstein raised the concept of congestion pricing for PFC, and as ked if it had been considered by the industry. Ms. Bowens was not aware of any such consideration. She rais ed the issue of unfunded mandates on airports from the Federal government. Mr . Van Ostran agreed, but noted all sectors of the industry are seeing them. Mr. Kolshak cited the recently implemented Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections rule as an example, wh ich subjects air carriers to large fines for extended flight delays without considering the costs of f lights returning to the gate, canceling flights, and the airport personnel needed to handle re turning flights.

Mr. Pelton noted the subcommittee had made good progress on incentives for air traffic system benefits, but airport funding and infr astructure needs still seemed uncl ear. Mr. Van Ostran noted that airports can charge a number of fees, but they mustremain sensitive to what passengers will tolerate. Mr. Pelton asked Ms. Bowens if California’s econom ic difficulties have had an impact on airport funding. She stated that as a large airport, San Di ego International Airport receives no State funding, but rather AIP and local fees. Sh e emphasized that in the future, m odifications to the PFC Program and the Aviation Trust Fund would need to be explored, as well as privatization of airports, and how that could help them become self-sustaining from a fi nancial standpoint. Mr. Pe lton inquired if foreign airports were already privatizing. Ms. Bowens affirmed they were, though it was a different comparison. She stated that Chicago Midway Internat ional Airport was close to privatizing, and that it will provide an interesting model for how this will work in the United States. At Mr. Pelton’s request for further information, she agreed to provide a white paper on the topic.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Airc raft Company Wichita, Kansas

9 Mr. Pelton summarized key topics covered during th e meeting to ensure they were captured for consideration by the subcommittee and included in planning for the next subcommittee meeting. He listed the following topics:

 For the next subcommittee meeting, he stated there was a need for the members to review background materials on long-term plans for th e U.S. aviation system and to arrange for briefings to the subcommittee by subject ma tter experts on pertinent topics, including the following:

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

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

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

o Funding for airport projects.

 Other issues raised by subcommittee members included the following:

o Cost-benefit analysis of fi rst implementing NextGen in the nation’s most congested airports/airspace;

o Cost-benefit analysis of elements of NextGen;

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

o Consideration of user fees for ai rcraft operators to fund airport projects, if clear benefits can be shown (that is, use of the f ees is directly evident to airc raft operators through airport and capacity improvements); and

o Numerous comments/questions about funding plans for Next Gen, and the benefits it provides to aircraft operators.

The subcommittee then had a brief discussion on FAA funding issues, including the process of annual reauthorization by Congress, and how the ag ency’s funding issues coul d potentially be better handled through other processes. Several member s noted a need for a steady funding stream for NextGen, because under annual Appropriations bills , f unding of projects may vary on a yearly basis. They also noted the need to make a solid busine ss case for NextGen funding by demonstrating benefits for the good of the public, including fewer air tr affic delays, positive environmental impacts, and creation of jobs.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting June 29, 2010 Cessna Aircraft Company Wichita, Kansas

10 Because Mr. Kolshak departed from the meeting shortly beforehand, a member of the public, Mr. Chris Brown, United Airlines, made a final stat ement on behalf of the company, reiterating that air carriers are seeking direct financial incentives to equip their aircraft for Next Gen. He stated that an overall plan for NextGen should in clude funding and improvements for ai rports. He added that there does not seem to be a holistic approach at present, and there appears to be lit tle collaboration between government agencies and the system users. He al so noted burdensome taxation of air carriers and passengers, citing a figure of $61 of taxes and fees on an average ai r carrier ticket costing $300. He ended his remarks by stating the need for a clear picture of the benefits of Ne xtGen to the air carrier industry and passengers.

C LOSING R EMARKS /N EXT M EETING

Mr. Pelton closed the discussion and thanked the subcommittee memb ers for their participation. He reminded the subcommittee that the next FAAC meeting would occur in Atlanta, Georgia, July 14, 2010. Mr. Hennigan gave a brief statement about the location of the meeting and procedures for public attendance, noting that registration procedures were avai lable on the FAAC Web site at http://www.dot.gov/faac/. Ms. Bowens asked about accessing the SharePoint site created for the FAAC, and whether minutes from today’s meeting woul d be posted there. Mr. Hennigan stated that the subcommittee meeting minutes would be posted on the SharePoint site and provi ded a brief explanation of where information on accessing the SharePoint s ite could be found. The subcommittee discussion then concluded.

A DJOURNMENT

Mr. Pelton 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 3:38 p.m.

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

Approved by: ____________________________________________ John Hennigan, Designate d Federal Official

Dated: __________________________________________________