Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

June 29, 2010

Cessna Aircraft Company 

Wichita, Kansas 

1 

Public Announcement 

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

public of this Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) Subcommittee on Financing meeting in 

a Federal Register notice published June 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 Borenstein1 Professor Haas School of Business, 

University of California, Berkeley 

Thella F. Bowens1 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 Litty1

(Alternate DFO) 

DOT 

Daniel McKenzie1 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 Aircraft 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 Thomas1 Cessna Aircraft Company 

Ashleigh de la Torre National Business Aviation Association 

BACKGROUND AND WELCOMING REMARKS

This is the record of the first meeting of the Subcommittee on Financing of the Future of Aviation 

Advisory Committee (FAAC), a federal advisory committee formed pursuant to and subject to the 

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 required under FACA, and then turned the meeting back 

over to Mr. Pelton to open substantive discussion. 

DISCUSSION

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 initial meeting of the FAAC that should be reviewed 

by the subcommittee members. Mr. Pelton stated the main task of the subcommittee is to identify 

three to four topics regarding aviation financing issues that can be presented to the FAAC as potential 

actionable items for the Secretary of Transportation. He reminded the subcommittee that the Secretary 

was interested in near-term actions, but stated that long-term issues should be considered as well. 

Mr. Pelton stated his belief that many of the financing issues are long term, and cautioned the 

subcommittee not to become overly focused on immediate issues. He explained the purpose of the 

subcommittee is to identify key financing issues affecting the industry and to bring them to the FAAC 

for action. He then noted that the final goal for the subcommittee was to have its work completed in 

time for the FAAC’s final meeting December 15, 2010. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

June 29, 2010

Cessna Aircraft Company 

Wichita, Kansas 

3 

Mr. Hennigan reviewed the meeting schedule for the FAAC, stating that meetings would 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 meetings, two to four of which are to 

be used to compile and consider recommendations from the subcommittees. He added the final 

meeting in Washington, DC, December 15, 2010, would be a report out to the Secretary of 

Transportation. He reminded the subcommittee that a report would be written, and stated it was critical 

to have recommendations to the Secretary in December. Mr. Pelton reminded the subcommittee that 

notices for its meetings must be published in the Federal Register at least 2 weeks before the date of the 

meeting, and each subcommittee meeting should take place at least 2 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, International Air Transport Association; Airports Council 

International – North America; and United Airlines, along with a report on the airline industry from 

Mr. Daniel McKenzie, Hudson Securities, Inc. He also noted a submission from the Aircraft Owners 

and Pilots Association was received just before the meeting, and it would be posted to the docket and 

distributed to subcommittee members. Mr. Pelton asked if all subcommittee members had received the 

public comments. Ms. Thella Bowens, San Diego Regional Airport Authority, stated she had not 

received copies of the comments from Daniel McKenzie or the Air Transport Association. Mr. Pelton 

took an action to ensure Ms. Bowen 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 specifically 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 subcommittee members would have access to the FAAC 

SharePoint site, and going forward, this would be the central location for sharing documents among 

members. He reminded subcommittee members that procedures for accessing SharePoint were in the 

summary document provided by Ms. Pam Hamilton, FAA, the Designated Federal Official for the 

FAAC. Mr. Michael Derrick, PAI Consulting, provided 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 surrounding financing essentially 

could be derived from aviation system and airport funding. He further stated his belief that all of these 

issues revolve around the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) and the equipment 

that will be needed to operate in the future aviation system. Mr. Pelton stated he believes it is very 

important for operators to recognize the benefits of NextGen and how to transition into the future 

environment. He proposed that a roadmap for the transition to NextGen, with tangible benefits to 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

June 29, 2010

Cessna Aircraft Company 

Wichita, Kansas 

4 

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

Mr. Joseph Kolshak, United Airlines, 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, and separation standards that serve 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 that operators had little incentive to equip their aircraft at present. As an 

example, he noted that United Airlines recently retired 100 aircraft, some of which had equipment that 

had never been used in the National Airspace System (NAS). He reiterated that visible benefits were 

needed before operators would equip aircraft ahead of mandatory dates. 

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

for NextGen is important. Mr. Pelton asked if any members had a point of contact that could brief this 

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

Mr. Kolshak expressed concern over early equipage of aircraft without clearly visible incentives. 

He stated it was not clear to operators that, if they equip early in 2013, they will receive any benefit 

over another operator that waits until the 2020 deadline. 

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

Mr. Pelton cited automatic dependent surveillance–broadcast (ADS–B) as an example that has recently 

garnered attention, and stated that the real benefits of the system will not be realized until the rollout of 

ADS–B In (information received by aircraft). Mr. Kolshak agreed, but also stated that until all aircraft 

are equipped, present separation standards will remain, and this is where a benefit of early equipage can 

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

Mr. Kolshak agreed, but expressed his belief that the capacity improvements that would be realized by 

decreased separation standards (such 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 suggested a point of contact to obtain it. 

Mr. Borenstein suggested it would be a good process for the subcommittee to obtain background 

documents on NextGen for reference, because it may be a major focus of the subcommittee. 

Mr. Kolshak suggested the RTCA Taskforce 5 paper. Mr. Pelton suggested reading background 

material and bringing in experts for briefings at the next subcommittee meeting; Mr. 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 aircraft separation was reduced from 2,000 feet to 

1,000 feet in high altitude airspace. He noted that aircraft operators were paid to equip their aircraft to 

meet the requirements to participate in RVSM, and they got direct benefits from being able to use the 

airspace. He observed that tangible benefits such as this would be necessary to incentivize early 

equipage by operators for NextGen. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

June 29, 2010

Cessna Aircraft Company 

Wichita, Kansas 

5 

Several subcommittee members noted that the airspace capacity gains brought by NextGen may be lost 

on capacity constraints in the terminal environment, and this concern had been raised by RTCA and 

others. Mr. Hennigan raised the theory of “best equipped, best served,” and Mr. Hennigan, 

Mr. Kolshak, and Mr. Pelton discussed varying potential levels of access to airspace based on aircraft 

equipment, using RVSM and category 3 approaches as examples. 

Mr. Pelton shifted the discussion to incentivizing aircraft operators for early equipage. He expressed 

his belief that clear benefits to operators are essential, because many are financially constrained and 

reluctant to spend resources to equip aircraft without knowing precisely what benefits they would 

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

Mr. Stan Van Ostran, Metropolitan Nashville Airports Authority, asked if airports were being 

considered in the equation. Mr. Kolshak replied they were, particularly large airports. He cited 

Chicago O’Hare International Airport as an example, stating it can handle 112 operations per hour on a 

good-weather day, but bad weather cuts the operation rate in half. He noted a capacity improvement 

that could reduce that loss to only 10 to 20 percent would be a clear benefit to operators. 

Ms. Bowens stated that most of the discussion so far had centered on how aircraft operators would fund 

improvements, but it was an equally important issue for airports. She remarked that there was no 

identification of funding for airport improvements, and present funding mechanisms are seen as 

onerous by air carriers. She pointed out the need for a balance between the needs of airports and the 

needs of air carriers. Mr. Pelton asked for clarification on the needs of airports. Ms. Bowens replied 

that infrastructure was the primary need, including runways, navigation aids, and airport terminal 

buildings and equipment. She expressed her concern that as the aviation system becomes more 

efficient, airports will not be able to keep up with the demand for more gate space and other 

infrastructure because the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program is not adequate to support future 

projects. 

Mr. Pelton asked for clarification on whether Ms. Bowens was concerned that as en route capacity 

grows, adequate facilities at airports will not be available to support it. She confirmed this was one of 

her concerns. Mr. Pelton asked Ms. Bowens for further clarification on airport funding. She explained 

the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, Airport Improvement Program (AIP), and PFC Program. She cited 

examples of funding shortfalls for airport programs, and expressed her belief that PFC Program 

funding cannot possibly fund all airport projects in the future. She described other sources of airport 

revenue, such as parking and other businesses located on airports. Mr. Pelton asked if PFC funds could 

be used in places other than facilities. Ms. Bowens replied that PFC funds are typically used for 

facilities projects, but could be used for other appropriate projects, such as noise mitigation. 

Ms. Bowens further discussed airport funding issues and stated new funding sources were needed, but 

also noted air carriers are sensitive to additional burdens. 

Mr. Kolshak noted that a document submitted by Mr. Christopher Williams, The Williams 

Capital Group, L.P., included discussion of PFC funding and of the relationship between PFC and AIP 

funding. He suggested airports receiving more PFC funding could receive less AIP funding. 

Ms. Bowens responded this may work for large airports, but likely would not for smaller airports, 

because they generate less PFC funding. She added that such a relationship could leave more 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

June 29, 2010

Cessna Aircraft Company 

Wichita, Kansas 

6 

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

Mr. Van Ostran remarked that there is an incentive for medium and large airports to shift to PFC 

funding; Ms. Bowens agreed. Both agreed that the funding should be used for airfield projects, 

because the users (passengers) are paying for them. Mr. Kolshak cautioned that air carriers may not be 

in favor of raising PFC fees for passengers and - other costs passed to passengers, while agreeing there 

are projects more appropriately funded through PFC. They further discussed the use of PFC funding 

and the amount of fees and taxes paid by the air carriers during a period of heavy financial losses. 

Mr. Borenstein reminded the subcommittee to stay focused on the future, as opposed to past losses. He 

stated there is a need to identify appropriate investments in facilities, infrastructure, aircraft, and 

airports, and then discuss methods of funding, generation of revenue by air carriers, and future methods 

of funding. Mr. Pelton noted there is an obvious need for the modernization of infrastructure, as some 

portions are extremely old. He posed the question of how to fund the operating costs of the system. 

Mr. McKenzie responded that air carrier pricing is tied to capacity, and they do not have the pricing 

power to simply raise fares. He expressed belief that the solution is to reduce capacity, because pricing 

is a derivative of capacity. He noted the industry is very competitive, and such an action would likely 

not happen unless all air carriers followed suit. Mr. Borenstein agreed on the reduction in capacity, and 

remarked that the FAAC may have to realize that the present level of air carrier access and capacity 

may not be sustainable, and negative side effects of fewer routes and air carrier jobs would have to be 

tolerated. 

Mr. Pelton questioned how forced capacity cuts would be possible in an unregulated environment, 

because a reduction in capacity by one air carrier can be offset by another air carrier adding capacity. 

Mr. McKenzie raised the subject of the smaller number of startup air carriers and revised policies by 

the DOT. He agreed that capacity cuts are difficult, and added that labor agreements at some 

air carriers may prevent them. Mr. Kolshak suggested there may be fewer startup air carriers because 

of a lack of available capital, rather than revised policies. Mr. McKenzie, Mr. Kolshak, and 

Mr. Borenstein further discussed recent startup air carriers, and the DOT policies affecting them. They 

also noted this issue may overlap with the work of the Subcommittee on Competitiveness and Viability. 

Mr. Borenstein noted a sense of agreement among the subcommittee that investment was needed for 

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

projected 10-year outcome may be seen as beneficial, but questioned how it is reached when there is no 

funding at present. He noted the need for funding, but also expressed reservation about using the 

Congressional general fund. Mr. Van Ostran noted there is disagreement in the industry over the use of 

PFC funding, because air carriers want to see a transition from PFC-funded projects, yet the results 

may not be obvious. He stated agreement is possible between airports and air carriers on PFC-funded 

projects, but he was unsure of a path to consensus. Ms. Bowens added that air carriers do have the 

ability to comment on PFC-funded projects at airports, and often do. She acknowledged airports 

attempt to work with air carriers when contemplating PFC-funded projects and they can participate in 

the process. She added that the FAA occasionally asks that an airport project be removed from 

consideration for PFC funding. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

June 29, 2010

Cessna Aircraft Company 

Wichita, Kansas 

7 

Mr. Kolshak sought confirmation that several subcommittee members had reached a common theme, 

citing the need for a comprehensive long-term funding plan for airports, in addition to airspace and 

other infrastructure needs. He questioned whether these needs had been balanced comprehensively. 

Mr. McKenzie noted a recently proposed funding mechanism of a $25 flat fee that would have 

generated approximately $500 million of revenue was not approved by Congress. Mr. Borenstein 

asked if the fee was per passenger, or per aircraft. Mr. Pelton confirmed the fee to be per aircraft, and 

added that an increased tax on jet fuel was proposed in its place, which would cover funding for 

NextGen. Mr. McKenzie maintained that a user fee is a sensible funding mechanism that could be 

considered. Mr. Pelton noted potential difficulties of collection from private operators and the 

responsibilities for doing so. He added that there are long-term plans for the U.S. aviation system, 

including the Operational Evolution Plan, which apparently has superseded the NextGen plan. 

Mr. Pelton questioned who had responsibility for the Operational Evolution Plan, and was given a point 

of contact. He suggested a briefing to the subcommittee would be helpful. Mr. Pelton added that the 

subcommittee should consider the RTCA Task Force 5 report as a reference on NextGen, in addition to 

the Operational Evolution Plan. 

Mr. Pelton shifted the discussion to incentives for aircraft operators, and whether there has been 

research or discussion in the subcommittee members’ respective communities on this subject. 

He added there had not been much discussion in the business aviation sector, and again cited RVSM as 

an enhancement to the aviation system with clearly defined benefits. Mr. Kolshak asserted it was 

difficult to visualize long-term benefits, and that clearly defined benefits or direct funding would be 

needed to get consensus among operators. Mr. Pelton agreed that clear benefits would be needed to 

incentivize operators to equip ahead of a 2020 deadline, and he theorized many would elect not to 

equip until the deadline without incentives. He also asked for clarification of the phrase “best 

equipped, best served” used by RTCA. Mr. Hennigan attempted to provide some insight, and added 

that aircraft equipment needs go further than just ADS–B, citing required navigation performance 

(RNP) as another need. Mr. Kolshak agreed and stated, as an example, that if RNP were implemented 

at the 35 largest airports and could keep the U.S. aviation system at 80 percent capacity during 

inclement weather, air carriers would likely be purchasing equipment and training flight crews in the 

near term. Mr. Hennigan acknowledged the points made. Mr. Borenstein suggested varying fees 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 logistics of collecting such 

fees, the potential impacts on the general aviation sector, and whether it made sense to discourage some 

aircraft operators from using certain airports unless they were equipped to an appropriate level. Several 

subcommittee members advocated for congestion based pricing or other policy 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 subjects. Mr. Pelton replied that he doesn’t believe 

airports causing delays (direct and indirect) to 30 percent of the U.S. aviation system would be a 

competitiveness issue. He added that landing fees could 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 Aircraft Company 

Wichita, Kansas 

8 

Mr. McKenzie raised the issue of FAA approval of new equipment and procedures. He cited an 

example wherein RNP approach procedures have been designed and flightcrews have been trained for 

their use, yet the application took a year to be approved (NOTE: it was unclear if this was a general or 

specific situation). He asked whether this work could be outsourced to expedite the approval process. 

Several subcommittee members expressed frustration with the length of the approval process in general 

and cited various examples of inefficiencies. Mr. Hennigan observed while there is a focus on area 

navigation (RNAV) and RNP procedures, the aviation industry is seeking new approach procedures, as 

opposed to RNAV overlays of existing procedures. He stated there is much more work taking place to 

approve equipment and procedures than is apparent. Mr. Pelton suggested a briefing by an expert in 

this area may be helpful to the subcommittee’s work. He also questioned whether the delay in passage 

of the FAA Reauthorization Act is affecting the availability of personnel for the approval process. 

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

Mr. Pelton recapped an issue area the subcommittee had identified: incentives for early equipage by 

aircraft operators and the need for clearly defined benefits for doing so. He again expressed a need to 

know of strategic plans and implementation timelines for NextGen. Several subcommittee members 

agreed that clear realization of benefits from investments made by aircraft operators is a critical issue. 

The subcommittee revisited funding issues, discussing the PFC Program and possible changes to the 

program in the pending FAA Reauthorization Act. Mr. Pelton raised the issue of 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 corresponding increase in revenues, mainly because of 

the unchanged level of PFC funding and tax revenues that have not kept pace with increased costs. 

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

the industry. Ms. Bowens was not aware of any such consideration. She raised 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, which subjects air carriers to large fines for extended flight delays 

without considering the costs of flights returning to the gate, canceling flights, and the airport personnel 

needed to handle returning flights. 

Mr. Pelton noted the subcommittee had made good progress on incentives for air traffic system 

benefits, but airport funding and infrastructure needs still seemed unclear. Mr. Van Ostran noted that 

airports can charge a number of fees, but they must remain sensitive to what passengers will tolerate. 

Mr. Pelton asked Ms. Bowens if California’s economic difficulties have had an impact on airport 

funding. She stated that as a large airport, San Diego International Airport receives no State funding, 

but rather AIP and local fees. She emphasized that in the future, modifications to the PFC Program and 

the Aviation Trust Fund would need to be explored, as well as privatization of airports, and how that 

could help them become self-sustaining from a financial standpoint. Mr. Pelton inquired if foreign 

airports were already privatizing. Ms. Bowens affirmed they were, though it was a different 

comparison. She stated that Chicago Midway International Airport was close to privatizing, and that it 

will provide an interesting 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 Aircraft Company 

Wichita, Kansas 

9 

Mr. Pelton summarized key topics covered during the 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 the U.S. aviation system and to arrange for 

briefings to the subcommittee by subject matter 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 congestion 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 first 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 government’s ability to accelerate implementation if 

clear benefits to users for early equipage are identified; 

o Consideration of user fees for aircraft operators to fund airport projects, if clear benefits can 

be shown (that is, use of the fees is directly evident to aircraft operators through airport and 

capacity improvements); and 

o Numerous comments/questions about funding plans for NextGen, 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 agency’s funding issues could potentially be better 

handled through other processes. Several members noted a need for a steady funding stream for 

NextGen, because under annual Appropriations bills , funding of projects may vary on a yearly basis. 

They also noted the need to make a solid business case for NextGen funding by demonstrating benefits 

for the good of the public, including fewer air traffic 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 statement on behalf of the company, reiterating that 

air carriers are seeking direct financial incentives to equip their aircraft for NextGen. He stated that an 

overall plan for NextGen should include funding and improvements for airports. He added that there 

does not seem to be a holistic approach at present, and there appears to be little collaboration between 

government agencies and the system users. He also noted burdensome taxation of air carriers and 

passengers, citing a figure of $61 of taxes and fees on an average air carrier ticket costing $300. He 

ended his remarks by stating the need for a clear picture of the benefits of NextGen to the air carrier 

industry and passengers. 

CLOSING REMARKS/NEXT MEETING

Mr. Pelton closed the discussion and thanked the subcommittee members 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 available 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 would be posted there. Mr. Hennigan stated that the 

subcommittee meeting minutes would be posted on the SharePoint site and provided a brief explanation 

of where information on accessing the SharePoint site could be found. The subcommittee discussion 

then concluded. 

ADJOURNMENT

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, Designated Federal Official 

Dated: __________________________________________________