U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

74–892 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 110–1137 

CHALLENGES FACING 

HAWAII’S AIR SERVICE MARKET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 10, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

PAUL NAGLE, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 10, 2008 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Inouye .................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of Hon. Neil Abercrombie, U.S. Representative from 

Hawaii ............................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement of Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, U.S. Senator from Hawaii . 5 

Statement of Senator Smith ................................................................................... 8 

WITNESSES

Banmiller, David A., President and CEO, Aloha Airlines .................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Fukunaga, Barry, Chief of Staff; Office of Governor Linda Lingle, State of 

Hawaii ................................................................................................................... 34 

Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., U.S. Representative from Hawaii ................................... 3 

May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association of America, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Reynolds, Michael W., Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, U.S. DOT .................................................................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Snowbarger, Hon. Vincent K., Deputy Director for Operations, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Willis IV, Charles F., Owner and Chairman of the Board, Island Air, Honolulu, Hawaii; accompanied by Lesley Kaneshiro, Chief Financial Officer, 

Island Air .............................................................................................................. 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to Michael 

W. Reynolds .......................................................................................................... 49 

Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, prepared statement ................... 49 

(1) 

CHALLENGES FACING 

HAWAII’S AIR SERVICE MARKET 

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:45 p.m., in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

The CHAIRMAN. First, my apologies for being late. As you may be 

aware, we have had five consecutive votes that held us up. 

As an island state, Hawaii is uniquely dependent on commercial 

aviation. Our state’s economy requires a vibrant air service to connect us within the State, to the rest of the Nation, and to the 

world. Not only do our air carriers allow us to move passengers and 

goods in an efficient and timely manner, they help to unite us as 

a community and as a people. Simply put, aviation is vital to our 

lives and our citizens. 

Unfortunately, the industry, and Hawaii’s air carriers in particular, are facing substantial financial challenges. Oil prices have 

risen to record levels and ruthless competition in Hawaii’s air service market has taken its toll. Last week alone, Hawaii’s own Aloha 

Airlines, along with ATA, Skybus, and Champion, declared bankruptcy and ended commercial passenger service. Two of these airlines, Aloha and ATA, provided a substantial share of Hawaii’s air 

service. 

Despite these challenges, we must ensure that the air transportation system continues to serve our state effectively. At the same 

time, we must understand the impact airline instability has on our 

local communities and the economy. 

Aloha Airlines, for example, has been an important institution in 

Hawaii for more than 60 years. Aloha provided transportation for 

nearly 4 million passengers annually in our State, with about 100 

inter-island flights daily. Aloha also has served as one of Hawaii’s 

largest employers, with more than 3,500 workers and an annual 

payroll exceeding $100 million. 

Nearly everyone who lives in Hawaii has flown Aloha’s inter-island flights for business or to visit friends or family. Many of us 

know people who work for Aloha. As a matter of fact, I worked for 

TransPacific Airlines for a time early in my career before it became 

Aloha Airlines. The Aloha workforce has served all the citizens of 

2 

Hawaii in a very dedicated fashion for a very long time. Now many 

of these employees face uncertain futures, and naturally I am deeply saddened by this unfortunate turn of events. 

At this time it is critical we take action to support these loyal 

Aloha employees. In particular, it is my hope that local lending and 

financial institutions will recognize the difficult position in which 

the employees find themselves. I call on these institutions to consider the unique circumstances of what may well be the largest layoff in Hawaii’s history and to provide whatever flexibility they can 

to customers in good standing. Providing temporary relief from 

penalties or late fees is just one way that former Aloha workers 

may be helped through this difficult time. 

Aggressively looking at the possibility of hiring segments of a 

well-trained workforce is another option I hope many businesses in 

Hawaii will seriously consider. 

On the Federal level, we have been working to ensure that the 

modernization of the Nation’s air traffic control system results in 

efficiencies that will increase safety and effectiveness to benefit 

both the industry and citizens who depend upon that system. However, this is clearly a long-term solution to some of the problems 

that impact not only Hawaii, but also our Nation’s air carriers. 

In the near term, this Congress must determine what we can do 

at the Federal level to help the airline industry make it through 

what has become an increasingly difficult period. Unfortunately, 

some solutions that have been put forward may provide only temporary relief, as our weakening national economy and high fuel 

prices threaten to overwhelm any Federal initiatives. 

We must also recognize that deregulation has dramatically altered the playing field for our Nation’s air carriers. While deregulation has created substantial benefits for a number of communities, 

others have been less fortunate and do not have the same air 

transportation opportunities that were once provided. In Hawaii, 

these challenges are amplified as we have numerous small communities in a market that is geographically isolated. 

Finally, I would note that new entrants into Hawaii’s markets 

have made survival impossible for some. Aloha is the most obvious 

example of the impact of overly aggressive pricing in the marketplace. Congress must deliver on the promise of providing affordable, secure, and quality air service to all Americans regardless of 

geographic location. This is the promise of deregulation and we 

must find a way to deliver on past commitments. 

This afternoon we have a panel of experts that should help tell 

us why we came across this problem. On this panel we have the 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Aviation and 

International Affairs, Michael Reynolds; the Deputy Director for 

Operations, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Honorable 

Vince K. Snowbarger; the Chief Executive Officer of Aloha Airlines, 

Mr. David Banmiller; the Owner and Chairman, Island Air, Mr. 

Charles Willis; accompanied by Ms. Lesley Kaneshiro, Chief Financial Officer of Island Air; the President and Chief Executive Officer 

of Air Transport Association, Mr. James C. May; and the Chief of 

Staff of Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii, Mr. Barry Fukunaga. 

May I first call upon our illustrious and distinguished Member 

of the House, the Honorable Mazie Hirono. 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM HAWAII 

Representative HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always 

good to see you. Senator Smith. Thank you for holding this important hearing on air service in Hawaii and for this opportunity for 

me to express my concerns. 

Like so many others in Hawaii, I was shocked to learn that 

Aloha Airlines was ending passenger operations after 61 years 

serving our public. Aloha had sought bankruptcy protections in the 

past, as have many other airlines over the years, but to completely 

shut down its passenger service with no resurrection on the horizon 

brought home the precariousness of Hawaii’s situation and her reliance on stable air service. 

My immediate concern, as is yours, is of course for the 2,050 employees who have lost their jobs, as well as for the travelers who 

have been adversely affected. I know that we will work together to 

provide all available assistance to these workers and their families. 

While intrastate air travel is important throughout the United 

States, Hawaii with seven inhabited islands, all of my district, does 

face some unique challenges. Residents of and visitors to Hawaii 

cannot simply drive or take a train to another island. Hawaii’s 

economy, which is powered in large part by our visitor industry, 

with over 7 million visitors yearly, depends on reliable air passenger service between all our islands. Our residents, meanwhile, 

are worried about being able to get inter-island flights for business 

needs and to visit family members on other islands. With Aloha 

gone from the scene, this is both an availability and affordability 

issue for our residents. 

The State of Hawaii’s Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism has estimated recently that the Aloha-related 

job losses could push the state’s unemployment rate up almost a 

full percentage point to 3.8 percent compared to 3.0 percent in February of 2008. 

We have heard a number of reasons for the failure of Aloha, including predatory pricing by a new competitor, high and rapidly increasing fuel costs, and the ups and downs of the local, national, 

and international economy. 

Airlines throughout the country are struggling to deal with rapidly rising fuel costs. My staff recently met with representatives of 

United Airlines who reported that each increase of $1 in the price 

of oil translates into an increase of $60 million in expenses on an 

annual basis for that airline. United paid an average of $72 a barrel for oil in 2007. Today the price is around $105 per barrel which 

translates to another $1.98 billion in additional fuel costs. 

More than 20 U.S. airlines have filed for Chapter 11 protection 

between 2001 and 2006, including four of the six largest network 

carriers. How will the industry deal with these higher fuel costs as 

well as with all of the other challenges facing this industry? 

One factor that played an important role in driving Aloha Airlines again into bankruptcy was the fare war generated by the 

entry of Go Airlines into the Hawaii market. Go offered air fares 

as low as $1, and its standard one-way inter-island airfare was 

about half that charged by Aloha and Hawaiian Airlines. Aloha and 

Hawaiian felt compelled to match the lower fares. Aloha lost $81 

4 

million in 2007 and $11 million in January 2008. Go Airlines lost 

$20 million in its first 16 months of operations in Hawaii. 

I understand that the Department of Transportation has jurisdiction over competition in the airline industry and has the authority 

to require that carriers refrain from unfair pricing practices. I 

would be very interested in Assistant Secretary Reynolds’ views on 

what role he feels the DOT should play in preventing predatory 

pricing, ruinous competition, or pricing below the cost of service in 

this industry. 

Does the DOT monitor airline prices and investigate in cases 

where prices appear to be designed to drive a competitor out of 

business, or does it only react if there is a specific complaint? 

I would be very interested in seeing a survey of pricing practices 

in the airline industry and wonder if DOT currently monitors and 

evaluates these practices. 

There is currently a proposal in the Hawaii State legislature to 

establish a regulatory scheme for the regulation of Hawaii inter-island air carriers. While this bill raises significant legal and Constitutional issues, I certainly understand the desire to exercise control over what has been a very unstable situation in Hawaii’s airline industry. 

In the context of the ongoing turmoil in the aviation industry 

and 25 years of deregulation, one wonders whether increased regulation at the national level is now warranted. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 made substantial changes to the economic regulatory environment of the U.S. commercial aviation industry. The 

Civil Aeronautics Board, CAB, awarded a certificate of public convenience and necessity before an airline could begin regular commercial service. Airlines could not add or abandon any route without CAB approval. The CAB set fares to prevent carriers from engaging in damaging price competition. In making fare decisions, 

they determined what would be fair for the industry. Competition 

among airlines was based on the number of flights offered on the 

various routes, as well as amenities offered, such as free drinks 

and the quality of meals. Those days are long gone. 

After deregulation, airlines have to compete in a completely different environment. Fares went down on many of the popular 

routes, but often went up for routes serving smaller communities. 

The primary form of competition seems to have settled on fare 

wars, which places pressure on the airlines to reduce costs wherever possible. 

In a hearing held in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last week, we heard of some disturbing failures in 

safety protocols by both the airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration. I worry about to what extent these safety violations 

were inspired, at least in part, by cost-cutting considerations. We 

also know that a good deal of airline maintenance work is being 

done in facilities outside of the country. 

Hawaii’s remaining major inter-island carrier, Hawaiian Airlines, 

has moved its reservations operations offshore. Outsourcing of jobs 

is a concern not only in the airline industry, of course, but affects 

many other industries in this global economy. 

Faced with the loss of jobs caused by Aloha’s passenger operations, the danger this closure brings to our state’s economy, and 

5 

the precarious financial situation faced by virtually all of our Nation’s airlines, I am frustrated by the lack of apparent solutions. I 

know that some will say that the market will correct the situation, 

but how can we expect businesses to plan for the tremendous increases in fuel costs we have faced in the past year? How can we 

make sure that there is fair competition? What can we do to protect the thousands of consumers who are affected when an airline 

like Aloha or ATA abruptly stops flying, not to mention the recent 

groundings of flights for safety inspections, including today the 

grounding of 900 American Airlines flights? 

The very complex nature of the industry and the high standards 

of safety expected and required lead me to question the wisdom of 

leaving so much in the airline industry to the vagaries of the free 

market system. I am hopeful that this hearing, as well as others 

to follow, will provide Congress with the critical information necessary to take appropriate action to protect the public and ensure 

air service in a volatile global market. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Congresslady. Your 

statement is a painful one, but very necessary. I appreciate your 

participation. And I am sorry we had to make you wait this long. 

Representative HIRONO. Not at all. It was a pleasure to be able 

to speak to you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee has received two testimonies 

from Senator Akaka and Congressman Abercrombie. Without objection, they will be made part of the record. 

[The prepared statements of Senator Akaka and Representative 

Abercrombie follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your conducting this hearing today. The 

termination of Aloha Airlines’ passenger service and the subsequent layoffs of employees deeply saddens me. Aloha Airlines provided essential transportation services 

and employment opportunities in Hawaii for more than 61 years. We must all work 

together to assist employees who have lost their jobs and to try to preserve vital 

passenger services. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the people of Hawaii are dependent on inter-island 

air travel, which provides residents and visitors with access to commercial opportunities, medical care, and allows them to see their families. Tourism remains a vital 

component of Hawaii’s economy and inter-island flights continue to be important in 

helping visitors enjoy the unique experiences found on each of the islands. 

The loss of 88,000 seats per week for inter-island flights presents a great difficulty 

for island residents. Although the other airlines will add approximately 56,000 seats 

a week, there will still be reduced capacity for inter-island travel. For our residents, 

this could present additional barriers to health care, educational opportunities, and 

economic activity. 

For Aloha pilots and other pilots whose pensions have been terminated, my bill, 

S. 1270, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) Pilots Equitable Treatment Act, could help provide some financial relief. Mr. Chairman, I have greatly appreciated your tremendous support of this legislation. S. 1270 will lower the age requirement to receive the maximum pension benefits allowed by the PBGC to age 

60 for pilots, who were mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration to retire 

before age 65. Retired pilots whose pensions are administered by the PBGC do not 

receive the maximum pension guaranty because they were forced to retire at age 

60. My legislation ensures that pilots are able to obtain the maximum PBGC benefit 

without being unfairly penalized for having retired at 60, before the age limit was 

raised to age 65. I will continue to work with you, the Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions Committee, and other members to bring about enactment of this important legislation. 

6 

Thank you again for conducting this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to 

continuing to work with you on this vital issue. Mahalo again for your tremendous 

leadership on this issue and for all of your efforts to improve the lives of people in 

Hawaii. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM HAWAII

Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Ted Stevens, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide testimony before you today. As a member of Hawaii’s Congressional delegation, I am exceptionally concerned with the effects of Aloha Airlines ceasing operations in our small island state and the continuing reverberations that will be felt 

for months, and most likely years, to come. 

In the days leading up to Aloha’s announcement, I spoke with many employees 

and officials for Aloha. One thing that particularly struck me was that although the 

airline was struggling in an inter-island market with two major competitors, it was 

sharply increased fuel costs that finally drove the airline to decide it had to cease 

operations. Similar explanations have been given by ATA which also ceased operations the same week as Aloha. 

Smaller airlines such as Aloha, which tend to serve geographically isolated areas 

like Hawaii, are the ones that will feel the squeeze from increased fuel costs first. 

The larger airlines can cut costs by reducing or eliminating partnerships with smaller airlines. Larger airlines can more easily absorb fuel costs by grounding planes 

and adding fuel surcharges, which would be smaller per person for larger aircraft. 

This leaves smaller airlines with higher ticket prices because of higher fuel surcharges and they cannot afford to ground planes. 

As a result, I have written to the President, (please see attached letter) to request 

a temporary release of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the airline 

and cargo shipping industries. Although this would be a short term solution, I believe that the industry needs the relief now, because the airlines are in an emergency situation. The bankruptcy of Aloha, ATA and Skybus, almost in the same 

week, have shown the dire state that these small carriers are in. 

In the long term, our country must look toward the future of sustainable domestic 

energy production to ensure we are not fleeced by skyrocketing imports. Environmentally sustainable exploration must occur to ensure our domestic supplies remain 

stable and as unaffected as possible by market speculation and international market 

forces for crude oil. 

I regret that these efforts occur too late to assist Aloha Airlines. But I hope they 

will assist other small airlines, particularly those still operating in Hawaii and other 

isolated areas where profit margins are thin and passengers can’t afford to pay more 

for Essential Air Service. In Hawaii, the only way for people who live on the neighbor islands to get to hospitals, VA hospitals or specialty clinics in Honolulu is by 

air. This vital and life saving transportation truly is essential service for the people 

of Hawaii. 

The closure of Aloha Airlines not only limits transportation options among the 

main islands and to the U.S. mainland, it is affecting our people in Hawaii in their 

daily lives. Former Aloha Airlines employees call my office, not knowing how they 

are going to make their payments on their bills. Financial institutions, have, so far, 

been unwilling to work with them. That is why I have written a letter (attached) 

to the financial institutions, asking them to try to work with the now unemployed 

workers to structure payment plans so that they can afford to keep up with their 

bills. 

It is my hope that this hearing will provide more ideas for assisting the people 

and businesses directly and indirectly affected by the closure of one of the oldest 

airline carriers in Hawaii. These efforts will not only assist Hawaii but hopefully 

forestall future closures by other airlines and ensure options for all people who fly. 

Thank you, Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Stevens, for examining this situation and accepting my testimony today. 

7 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Washington, DC, April 9, 2008 

Mr. JOHN STUMPF, CEO, 

Wells Fargo, 

San Francisco, CA. 

Dear Mr. Stumpf, 

I am certain that you aware of the financial crises that have forced Aloha and 

ATA Airlines into bankruptcy, and shattered the lives of thousands of their employees in Hawaii. Their job loss came very suddenly, and most face the prospect of losing, not only their livelihoods, but their health benefits, after years with their employers. Many of these laid-off employees have contacted my office, some in tears, 

asking for help and not knowing what they were going to do. Many have contacted 

their financial institutions to ask for payment extensions or some other way of 

working out payment of their bills. But, so far, they report being denied any opportunity to restructure payments and remain current. 

While I understand that their financial obligations are voluntary contracts between a company and an individual, I am writing to inquire about any flexibility 

that might be offered to these people, who are suddenly unemployed and struggling 

to make ends meet. 

As our community faces continued economic uncertainties, many families in Hawaii find themselves in difficult straits. I believe that such times should bring out 

the best in all of us—individuals and businesses. It is important that we all take 

the time to show each other the understanding and aloha needed to keep our families and communities together and out of financial ruin. 

I hope you share my belief, and my commitment to our ohana; to our community. 

I would love to hear from very soon about any assistance you might be able to offer. 

Aloha, 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, 

Member of Congress. 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Washington, DC, March 31, 2008 

Hon. GEORGE W. BUSH, 

President of the United States, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr. President: 

Right now—today—our nation is reeling from the impact of an energy crisis on 

a U.S. economy already in or on the verge of recession. Retail sales are down. Unemployment is up. Home sales are down. Mortgage foreclosures are at an historic 

high, and the Federal Reserve intervened last week to keep Wall Street giant Bear 

Stearns front potential catastrophe. 

Add to this the highest fuel prices in history, now more than $110 a barrel for 

crude oil and an average price at the pump of more than $3.30 a gallon for regular 

gas, and the impact on a petroleum-fueled economy is devastating. 

I met last weekend with officials of Aloha Airlines in Honolulu, trying to find a 

way for one of Hawaii’s leading corporate citizens, with 3,400 employees, to buy 

time to restructure debt and stay in business. Tragically, Aloha decided late Sunday 

to halt 61 years of air passenger service for the people of Hawaii. After attempting 

to fight off unregulated predatory pricing for 2 years, a $71 million increase in the 

cost of jet fuel pushed them over the edge. One thousand nine hundred people just 

lost their jobs today. 

Aloha is not alone in being battered by this energy crisis. Other airlines are being 

forced to raise ticket prices or add as much as a $50 surcharge for fuel. According 

to the Air Transport Association (ATA), every penny increase in the price of a gallon 

of jet fuel means $190 million in annual fuel costs for U.S. Airlines—20 to 30 percent of their total operating expense. As you may be aware, ATA has today called 

on Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman to authorize releases from the Nation’s 

home heating oil reserves to help increase the supply of jet fuel. 

The emergency, however, extends far beyond the airline industry. The effects of 

soaring fuel costs are rippling out through the economy. Oil and refined products 

fuel almost 97 percent of our Nation’s transportation: automobiles, trucks, trains, 

and ships, as well as aircraft. This is how our Nation moves people and goods. 

Fuel cost represents as much as 25 percent of total operating expenses for the Nation’s motor carriers, second only to drivers’ wages. Transport companies and indeVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:07 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 074892 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\74892.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
8 

pendent truckers across the country are facing the prospect of parking their trucks 

because they simply cannot afford to buy diesel fuel. One operator reported costs 

of nearly $900 to fill up his rig. The impact of rising fuel costs on transport obviously means increasing costs for consumer goods. We are already seeing this in food 

prices and retail prices. 

Organizations like the United States Postal Service and private sector delivery 

companies have no choice but to keep buying fuel for their delivery vehicles, no matter the cost. And that cost will be passed along to businesses, and ultimately, to consumers. Even as an independent government agency, the Postal Service cannot sustain such devastating cost increases for long without increasing rates. 

Oil and natural gas are raw materials in more than 95 percent of manufacturing: 

plastics, medicines, machinery and all kinds of consumer goods. Energy is the third 

largest manufacturing cost for the forest and paper industry. 

Mr. President, the instability of oil prices will continue to ripple through our economy. We are, quite clearly, in the midst of an energy emergency. 

I am therefore requesting that you authorize a temporary release of crude oil from 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the airline and cargo shipping industries. The 

average cost of crude in the reserve is approximately $27 per barrel. If a quantity 

of this oil can be released to the market and refined at lower cost than the current 

market-priced crude, it could generate a temporary supply of lower priced gasoline, 

diesel fuel and jet fuel for those industries that are totally dependent on fuel, and 

on which the U.S. economy is totally dependent. 

Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, draw-downs from the Reserve are authorized if the President determines that there is a ‘‘severe energy supply interruption;’’ if that interruption has caused a severe increase in the price of 

petroleum products; and if such prices are likely to cause a major adverse impact 

on the national economy. 

This step offers the prospect of temporary relief, and should not be seen by anyone as a long-term solution to the national energy emergency. But it may serve as 

an alarm to the American public that substantial and serious measures must be 

taken immediately to prevent further, even permanent, damage to the U.S. economy. It should also be the first substantive action by the Government of the United 

States to address the energy and economic crisis. 

Mr. President, I believe those conditions which allow for a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve now exist, and I urgently request prompt action. 

Aloha, 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, 

Member of Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. I must apologize. I did not notice the presence 

of Senator Smith here. If I had known that, I would have called 

on you earlier. Please forgive me, sir. I am now privileged to introduce Senator Smith of Oregon. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I am here with no agenda other 

than an affection for Hawaii. I have been a regular user of Aloha, 

and every time I travel the 6 hours to Oregon, I think of my colleague, the Chairman, who has another 6 hours to go. 

I regard Hawaii as a very treasured place and I am anxious to 

learn what has happened because I am anxious to find ways that 

I, who often advocate for routes to Oregon—how we can improve 

this system and make sure that Essential Air Service is there. 

I am old enough to remember that when I used to get on an airplane, there used to be a lot of empty seats. I am mindful that 

there are many planes that are now grounded simply to make sure 

that every seat is filled in order to afford the fuel costs. If there 

was a silver bullet on fuel costs, we would shoot it. We would fire 

it. We would fix it. There is not. 

In the meantime, we have got to make sure that remote places— 

and I come from a remote part of Oregon—have the ability to acVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:07 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 074892 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\74892.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
9 

cess essential infrastructure like airlines. Obviously, the Hawaiian 

Islands—you either get there by slow boat or by Aloha, Hawaii, or 

Go. ATA I guess has gone out as well. 

And I am anxious to be here just to learn, to offer constructive 

insights, and to ask some questions. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. If I may, on behalf of the people of Hawaii, I 

thank you for your presence here. It is most comforting. Thank you. 

And it is now my pleasure to call upon the Assistant Secretary 

of Transportation for Aviation and International Affairs, the Honorable Michael Reynolds. 

Will the others take their places? 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. REYNOLDS, ACTING ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 

U.S. DOT 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Chairman Inouye, Senator Smith, with your permission, I would like to summarize my written statement which I 

ask be made part of the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Your full statement will be made part of the 

record. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to 

discuss challenges facing Hawaii’s air service market. I can assure 

you that the Department is keenly aware of the unique role that 

air transportation plays in the State of Hawaii and that air transportation to and within Hawaii continues to be an important issue, 

particularly in light of the recent cessation of passenger services by 

Aloha Airlines and ATA Airlines. 

Nonetheless, many of the challenges faced by the airline industry 

in Hawaii are similar to those facing all our airlines. In that regard, the outlook for the U.S. airline industry as a whole is hazy, 

despite a return to profitability in the last 2 years. Many carriers 

have cut costs and become more efficient in recent years only to see 

those gains offset by record fuel prices. 

The industry faces major challenges in 2008: the high fuel prices 

that we are all well aware of, a potentially weaker economy, and 

labor cost pressures. These factors can severely affect airlines and 

the demand for air travel, particularly in discretionary markets 

such as Hawaii, which I now turn to. 

As you know well, the six major islands depend heavily on air 

service. Aloha and Hawaiian Airlines have traditionally provided 

the bulk of the inter-island air service. In May 2006, Mesa’s Go 

commenced service, and from that time until very recently, there 

were three high frequency jet operators in the market. Of course, 

smaller carriers such as Island Air and Pacific Wings also provide 

service and make up approximately 8 percent of the inter-island capacity. 

The entry of Go came at a time when other structural economic 

developments exerted downward pressure on the demand for interisland travel. For example, as the other islands have become more 

economically developed, the need for local residents to travel to 

Honolulu from the other islands for goods and services has decreased. In addition, since 2000, airlines have tripled their service 

from the mainland directly to the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai, 

which means fewer travelers require inter-island connections. 

10 

Also, Hawaii’s critical international and domestic tourism market 

segments have been stagnant or declining over the past few years. 

In 2007, 7.4 million visitors arrived by air, which was a 1 percent 

decrease from 2006. 

Clearly, sustaining three carriers in the main inter-island routes 

proved difficult. But even before Go entered the market, Hawaiian 

and Aloha had been in bankruptcy in the last few years. 

Now, let me briefly discuss the recent airline shutdowns. 

While the loss of Aloha and ATA Airlines has reduced capacity 

between Hawaii and the mainland by about 14 percent, it is important to note that there are still eight airlines providing various levels of service, including United, Hawaiian, American, Delta, Northwest, US Airways, Continental, and Alaska, most of which have 

added capacity to the market since Aloha and ATA ceased services. 

In addition, Hawaiian and Go are adding aircraft capacity to the 

inter-island market, and several carriers have been offering special 

deals for passengers affected by the shutdowns. 

Nonetheless, based on our internal analysis, as many as 9,000 

Hawaii passengers have had travel plans disrupted by the sudden 

termination of air service by both Aloha and ATA. 

On the positive side, most of these passengers are expected to be 

accommodated. Clearly, some passengers encountered more serious 

inconvenience and delays, especially in markets without alternate 

nonstop service. Because more than 90 percent of these passengers 

used credit cards to purchase their air travel, they should be able 

to recover from the credit card companies payments for any air 

transportation services that were not provided. 

Finally, I want to touch on the issue of service to more remote 

points in Hawaii. The Department’s Essential Air Service Program 

provides a safety net to ensure that eligible communities receive 

continuous, uninterrupted air service. After several years of receiving subsidized air service, last April the communities of Hana, 

Kalaupapa, and Kamuela began receiving air service without subsidy. I wish to point out that even though the communities no 

longer receive subsidized EAS, they are all still protected against 

losing service under the program. 

That concludes my oral statement. I would be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. REYNOLDS, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DOT 

Chairman Inouye and Members of the Committee: 

Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss ‘‘Challenges Facing 

Hawaii’s Air Service Market.’’ While there certainly are unique needs and characteristics in the Hawaii market, many of the challenges faced by the airline industry 

in Hawaii are similar to those facing our airlines in all markets, domestic and foreign. 

State of the Airline Industry 

Let me begin with the state of the airline industry. The U.S. airline industry has 

been emerging from a major restructuring precipitated by a fundamental change in 

passenger demand that began in the first half of this decade. Some large carriers 

have successfully restructured and adapted their business models, while other carriers have been slower to do so. Record fuel prices have offset the benefits that some 

11 

carriers gained through cost reductions and other efficiencies achieved in restructuring, in and out of bankruptcy. 

Despite fuel price increases, the industry as a whole was profitable for 2007, with net income of $3.8 billion in 2007 versus $1.7 billion in 2006. Going forward however, the outlook for airlines is hazy. The industry faces major challenges in 2008: 

high fuel prices, a potentially weaker economy, and labor cost pressures. These factors can severely affect demand for travel, particularly in discretionary markets, 

such as Hawaii. 

Clearly the major challenge remains record high fuel prices, with crude oil hov- ering around $100 per barrel. Fuel cost is now the largest single cost center for the 

airlines. A one cent per gallon increase in the price of jet fuel costs the U.S. airline 

industry an additional $16 million per month more for fuel on a system basis. This 

may not seem like much, but when you consider the drastic change in the price of 

crude oil and its distillate, jet kerosene, over the last 3 years, the cost to the airlines 

becomes much more palpable. Between 2004 and 2007, jet fuel rose from an average 

of 86 cents per gallon to an average of $2.12 per gallon in 2007, non-inflation adjusted. This is a 248 percent increase in the cost per gallon of jet fuel. According 

to JPMorgan’s analysis, every $10 increase in a barrel of oil requires $18 in additional air fare on average just to maintain a steady state. While the industry posted 

an operating loss of approximately $87 million in the fourth quarter 2007, it would 

have posted an operating profit of $1.35 billion in that quarter of 2007 had fuel 

prices remained at fourth quarter 2006 levels. Soaring fuel prices have masked the 

tremendous progress legacy carriers have made in reducing their costs to levels 

more competitive with low-cost/low-fare carriers and eclipsed gains that could have 

been used to fund essential long-term capital expenditures. Future fuel price uncertainty will continue to motivate industry-wide cost and capacity discipline. 

There are other challenges facing the industry, including labor cost pressures and 

pressures from institutional investors to ‘‘unlock’’ shareholder value. As these other 

challenges are beyond the scope of this hearing, I will not elaborate on them today. 

Nature of the Hawaiian Aviation Market 

Next, I would like to summarize briefly the nature of the Hawaiian air service 

market. 

Hawaii, of course, has six major islands that depend heavily on air service, and 

inter-island markets have been extremely competitive. While Aloha and Hawaiian 

Airlines have traditionally provided the bulk of inter-island air service, over the 

years there have been many smaller players that have entered and exited the market. In May 2006, Mesa’s Go service commenced, and from that time until very recently, the inter-island market has been served by three high-frequency jet operators. Other smaller carriers like Island Air and Pacific Wings also provide service 

and make up approximately 8 percent of the inter-island capacity. There are also 

a number of air taxis that compete for traffic in these markets. 

Historically, average fares for local travel in the inter-island markets have been 

quite low, averaging less than $50 in the 3-year period 2000 through 2002 for each 

inter-island city-pair market. Beginning in 2001, average fares began a gradual increase in all inter-island markets, and more so in the smaller ones, until the Department granted Aloha and Hawaiian antitrust immunity for a capacity cooperation agreement that was permitted under a special provision in the 2001 Aviation 

and Transportation Security Act. Shortly after the carriers implemented their capacity coordination agreement in 2002–2003, they discontinued the coupon distribution 

system for inter-island travel and implemented different pricing structures. Fares 

for both carriers rose significantly during the period in which capacity cooperation 

agreement was in effect. In 2005, Hawaiian’s inter-island fares were about 7 percent 

higher across the board than Aloha’s. In 2007, however, average fares for both carriers were about equal. 

In general, average fares in the inter-island markets have been lower than average fares in markets of comparable distance and density (the number of people traveling in the market) in the continental United States, including markets served by 

low-fare carriers such as Southwest, JetBlue, and AirTran. For example, the Honolulu-Kona market at a distance of 163 miles had an average fare at the end of third 

quarter 2007 of $50. By comparison, Southwest’s fare in comparable markets ranged 

between $80 and $111. In the Kona-Lihue market, the average fare was $81, whereas average fares for Southwest in markets of comparable distance ranged from $91 

to $116. 

Prior to Go’s entry in the market in 2006, the number of flights and capacity offered in the inter-island markets had been slightly declining. A large decrease in 

service occurred right after September 11, 2001 and did not start to rebound until 

the third quarter of 2004. 

12 

After Go’s entry into Hawaii and before Aloha’s cessation of service, inter-island 

fares fell 27 percent to levels not seen since 2000, a time when fuel was one-quarter 

the price and inter-island passenger traffic was nearly 14 percent greater (capacity 

was 29 percent higher). Load factors on inter-island services have averaged between 

65 percent and 70 percent prior to Aloha’s shutdown. 

The entry of Go into the inter-island markets came at a time when other structural economic developments exerted downward pressure on the demand for interisland travel. First, as the other islands became more economically developed, the 

need for local residents to travel to Honolulu (Oahu) from the other islands for goods 

and services decreased. In addition, since 2000, carriers have tripled their service 

from the mainland directly to the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai, which means fewer 

travelers require inter-island connections. For example, the nearly two million visitors to Hawaii from California now have direct links from their state to Kahului, 

Kona, Hilo, and Lihue. 

Second, Hawaii’s critical international and domestic tourism market segments 

have been stagnant or declining over the past few years. In 2007, 7.4 million visitors 

arrived by air—a 1 percent decrease from 2006. The biggest decline was a 5-percent 

decrease by non-U.S. visitors to Hawaii. Approximately 70 percent of non-U.S. visitors come from Japan, a country whose economy continues to stagnate. Also, emerging tourist markets in Asia have exacerbated the situation as many Japanese are 

vacationing closer to home. In the future, tourists from China could replace those 

from Japan as rising incomes and a booming economy enable more Chinese citizens 

to travel. The Department has been aggressively seeking to liberalize the restrictive 

Chinese bilateral air services agreement to increase the numbers of flights permitted between the U.S. and China. One bright spot is Canada. While Canada accounts for just 4 percent of all visitors to Hawaii, the number of Canadian visitors 

to Hawaii rose over 5 percent between 2006 and 2007. Meanwhile, the number of 

U.S. visitors to Hawaii has remained flat. Importantly, however, the figure for visitors from California, who make up 25 percent of Hawaii’s tourist market, fell more 

than 3 percent in 2007. This is partially explained by the downturn in the housing 

market, which has hit California particularly hard. In short, fewer tourists mean 

fewer inter-island trips. 

As indicated above, unlike the inter-island markets, many other airlines offer 

service between the West Coast and one or more of the Hawaiian Islands. While 

the loss of Aloha and ATA Airlines has reduced capacity between Hawaii and the 

mainland (including Alaska) by about 14 percent, there are still eight airlines providing various levels of service including United, Hawaiian, American, Delta, Northwest, US Airways, Continental, and Alaska. 

This market overview clearly shows that the large, inter-island markets have 

been highly competitive and the most negatively impacted by structural changes in 

tourist and traffic flows. Record high fuel prices have exacerbated the situation. 

From time to time, there has been entry by a third carrier focusing on inter-island 

traffic (Mid-Pacific and Discovery in the 1980s, Mahalo Air in the 1990s, and Go 

in this decade) in Hawaii. Sustaining three major carriers operating service on the 

main inter-island trunk routes has proven difficult. According to press reports, Go 

has lost as much as $20 million since it began service on these routes 2 years ago. 

In part as a result of the substantial structural changes in the aviation markets 

to/from and within Hawaii over the past decade, both Aloha and Hawaiian have experienced financial difficulties. In the past few years, the carriers have held merger 

discussions, but the two management teams and their various owners have never 

been able to agree on how to blend the two airlines. Furthermore, Hawaiian was 

in bankruptcy from 2003 to 2005, and Aloha was in bankruptcy from 2004 to 2006 

prior to going in again last month. 

Role of Government 

Having outlined the challenges facing the airline industry in general and the Hawaiian markets in particular, I would like to discuss the appropriate role of government in the industry’s ongoing restructuring. By deregulating the airline industry 

in 1978, Congress set the Department permanently on the path away from intervention in the air transportation marketplace. Many, including the Department of 

Transportation, have a long-held view that deregulation has been a success, producing an abundance of service with low fares—at the same time the industry has 

achieved a spectacular safety record. Indeed, the fundamental restructuring that we 

have observed over the last 6 years is largely the result of market forces that were 

set in motion prior to the September 11th terrorist attacks. The architects of airline 

deregulation predicted that new, innovative airlines would enter the marketplace, 

establish a significant and sustained market share, and exert competitive discipline 

on incumbent firms and ensure that savings from efficiencies were passed along to 

13 

consumers. That is precisely what happened; though it happened differently and 

somewhat later than expected. With respect to aviation, deregulation has become 

the default policy around the world. 

Airline Industry Restructuring 

Since the passage of the Airline Deregulation Act in 1978, which opened our domestic air services to the free market, Congress recognized that the risk of airline 

failures was possible. Deregulation stimulated air travel, lowered air fares, and created a highly competitive, efficient, and viable air transportation system in the 

United States. Yet, it is an industry fraught with risks—an industry sensitive to an 

unstable economic environment, jet fuel prices, and cyclic swings in the economy. 

The public has benefited from competition provided by new entrant carriers who acquired the aircraft of bankrupt airlines and implemented a new business model with 

low fares to attract customers. In fact, over the past 30 years, we have seen many 

air carrier failures. In an uncertain economic environment and with record jet fuel 

prices, it is not shocking that air carriers—which depend so heavily on fuel—are 

having difficulty surviving in today’s price competitive aviation environment. 

The Government Accountability Office in a September 2005 Report to Congress 

said that bankruptcy ‘‘is endemic to the airline industry owing to long-standing 

structural challenges and weak financial performance in the industry.’’ Indeed, 

bankruptcies in the airline industry are not uncommon. Since airline deregulation 

30 years ago, there have been more than 170 airline bankruptcies, averaging almost 

six a year. 

During the last 2 weeks, three airlines have filed or expect to file for bankruptcy 

protection. Aloha Airlines, ATA Airlines, and Skybus Airlines have shut down and 

stopped passenger air services. They attributed their business failure to rising fuel 

costs and a slowing economy. These carriers could not make a business case to attract more capital in the current economic environment. 

In this context, let me briefly outline the recent situations at Aloha Airlines and 

ATA Airlines. 

Immediate Impact of Aloha’s and ATA’s Cessation of Scheduled Passenger 

Service 

In order to assess the ability of other carriers to assist stranded Aloha and ATA 

passengers based on existing schedules, we reviewed available services of U.S. and 

foreign carriers that compete with Aloha and/or ATA on their inter-island routes 

and between Hawaii and the U.S. mainland. During April, we estimate that just 

over 90,000 passengers will travel to/from Hawaii or about 3,000 per day. There is 

competitive service on many of the Aloha and ATA routes between the Mainland 

and Hawaii. Based on our internal analysis, as many as 9,000 Hawaii passengers 

were inconvenienced by the sudden termination of air service by both Aloha and 

ATA. This figure does not take into account the additional seat capacity that was 

added to the Hawaii market by competing carriers in response to the Aloha and 

ATA shutdowns. 

Despite the high load factors experienced by competing carriers in these markets, 

most Aloha and ATA passengers were expected to be accommodated, perhaps some 

taking circuitous and multi-stop routings. Clearly, some passengers encountered 

more serious inconvenience and delays, especially in the three markets without alternate nonstop service, namely Oakland-Lihue; Las Vegas-Maui; and Oakland-Hilo. 

Aloha informed the Department that, on the day it stopped service, about 700 

Aloha strandees would need transportation to or from the mainland, and steadily 

decreasing numbers of such passengers would need to be accommodated each day 

through April 12. 

American, United, Delta, Continental, US Airways, Hawaiian, and Go added aircraft capacity to the market, to help minimize the impact on Aloha’s stranded passengers. Hawaiian and Go carried Aloha’s inter-island passengers on a standby 

basis for free for the first 4 days after Aloha’s shutdown and on a confirmed basis 

for $49 through April 7. 

Alaska Airlines recently announced plans for new daily service to Hawaii from Seattle and seasonal service from Anchorage. 

Federal Government’s Efforts To Address the Situation in Hawaii 

There are no requirements for other airlines to accept the tickets of an air carrier 

that ceases operations. However, when an airline shuts down the Department moves 

immediately to contact other carriers providing service on those routes to ascertain 

their policies with respect to carriage of the passengers of the failed airline, to make 

it clear that consumer harm should be minimized, and to make information about 

the airline policies readily available to consumers. We then distribute information 

14 

to affected consumers about their options. This is accomplished via our website and 

in responses to telephone and other inquiries. 

When the Department learned of the Aloha and ATA shutdowns, my office and 

the Department’s aviation consumer office gathered information from these two carriers via teleconferences and e-mail. The aviation consumer office then contacted 

other airlines serving the affected markets and posted information and advice on its 

website for affected consumers. In general, this involves information about alternate 

transportation, claiming a refund from the consumer’s credit card company under 

the Fair Credit Billing Act, and filing a claim for a cash refund or baggage claim 

settlement in any bankruptcy proceeding that may take place. 

Other carriers appear to recognize that voluntarily providing affected passengers 

reasonable options for alternate transportation is in their interest. Carriers are motivated to do this as a competitive initiative, in part as a market-development strategy to attract business travelers and frequent flyers. For example, in connection 

with the recent shutdown of ATA Airlines, most major carriers are or were offering 

affected passengers standby transportation for $100 per non-stop segment and/or 

waiving their own advance purchase requirements on discount fares. In the case of 

Aloha Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines and Go were offering free standby seats to Aloha 

passengers for the first 4 days after the Aloha shutdown (i.e., through April 3). 

Through April 7, Hawaiian was offering a special $49 fare for inter-island flights. 

Hawaiian also immediately added 6,000 seats per day to its schedule. United Airlines is offering special discounts to Aloha’s Hawaii-mainland passengers, on a confirmed basis, through April 30. 

In the case of both ATA and Aloha, as required by contract and by DOT policy, 

their codeshare partners are honoring tickets issued in that partner’s name by providing transportation on a confirmed basis with no additional fare collection where 

possible. Where that is not possible, those codeshare partners are providing a full 

refund. 

Both carriers indicated that well over 90 percent of their passengers used credit 

cards to purchase air travel. Those passengers should be able to recover from the 

credit card companies payments for any air transportation services that were not 

provided. 

Essential Air Service Implications 

We have also examined Aloha’s shutdown in the context of the Essential Air Service program and find that there are no issues. All five communities that Aloha 

served—Hilo, Kona, Kauai, Kahului, and Honolulu—are served by at least two other 

carriers, Hawaiian and Go. No market will be without service. The smallest market 

in terms of service (Hilo-Honolulu) has at least 13 non-stop round trips per day. 

Also in the context of EAS, the Department is fully aware of Hawaii’s dependence 

on air service, and the EAS program provides a safety net to ensure that eligible 

communities receive continuous, uninterrupted air service. Up until April 1, 2007, 

the communities of Hana, Kalaupapa and Kamuela had received subsidized service 

under the EAS program for about 6 years. As the end of the then-current EAS contract was nearing, the incumbent carrier, Pacific Wings, announced that it would 

continue to serve all three communities, but without the need for further Federal 

subsidy. I wish to point out that, even though the communities no longer receive 

subsidized EAS, they are all still protected against losing service. That is, even if 

the incumbent carrier wanted to suspend service, it would first have to file a notice 

of intent to suspend service and we would hold the carrier’s service in place while 

we sought and procured replacement service. 

Thank you, and I would be pleased to take any questions. 

15 

ATTACHMENT: 5 CHARTS


410REYN1.eps 410REYN2.eps
16 


410REYN3.eps 410REYN4.eps
17 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Reynolds. 

Now may I call upon the Deputy Director of Operations of the 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Honorable Vincent 

Snowbarger? 

STATEMENT OF HON. VINCENT K. SNOWBARGER, DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Mr. SNOWBARGER. Thank you, Chairman Inouye and Senator 

Smith. My name is Vince Snowbarger, and I am the Deputy Director of Operations at the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 

otherwise known as PBGC. 

ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 

created PBGC to guarantee pensions when underfunded defined 

pension plans like Aloha’s are terminated. 

We want to thank you for the opportunity to appear today before 

the Committee to discuss the challenges facing Hawaii’s air service 

market. My remarks will focus on matters impacting the participants and beneficiaries in the four defined benefit pension plans 

sponsored by Aloha Airlines. Aloha employees may have other retirement plans that PBGC does not insure. 

In December 2004, Aloha filed for bankruptcy. As a part of the 

settlement reached in February of 2006, PBGC assumed responsibility for the pensions of nearly 4,000 workers and retirees who 

were participants in three of the four defined benefit plans at 

Aloha. It was the plan for non-unionized employees, the plan for 

employees represented by International Association of Machinists, 

and the pilots’ plan. In that agreement, Aloha agreed to maintain 

a fourth plan for its dispatchers. 

In the three plans that were terminated, we estimate that the 

plans had $177 million in assets to cover $346 million in promised 


410REYN5.eps
18 

benefits. That means the plans were only 51 percent funded with 

$169 million in total underfunding. PBGC will be able to guaranty 

about $119 million of that underfunding, but participants will lose 

about $50 million in promised benefits that PBGC cannot pay 

under Federal law. 

My written testimony provides more information on each of these 

plans. 

PBGC is currently paying estimated benefits to these Aloha retirees. We are in the process of making final benefit determinations 

for the Aloha plans. It is a complex process that takes about 3 

years normally. PBGC expects to send final benefit determinations 

to Aloha participants next year. 

On March 20, Aloha again filed for bankruptcy. The airline has 

one plan remaining subject to PBGC jurisdiction. The plan for 

Aloha’s dispatchers covers about 50 participants. It is underfunded 

by about $1 million. As the current bankruptcy case develops, we 

will continue to work with Aloha, its creditors, and the court to 

protect the benefits of those participants. 

As I mentioned earlier, there are other benefits that PBGC does 

not insure, including health benefits. However, participants who 

are aged 55 or older and who receive PBGC benefits may be eligible for the Health Coverage Tax Credit. I have provided information in my written testimony for the HCTC customer contact center. It is a program operated in conjunction with the IRS. 

PBGC is always available to help participants. We let them know 

when they are eligible to apply for benefits, and we provide them 

with any help they need in completing applications. They can also 

access our website at www.pbgc.gov, and there they can request an 

estimate of benefits, apply for benefits, set up or change Federal 

tax withholding, and so forth. There are also pages on the website 

for each of Aloha’s terminated plans. We keep participants updated 

through newsletters and our website, and they can also call our 

customer contact center at 1–800–400–7242. 

PBGC is committed to paying all workers and retirees the benefits they are entitled to under law, and we try to make our benefit 

determination process as efficient and customer-friendly as possible. I want to assure you that we will continue to carry out our 

mission to pay benefits to participants, including the Aloha workers. 

And I want to thank you again for the opportunity to appear 

today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Snowbarger follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. VINCENT K. SNOWBARGER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR

OPERATIONS, PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION

Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, Members of the Committee, my name 

is Vince Snowbarger and I am the Deputy Director for Operations at the Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’ or ‘‘the Corporation’’). 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to discuss 

the challenges facing Hawaii’s air service market. My testimony will focus on matters impacting the 4,000 participants and beneficiaries in the three defined benefit 

pension plans sponsored by Aloha Airlines that were assumed by PBGC in April 

2006 following the carrier’s emergence from an earlier bankruptcy. A fourth plan 

sponsored by Aloha for its dispatchers, covering about 50 participants, remained ongoing after the bankruptcy. 

19 

Pension Benefit Administration 

PBGC was created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

(‘‘ERISA’’) to guarantee pensions when an underfunded defined benefit plan is terminated. When PBGC assumes an underfunded plan, the Corporation pays benefits 

up to ERISA guarantee limits. For insured plans that terminated in 2005 such as 

Aloha’s, the maximum guaranteed benefit is $45,613 per year ($3,801 monthly) for 

PBGC payments beginning at age 65. The maximum is actuarially adjusted for benefits beginning earlier or later, or if a benefit will be payable to a surviving beneficiary. 

When PBGC becomes trustee of a plan, retirees initially receive the same monthly 

benefit amounts that the plan was paying. Once PBGC obtains plan data and makes 

a preliminary analysis, benefit payments are reduced if necessary to an estimate of 

the amount payable under Federal law. We also inform participants that any overpayments will be subject to recoupment (the process by which participants return 

any overpayments). 

In order to make final benefit determinations, PBGC applies various statutory 

provisions that include: 

• calculating the benefit under the specific plan provisions; 

• applying the statutory maximum guarantee; 

• phasing in the guarantee of benefit increases within 5 years of plan termination; and 

• allocating plan assets and recoveries from employers available to pay non-guaranteed benefits. 

Because plan provisions and the statutory rules noted above are complex, it takes 

about 3 years to complete final benefit determinations. When this process is finished, PBGC sends a letter to each participant explaining the calculations and the 

changes, if any, in their estimated benefit amount. Participants have 45 days to appeal this final determination. 

At every step in the process, the Corporation is available to answer participants’ 

questions and to help them apply for benefits. For larger plans, PBGC holds participant meetings to provide both general and plan-specific information about the termination process. We also send an annual newsletter to participants receiving benefits and semiannual newsletters to those not yet retired. Participants can get additional information about PBGC and the pension insurance program at 

www.pbgc.gov or by calling PBGC’s Customer Contact Center at 1–800–400–7242. 

Airline Pensions 

Airline plans have accounted for more than $14 billion in claims since 1974—approximately 40 percent of all claims from failed companies. Since 2001, PBGC has 

assumed responsibility for the pension plans of TWA, US Airways, United Airlines, 

and the pilots of Delta Air Lines. In addition, as of the end of calendar year 2006, 

there was another $12.6 billion in unfunded pension liabilities in ongoing defined 

benefit plans in the airline industry. 

Aloha Airlines 

On December 30, 2004, Aloha Airlines filed for bankruptcy. PBGC tried to compel 

Aloha to keep its plans ongoing. However, as part of the bankruptcy settlement 

reached in February 2006, the Corporation was appointed trustee for the pensions 

of nearly 4,000 workers and retirees who were participants in three of Aloha’s defined benefit plans: the Pension Plan for Non-Represented Employees, the Pension 

Plan for Employees Represented by the International Association of Machinists 

(IAM), and the Pilots’ Fixed Retirement Plan. A fourth plan, the Pension Plan for 

Dispatchers, survived the bankruptcy. 

The termination date for the three trusteed plans was December 14, 2005. PBGC’s 

most recent estimate is that the three plans on an aggregate basis were 51 percent 

funded with $177 million in assets to cover $346 million in promised benefits. Of 

the $169 million in total underfunding, about $119 million was guaranteed. Plan 

participants thus will lose about $50 million in unfunded, non-guaranteed benefits 

that cannot be paid under Federal law. 

PBGC has sent estimated benefit statements to participants in the three trusteed 

plans. As specified below, more than 90 percent of participants in the Non-Represented Employees Plan and the IAM Employees Plan continue to receive their full 

benefit payment; the remaining participants in these two plans are now receiving 

reduced benefits as determined by statutory limits. In the Pilots’ Fixed Retirement 

Plan, about 58 percent of participants are now receiving reduced benefits, primarily 

due to the previously-noted maximum guaranteed benefit under ERISA ($45,613 for 

20 

plans that terminated in 2005). Participants in all three plans should expect to receive final benefit determination letters in 2009. 

Non-Represented Employees Plan 

The plan for non-represented employees covers about 900 participants. The plan 

was 39 percent funded, with $21 million in assets to cover $54 million in liabilities. 

However, about 840 of those participants (93 percent) are receiving their full benefits and are not affected by ERISA guarantee limits. The remaining 60 participants 

(7 percent) have had their benefits reduced by an average of about $170 per month 

(a 21 percent reduction). These reductions were required because salary concessions 

reduced the wages on which benefits are based. 

IAM Employees Plan 

The Aloha IAM plan covers about 2,600 participants. The plan was 58 percent 

funded, with $87 million in assets to cover $151 million in liabilities. However, like 

the non-represented employees, about 2,350 IAM participants (90 percent) are receiving their full plan benefits. The remaining 250 participants (10 percent) have 

had small reductions in their benefits averaging about $33 per month (a 3 percent 

reduction). These reductions were primarily the result of the phase-in limit on recent benefit increases under ERISA; generally, this five-year formula guarantees 

benefit increases at 20 percent for each year in effect. 

Pilots’ Fixed Retirement Plan 

The pilots’ plan covers about 450 participants. The plan was 49 percent funded, 

with $69 million in assets to cover $141 million in liabilities. About 190 participants 

(42 percent) are receiving their full plan benefits. The remaining 260 participants 

(58 percent) have had their benefits reduced primarily due to the maximum guaranteed benefit under ERISA that imposes an annual dollar cap (again, $45,613 for 

2005 plan terminations). The average benefit reduction for these participants is 

about $1,050 per month (a 42 percent reduction). However, based on the most recent 

information available, the assets in the plan will be sufficient so that those Aloha 

pilots who were retired (or were eligible to retire 3 years prior to plan termination) 

are expected to receive about 60 percent of their promised benefits. 

Dispatchers’ Plan 

As noted, Aloha currently sponsors one ongoing defined benefit plan for dispatchers covering about 50 participants, and which PBGC estimates as being underfunded by about $1 million. As Aloha’s current bankruptcy plan develops, PBGC will 

take appropriate steps to ensure that none of the plan’s participants is put at risk. 

Health Care 

An issue that often arises in conjunction with business failures is the loss of employer-provided health care coverage for workers and retirees. By law, PBGC guarantees do not cover health insurance. However, certain PBGC benefit recipients who 

are age 55 or older and are covered by qualified health insurance are eligible for 

the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC). For more information, participants can 

call the HCTC Customer Contact Center at 1–866–628–HCTC (4282). 

Conclusion 

PBGC is committed to paying all workers and retirees the full benefit amounts 

they are entitled to under law, and we are making every effort to make the benefit 

determination process as efficient and customer-service oriented as possible. I want 

to assure you and the participants in all defined benefit plans insured by PBGC that 

the Corporation stands ready to carry out its mission to pay benefits to participants, 

as it is now doing for Aloha participants and as it has done since the enactment 

of ERISA. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Director. 

And now may I call upon the Chief Executive Officer of the Aloha 

Airlines, David Banmiller? Mr. Banmiller? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. BANMILLER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

ALOHA AIRLINES 

Mr. BANMILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Smith. Good 

afternoon and aloha. 

21 

Today is a very sad time for Aloha Airlines, for the State of Hawaii, and indeed, the entire airline industry. 

See, what we do touches everyone’s lives in this country. Airlines 

drive local economies. They provide employment directly and indirectly, and they speed travelers on their way to make business 

deals, go on holiday, attend weddings, and enjoy the benefits of an 

open economy. 

How things have changed in our industry. 

My humble beginnings in commercial aviation came as a management trainee with one of the great airlines of U.S. aviation history, TWA. About 40 years ago, I was on the front lines as a ticket 

agent. Thanks to TWA I learned a lot about customer service from 

the ground up, writing tickets and handling baggage. The ticket 

counters next to me belonged to another giant of the industry that 

seemed equally invincible at the time, Eastern Air Lines. They are 

both long gone, along with Pan Am and other pioneering airlines. 

Today America’s airlines are more challenged than they have 

ever been. When it comes to airlines, change is constant. Or as the 

authors of Over the Hedge put it, ‘‘The more things change, the 

more they remain insane.’’ 

What once was a proud industry that lured lifetime employment 

of dedicated workers who strived to exude exceptional customer 

service and focused on taking care of their traveling patrons has 

now become an industry filled with chaos and uncertainty. 

The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 opened the playing field for 

competition. At the outset, deregulation was supposed to yield positive outcomes, especially for the large hub markets. But for the 

smaller regional markets like Hawaii, deregulation has proved to 

be potentially harmful in achieving stability in air transportation 

service. 

For example, since the Deregulation Act, Hawaii has witnessed 

the collapse of a number of airlines, including Mid Pacific, Mahalo, 

and Discovery, as well as two bankruptcy filings for Hawaiian Airlines and Aloha Airlines. 

Why? Because deregulation only opened up the revenue side of 

the business. It did not touch the cost side. And despite deregulation some 30 years ago, the industry continues to be one of the 

most heavily taxed and regulated of industries in this country. 

Today I will focus on the unfortunate situation of Aloha, a mainstay of Hawaii’s tourism-dependent economy for more than 60 

years. I plan to share with you the challenges we faced and the 

cause of our passenger service shutdown. 

The two main factors that caused the company to cease its historic passenger business were unfair competition and the soaring 

cost of jet fuel. The latter continues to pose a real threat to the air 

transportation industry, both in the United States and around the 

world. 

I also want to touch upon a few global trends that continue to 

threaten Hawaii because of its geographic isolation and its dependence on air transportation more than any other State in this Nation. 

What you are seeing today with the recent collapse of Aloha’s 

passenger business, along with the shutdown of ATA, Skybus, 

22 

Champion, and MAXjet before that, is just the tip of the iceberg. 

Industry observers are asking who is next. 

The cost of fuel continues to rise with wild abandon, unchecked 

by government even as oil companies reap enormous profits. When 

I was at TWA in the 1960s, fuel represented 5 percent of an airline’s costs. Today it is 45 percent and currently surpasses labor as 

the number one expense for most airlines. 

Throughout the 1990s, the average cost of a barrel of crude was 

under $20. By 2004, it was $40. Now it is $111 a barrel. Inconceivable even a year ago, and every $1 costs about $400 million to our 

industry in this country. 

Aloha shares with our industry colleagues in calling for swift 

Federal action on a 21st century air traffic control system upgrade 

to make air transportation more efficient by eliminating the archaic ground-tracking systems which makes for longer than necessary routing and landing patterns. We strongly believe that if our 

air traffic control system were upgraded to satellite tracking, we 

could be saving a lot of fuel. 

Our fear is that without major strides toward modernizing ATC 

and spreading the cost burden to all the users, states like Hawaii 

that are solely dependent on air transportation stand to lose more 

vital air service. And keep in mind, the average American suffers 

as a consequence of what happens to airlines. 

Now, the public has become accustomed to think that it is normal for airlines to go into and out of bankruptcy. But it does not 

always work out that way. In our first bankruptcy, cutting costs 

was job number one. With our self-help program, we involved the 

dedicated employees of our company and cut across the board, including 20 percent salary cuts. Working 24/7, we were able to put 

that complicated process together, frankly with the support and cooperation of the fine employees of our company and their labor 

leaders. We also paid back the Federal ATSB loan in full. 

At the same time, we forestalled demands from aircraft lessors 

to take our airplanes and we skated around onerous covenants and 

found permanent financing. I thought it was hard to find investors 

back then. Little did I know then what I know now. 

Emerging from our first bankruptcy, we were optimistic that we 

had a viable plan, one that could bring profit, even in the tough 

inter-island market. In September 2005, we signed an agreement 

with the Yucaipa Companies, a well-respected private equity firm, 

for a substantial equity infusion, $98 million, including $63 million 

in equity and $35 million in debt financing. 

On the very day that Aloha signed the new investment agreement came the announcement that Mesa Air group, an Arizona 

company, planned to compete in the inter-island market with its 

own low-cost carrier. We believe this improper because Mesa had 

come to Aloha as a potential investor and Mesa had also looked at 

Hawaiian’s books while they were in bankruptcy. It is pretty clear 

to us that the timing of Mesa’s announcement was intended to 

scare off investment in Aloha, something it did not do. 

Mesa launched Go Airlines in June 2006 with an advertised introductory fare of $39. In its first 18 months of operation, those 

fares went from $39 to $29, $19, $9, and $1. 

23 

A study done for Aloha by Sabre Airline Solutions soon after they 

entered the market indicated that with a 62 percent load factor, 

which was roughly what Go was operating at, they needed $67 a 

ticket minimum—now with fuel it is over $70—versus $50 a ticket 

to break even for Aloha and $55 for Hawaiian. We at Aloha Airlines were, in fact, the low-cost per-seat operator in the islands. 

So we began asking people in government, business, and the 

media, just about anyone that would listen to us these questions. 

Why would Mesa charge less for a seat than it costs to produce it? 

Why would Go start at $39 and go all the way down to $9 and $1 

when it cost $70 to fly a seat? Why would any manufacturer or provider of services do such a thing for 2 years? 

Now, everybody loves a bargain, particularly in air fares, but 

even so, Mesa’s strategy of below-cost pricing raised eyebrows. 

Even bargain lovers began to ask, why is somebody not doing 

something about this? 

Well, you know, we did not sit by idly. We spoke to elected Federal, State, and county officials and every editorial board that 

would listen to us. We came to Washington to ask the Department 

of Transportation and the Department of Justice to look into 

Mesa’s predatory practices in Hawaii and to do something about it. 

We spoke to various lawmakers on the Hill. 

Everyone told me that predatory pricing is hard to prove. I believe that if there is ever textbook definition of predatory pricing, 

this is it. 

Not one, but both of Hawaii’s legacy inter-island carriers have 

sued Mesa. 

In February, Hawaiian filed a lawsuit asserting claims against 

Mesa for breach of a nondisclosure agreement that Mesa had executed. 

In January 2007, Aloha filed suit against Mesa alleging misuse 

of confidential information and deliberately sought to drive Aloha 

out of business in violation of Federal antitrust laws. In fact, court 

documents show that Mesa’s chief financial officer stated in an email that rather than wait for Aloha to die, Mesa should enter the 

inter-island market and give Aloha the last push. 

Due to this pending litigation, I prefer not to go into any further 

detail on that matter. 

Now, in spite of the legal challenges, Mesa continues to operate 

in Hawaii at $49 inter-island fares. 

For the year 2007, Aloha lost $81 million on revenues of $407 

million, and in January 2008 alone, we lost $10.6 million on $34 

million in revenue. 

In March of this year, after 2 years of escalating fuel prices and 

cutthroat competition, Aloha’s lead investor opted to stop funding 

Aloha Airlines after they had put in another $100 million. This 

came on the day that we noted fuel prices at $111 a barrel. 

Faced with that reality, we worked round-the-clock in search of 

a new investor, including other airlines. We felt that a strategic investor, an airline, might be interested, but we found out they have 

their own problems, as you know. And with fuel rising the way it 

was and an inter-island fare war, there was no one there. 

Our senior management, our owners, and the board anguished 

over that decision to terminate passenger service and did so only 

24 

after our lenders could not provide any further funding and after 

all other alternatives were exhausted. 

No one wanted to believe that a passenger airline with a 62-year 

history of serving Hawaii could disappear or that 2,000 of our people who supported passenger operations could lose their jobs overnight. Without any further financing, we had to make the hard decision. 

We are continuing round-the-clock efforts to save our cargo and 

contract services operation in order to preserve more than 1,000 remaining jobs. We also hold out hope that investors will look at resurrecting Aloha’s entire passenger operation in the future. 

What impact does this have on Hawaii? Aloha Airlines was the 

state’s 10th largest private employer. We offered frequent, reliable 

passenger service, 100 inter-island flights a day, linking Hawaii’s 

four counties and key cities. We flew 4 million passengers a year, 

including 1 million visitors and residents between Hawaii and the 

West Coast. We served the largest tourism markets in southern 

California and had the most non-stops from the West Coast to 

Maui. 

We supported hundreds of nonprofit organizations throughout 

the State. For example, in 2006, we spearheaded the annual fundraiser for the March of Dimes and raised over $500,000. 

Cargo and contract services continue to operate, pending the sale 

of those business units, and they remain a vital part of the air 

transport system in Hawaii. 

Aloha also holds the majority of U.S. contracts with Hawaii for 

the mail and carries about 85 percent of perishable, sensitive consumer goods. 

We also continue to provide passenger and maintenance service 

for a number of other carriers in the market. 

Following the shutdown of Aloha’s service to five Hawaiian and 

six Mainland destinations, ATA shut down. At this point in time, 

there is no daily nonstop service out of Orange County or Oakland 

to any of the cities in Hawaii. And 20 aircraft have been pulled out 

of Hawaiian service on the West Coast, and we were offering about 

15 percent of the traffic at that time between the two carriers. 

State tourism officials are expressing concern that Hawaii does 

not have enough seats in key visitor markets and that the loss of 

airlift could cost the state up to half a million visitors a year. Analysts say the average fare from the mainland to Hawaii could rise 

by $200 round trip, and inter-island fares, I can assure you, will 

go up to pre-Mesa levels, if not higher. 

To date, we have terminated more than 2,000 employees and estimate the cost to the State of Hawaii in unemployment of over $50 

million. 

This company was started in 1946 and the men and women of 

our company were involved in many community affairs and supported so much beyond just air travel itself. Aloha’s employees 

were not just good people like you will find throughout the airline 

industry. They were warm, wonderful people who shared a unique 

spirit of compassion and care for customers and coworkers. We call 

it the Aloha Spirit. 

I could say more about them, but let me show you this. 

[Video shown.] 

25 

Mr. BANMILLER. As a testament to these fine people, let me share 

with you the DOT’s most recent air travel consumer report, which 

just came out. Since it began monthly reporting last April, Aloha 

has consistently been one of the Nation’s best airlines in punctuality, baggage delivery, fewest cancellations, and fewest customer 

complaints. Last week’s DOT report placed Aloha as the number 

one carrier in on-time performance and fewest passenger complaints. 

There may be other airlines serving Hawaii, but there will never 

be another like Aloha Airlines. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Banmiller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID A. BANMILLER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALOHA AIRLINES

Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, Members: 

Good afternoon and aloha! 

This is a very sad time for Aloha Airlines and indeed the entire airline industry. 

What we do touches everyone’s lives in this country. Airlines drive local economies, they provide employment directly and indirectly; and they speed travelers on 

their way to make business deals, go on holiday, attend weddings and enjoy the benefits of an open economy. 

How things have changed in our industry! 

My humble beginnings in commercial aviation came as a management trainee 

with one of the great airlines of U.S. aviation history: TWA. 

About 40 years ago, I was on the front lines as a ticket agent. Thanks to TWA, 

I learned a lot about customer service from the ground up, writing tickets by hand, 

and handling baggage. 

By the way, the next ticket counters over from ours belonged to another giant of 

the airline industry that seemed equally invincible at the time—Eastern Air Lines. 

They’re both long-gone, along with Pan-Am and other pioneering airlines. 

Today America’s airlines are more challenged than they have ever been. When it 

comes to airlines, change is the constant. Or as the authors of ‘‘Over the Hedge’’ 

put it: ‘‘the more things change, the more they remain insane.’’ 

What once was a proud industry that lured lifetime employment of dedicated 

workers, who strived to exude exceptional customer service, and focused on taking 

care of their traveling patrons, has now become an industry filled with chaos and 

uncertainty. 

The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 opened the playing field of competition. At 

the outset, deregulation was supposed to yield positive outcomes especially for the 

large hub markets. But for smaller regional markets, like Hawaii, deregulation has 

proved to be potentially harmful in achieving stable air transportation service. 

For example, since the Deregulation Act, Hawaii has witnessed the collapse of a 

number of airlines including Mid Pacific, Mahalo and Discovery, as well as two 

bankruptcy filings by Hawaiian Airlines and two bankruptcy filings by Aloha Airlines. 

Why? Because deregulation only regulated the revenue side of the business, not 

the cost side. And despite deregulation 30 years ago, the airline industry continues 

to be one of the most heavily regulated and taxed businesses in America. 

Today I will focus on the unfortunate situation at Aloha Airlines, a mainstay of 

Hawaii’s tourism-dependent economy for more than 60 years. 

I plan to share with you the challenges we faced and the cause of our passengerservice shutdown. 

The two main factors that caused the company to cease its historic passenger 

business were unfair competition and the soaring cost of jet fuel. The latter continues to pose a real threat to the air transportation industry, both in the United 

States and around the world. 

I also want to touch upon a few global trends that continue to threaten Hawaii 

because of its geographic isolation and its dependence on air transportation more 

than any other state in the Nation. 

What you’re seeing today with the recent closure of Aloha’s passenger business— 

along with the shutdown of ATA Airlines, Skybus, Champion, and MAXjet airways 

before that—is just the tip of the iceberg. Industry observers are asking, who’s next? 

26 

Fuel Costs 

The cost of fuel continues to rise with wild abandon, unchecked by government 

even as oil companies reap enormous profits. 

When I was at TWA in the Sixties, fuel represented 5 percent of an airline’s costs. 

Today it’s 45 percent and currently surpasses labor as the number one expense for 

most airlines. 

Throughout the 1990s, the average cost of a barrel of crude was under $20. In 

the year 2004, it rose to $40. Earlier this year, oil sold for $111 a barrel, a price 

that was inconceivable even a year ago. For every $1 increase in the price of crude, 

the cost of jet fuel to the airline industry is in excess of $400 million a year. And, 

unfortunately, there is no such thing as a hybrid jet. 

Aloha has joined our industry colleagues in the Air Transport Association in calling for swift Federal action on a 21st century air traffic control system upgrade to 

make air transportation more efficient by eliminating America’s archaic groundtracking system, which makes for longer than necessary routing and landing patterns. 

We strongly believe that if our air traffic control system were upgraded to satellite-tracking, we could be saving a lot more fuel. 

Our fear is that without major strides toward modernizing ATC and spreading the 

cost burden to all users of the system, states like Hawaii that are solely dependent 

on air transportation, stand to lose more vital air service. And keep in mind, the 

average American suffers as a consequence of what happens to airlines. 

Bankruptcy 

The public has become accustomed to think that it is normal for airlines to go 

into and out of bankruptcy. But it doesn’t always work out that way. 

In our first bankruptcy, cutting costs was job number one. Our self-help program 

involved a lot of dedicated people, especially Aloha’s employees across the board— 

who wound up taking a 20-percent pay cut. 

Working 24/7 and across six time zones, we brought Aloha out of a complicated 

bankruptcy in a little more than 1 year. In order to succeed, we worked hard to win 

the confidence and support of Aloha’s unionized labor groups and saved thousands 

of jobs while maintaining the company’s reputation for exceptional customer service. 

We also paid our Federal ATSB loan in full and on time. 

At the same time, we forestalled demands from aircraft lessors who threatened 

to pull back Aloha’s aircraft. We secured interim DIP financing at a cost, and we 

skated around onerous covenants while seeking permanent financing to take the 

company forward. I thought it was hard to find investors back then. Little did I 

know then what I know now. 

Emerging from our first bankruptcy, we were optimistic that we had a viable 

business plan, one that could bring profits even in the traditionally low-fare interisland market. 

Mesa Air Group 

Back on September 22, 2005, we had signed an agreement with the Yucaipa Companies, a well-respected private equity fund, for a substantial equity investment in 

Aloha. The $98 million agreement included $63 million in equity and $35 million 

in debt financing. 

However, on the very same day that Aloha signed the new investment agreement 

came the announcement that Mesa Air group, an Arizona, company, planned to 

compete in the inter-island market with its own low-cost carrier. 

We believe this improper because Mesa had come to Aloha as a potential investor 

and Mesa had also looked at Hawaiian’s books when they were in bankruptcy. It 

was pretty clear to us that the timing of Mesa’s announcement was intended to 

scare off investment in Aloha, something it did not do. 

Mesa launched its inter-island carrier go! Airlines on June 9, 2006, with an advertised introductory fare of $39 one-way. In its first 18 months of operation, go! lowered fares to $29, $19, $9 and on down to $1. 

A study done for Aloha by Sabre Airline Solutions soon after go! entered the market, indicated that with a 62 percent load factor, which was the average load reported then by go!, Aloha needed $50 a ticket to break even, Hawaiian needed $55 

a ticket to break even, and go! needed about $67 a ticket to pay for the basic costs 

of its operation. 

We began asking people in government, business, and media, and just about anyone who would listen, these questions: 

Why would Mesa charge less for a seat than it costs to produce it? 

27 

Why was go! charging $39, $29, $19 or $1 for a seat that cost them as much 

as $70 to fly? 

Why would any manufacturer or provider of services offer their product for less 

than what it cost to produce it, for almost 2 years? 

Now everyone loves a bargain, particularly in air fares, but even so, Mesa’s 

strategy of below-cost pricing raised some eyebrows. Even bargain-lovers began 

to ask, ‘‘Why doesn’t somebody do something about it?’’ 

We did not sit idle. We spoke to elected Federal, state and county officials and 

newspaper editorial boards. 

We came to Washington to ask the United States Department of Transportation 

and the United States Department of Justice to look into Mesa’s predatory pricing 

practices in Hawaii, and do something about it. We spoke to various lawmakers on 

the Hill. 

Everyone told me that predatory pricing is hard to prove. I believe that if there 

is a textbook definition of predatory pricing, this is it. 

Lawsuits 

Not one but both of Hawaii’s legacy inter-island carriers sued Mesa. 

On February 13, 2006, Hawaiian Airlines filed a lawsuit asserting claims against 

Mesa for breach of a non-disclosure agreement that Mesa had executed in April 

2004, during Hawaiian’s bankruptcy proceedings. 

On January 9, 2007, Aloha Airlines filed suit against Mesa alleging that Mesa 

had misused Aloha’s confidential information and deliberately sought to drive Aloha 

out of business in violation of Federal anti-trust laws. 

In fact, court documents show that Mesa’s chief financial officer stated in an email that, rather than wait for Aloha to die, Mesa should enter the inter-island market and give Aloha ‘‘the last push.’’ 

Due to this pending litigation, we will not go into further detail. 

In spite of the legal challenges, Mesa continues to operate in Hawaii with $49 

inter-island fares. 

Second Bankruptcy 

For the year 2007, Aloha lost $81 million on revenues of $407 million. In January 

2008, we lost $10.6 million on $34 million of revenue. 

In March of this year, after nearly 2 years of escalating fuel prices and cutthroat 

competition, Aloha’s lead investor opted to stop funding Aloha Airlines, after a further infusion of approximately $100 million. This came on the day that fuel prices 

hit $111 a barrel. 

Faced with that reality, we worked round-the-clock in search of new investment 

for all or part of Aloha Airlines. We approached numerous airlines that we felt 

would have a strategic interest in Aloha. But we couldn’t find one willing to take 

us on, with fuel prices what they are, and the fare war still raging. 

None agreed to finance Aloha’s passenger business, leading to its shutdown on 

March 31, 2008. 

Our senior management and owners anguished over that decision to terminate 

passenger service and did so only after our lenders would not provide further financing and after all alternative sources of funding were exhausted. 

No one wanted to believe that a passenger airline with a 62-year history of serving Hawaii could disappear. Or that 2,000 of our people who supported passenger 

operations could lose their jobs overnight. But without further financing, it had to 

happen. 

We are continuing round-the-clock efforts to save Aloha’s air cargo and contract 

aviation services operations in order to preserve more than 1,000 jobs. 

We still hold out hope that investors would look at resurrecting Aloha’s entire 

passenger operation in the future. 

Impact on Hawaii 

What impact does our situation have on Hawaii? 

Aloha Airlines was the state’s 10th largest private employer. 

We offered frequent, reliable passenger service—100 inter-island flights a day— 

linking Hawaii’s four counties and major population centers. 

We flew nearly 4 million passengers a year, including 1 million visitors and residents between Hawaii and the West Coast. Aloha served Hawaii’s largest tourism 

market in Southern California and had the most non-stop flights from the West 

Coast to Maui. 

In support of Hawaii’s statewide airports system, Aloha ranked 2nd overall in airline revenue-landing weights, and 3rd in paying state airport-revenue charges. 

28 

We supported hundreds of nonprofit organizations throughout the state. For example, in 2006, Aloha spearheaded the annual fund-raising event for the Hawaii 

Chapter of the March of Dimes and helped them raise a record $500,000. 

Cargo and contract services continue to operate, pending the sale of those business units. They remain a vital part of air transportation in Hawaii. 

Aloha holds the majority of U.S. mail contracts in Hawaii, and carries more than 

85 percent of the state’s non-mail air cargo, including time-sensitive consumer 

goods, fresh produce and baked goods, agricultural exports, and emergency medical 

supplies; 

And we provide ticketing, baggage and ground-handling services for multiple domestic and international carriers as their agent. 

Following the shutdown of Aloha’s service to five Hawaii, and six Mainland destinations, ATA Airlines abruptly shut down its Mainland-to-Hawaii routes. As a result, Oakland, California, and Orange County, California, have no non-stops to Hawaii. 

In total, 20 aircraft have been pulled out of Hawaii service from the West Coast. 

Together, Aloha and ATA carried 15 percent of visitor traffic to Hawaii from the 

West Coast. 

State tourism officials are expressing concern that Hawaii doesn’t have enough 

seats in key visitor markets and that the loss of airlift could cost the state up to 

half a million visitors this year. 

Analysts say the average fare from the mainland to Hawaii could rise by $200 

a round-trip; and inter-island fares will certainly escalate to pre-Mesa levels. 

To date, we have terminated more than 2,000 employees. It’s been estimated that 

the State of Hawaii will have to pay out as much as $50 million in unemployment 

claims. Even so, the full impact of Aloha’s situation has not yet been felt and the 

ripples continue to flow throughout the state. 

Aloha Airlines was begun in 1946. Since then, the men and women of Aloha Airlines have been totally involved in the community, volunteering their time for hundreds of community events each year, and the company itself gave generously. 

Aloha’s employees weren’t just good people like those you find throughout the airline industry. They were warm, wonderful people who shared a unique spirit of compassion and caring for customers and co-workers. We call it the Aloha Spirit. I could 

say more about them but let me show you. 

As a testament to these fine people, let me share with you the U.S. Department 

of Transportation’s most recent air travel consumer report, which came out just last 

week. 

Since it began monthly reports in April 2006, Aloha Airlines has consistently been 

one of the Nation’s best airlines for punctuality, baggage delivery, fewest cancellations and fewest customer complaints. Last week’s DOT report placed Aloha in the 

Number One position for on-time performance and Number One for fewest customer 

complaints. 

There may be other airlines serving Hawaii but there will never be another like 

Aloha Airlines. 

Thank you for your kind attention. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Banmiller. I realize 

it was not easy testimony, but I thank you for the record. 

Our next witness is Mr. Charles Willis, Chairman of the Board 

of Island Air. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. WILLIS IV, OWNER AND 

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, ISLAND AIR, ACCOMPANIED BY 

LESLEY KANESHIRO, CFO, ISLAND AIR 

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and also Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to have Ms. 

Kaneshiro and myself address you. 

I would like to begin by saying that I echo Mr. Banmiller’s sentiments emphatically. I certainly have known the gentleman for 

many, many years. I have been around the airline business my 

whole life. 

I just want to give you a brief, sort of where we were, where we 

are, and where we are going. 

29 

Island Air is a regional airline that has provided service within 

the State of Hawaii for 27 years. Between 2004 and the first half 

of 2006, the company expanded significantly by adding eight nonstop routes and over 150 employees. We complemented the jet service and did not compete directly with either Aloha or Hawaiian, 

and we carried roughly 14 percent of the market. 

In early 2006, we brought in the modern and fuel-efficient Bombardier Q400 aircraft, which we still believe is the right aircraft for 

the market. 

Go Airlines started service and initiated a fare war on the Islands at $1, $9, $19, and $29, and even free tickets. No airline or 

aircraft type makes money or breaks even at those prices. 

Where we are currently: Since 2006, we have reduced our workforce by over 150 employees statewide. That is 40 percent. To date, 

we have lost approximately $5 million. We have ceased nonstop 

service in eight neighbor Island markets and have been unable to 

reinstate lost service. We reduced total scheduled flights by 38 percent. We have closed freight service to and from Lihue, Kona, 

Maui, and Hilo. We have realized a 30 percent reduction in our 

revenues and experienced an 80 percent increase in fuel cost per 

gallon. 

We are being squeezed on the bottom by the FAR 135 single-engine airplane carriers who are semi-regulated and not subject to 

the same regulatory requirements and airport fees as we are. We 

are also squeezed on the top by the mammoth airlines, Hawaiian, 

who operate trans-Pacific flights and, thus, can absorb and transfer 

those costs over a larger system. 

Implications of the Aloha bankruptcy: You could possibly end up 

with one strong airline in the marketplace, Go with their viability 

in question right now in a press release that was just issued yesterday. A consolidation of carriers has resulted in massive job cuts, 

fewer choices, with resulting economics, as well as a reduction or 

cessation of service to many communities. 

Without assistance Island Air will be marginalized with a potential reduction or elimination of service to small communities and 

point-to-point markets. 

The plan going forward: Our intent is to hire laid-off Island Air 

and Aloha employees and reinstate lost service to the eight market 

pairs that we previously serviced and subsequently deserted due to 

the fare wars. We are further interested in adding more point-topoint routes as scheduled service, for example, Kamuela, Barbers 

Point, Hana, and Kalaupapa. 

We are presently negotiating with aircraft manufacturers to 

bring in up to three Dash–8–400s before the summer and bring 

back the Bombardier Q400s by mid to late summer or earlier if 

support is provided and demand is warranted. We want to complement and provide service where demand for jets is not cost effective. 

How you can assist is to show immediate support of the loan 

guaranty bill, HB–509, and the aviation fuel tax exemption from 

GE [General Excise] tax, HB–2860, in the Hawaii State Legislature. I believe it passed the Senate 2 days ago and is off to the 

House. Time is of the essence. 

30 

We need an inter-island cooperation agreement between ourselves and the existing incumbents to stabilize and to be able to reinstate service, rehire employees, as well as reclaim a modern and 

safe aircraft. 

Understand the seriousness of the air travel plight in Hawaii: 

The increase in unemployment, lack of service to rural communities within the State, potential of future reduction in air carriers 

in Hawaii. 

Mr. Chairman, we need your support now. This is not an Aloha 

type situation. But if it is not rectified, we certainly will face greater challenges in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be more than happy to answer any questions at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Willis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. WILLIS IV, OWNER, HAWAII ISLAND AIR, INC. 

Dear Senator Inouye and Honorable Committee Members: 

My name is Charles Willis IV, and I am the Owner of Hawaii Island Air, Inc. 

dba Island Air. We are a regional airline that operates within the State of Hawaii. 

In today’s market of rising prices all airlines are faced with the challenge of covering costs and meeting customers expectations. The recent inter-island fare wars, 

the conduct of which is currently subject to litigation has resulted in a dramatic and 

severe loss of revenues to inter-island carriers. This is coupled with increasing fuel 

costs has resulted in significant losses by all the inter-island carriers. 

The results of the fare wars and increase in costs have caused great hardship to 

Island Air and to those employees who were the casualty of workforce reduction, 

and a terrible disservice to all of Hawaii’s residents and visitors. Since the fare wars 

began in 2006, Island Air has: 

• Ceased non-stop services in eight neighbor Island markets and have been unable to reinstate service to those markets. 

• Reduced total scheduled flights by 38 percent. 

• Closed freight service to and from Lihue, Kona, Maui and Hilo. 

• Reduced its workforce by over 150 employees statewide (40 percent). 

• Realized a 30 percent reduction of revenues. 

• Experienced an 80 percent increase in fuel cost per gallon. 

These factors have caused financial instabilities in the marketplace resulting in 

the reduction of services that Island Air can offer. 

The unfortunate closure of Aloha Airlines provides Island Air with the opportunity to position itself in the marketplace to expand routes and service where demand exists. 

Thank you for allowing Island Air to present this testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Willis. 

Ms. Kaneshiro, do you have anything to add? 

Ms. KANESHIRO. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

And now may I call on the President and CEO of the Air Transport Association, Mr. May? 

STATEMENT OF JAMES C. MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always an honor to be 

before you, and Senator Smith, it is a delight to be with you as well 

today. 

I do not think that I can add a great deal to what has already 

been said this morning, and given the lateness of the hour, I will 

forgo a formal statement. I would like to emphasize a few points 

31 

and suggest to you a couple of at least lead bullets, if not silver bullets, to the circumstances we face as an industry. 

I have great affection for Dave Banmiller. He has been a loyal 

board member of ours and a good personal friend. I have huge affection for the islands of Hawaii. I have been traveling there for 30 

years on vacation every year. 

And I think what has happened there, while it is terrifically unfortunate is also a precursor to what the whole industry faces, as 

has been suggested here already this morning. This industry is 

beset by an $18 billion a year tax bill, principally to the FAA and 

to the TSA. We are beset by $55 billion a year in fuel costs projected for 2008. That is about $14 billion more per year than we 

paid a year ago. That is the equivalent of 330 new fuel-efficient aircraft. That is the equivalent of 440,000 employees. 

And we are taking as an industry all of the dramatic actions that 

you have heard David and Mr. Willis talk about already this morning. We are laying off employees, unfortunately. We are offering 

early retirement to large numbers of employees. We are eliminating some destinations altogether, and those are principally 

smaller destinations. We are cutting frequencies. We are doing everything we can to recoup additional revenue. It has been well publicized. Some of the revenue measures that the carriers are pursuing for additional fees for bags and so on and so forth. And the 

unfortunate reality is that we have cut, through previous bankruptcies and the loss of some $35 billion as an industry early on 

in this century, most of that low-hanging fruit, if you will, and 

there is very little room or fat to cut in the operations. 

And the principal factor for that, as I said a minute ago, is fuel. 

It is overwhelmingly our number one cost center today. Yesterday 

New York Harbor crude, which is a good benchmark of what we 

have to do in this industry, hit $150 a barrel—1-5-0. And we were 

paying just a few short years ago $20–$25 a barrel. It is outrageous 

and it is extraordinary. 

I would suggest to you there are three or four things that this 

Committee can pursue that would be of short-term or immediate 

benefit to the circumstances we find ourselves in. 

First and foremost, I would urge you to ask the Administration 

not to continue to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when prices 

are as high as they are. We have a more than adequate reserve in 

play today. I think the number is 70 billion barrels of fuel in that 

reserve today. And yet we continue to fill that at today’s prices 

which are outrageously high. It makes no economic sense or security sense whatsoever. 

The second thing I would recommend that this committee consider urging the Administration to do is to release about 10 million 

barrels from that SPR. That all by itself is not going to have a 

huge impact on oil prices, but I think it sends a signal to the speculators that they are likely to get short and that this administration 

will take action to try and drive prices down. And I think it will 

have some kind of meaningful effect. 

At the same time, there is a New England Heating Oil Reserve 

that is about 2 million barrels. The crisis time for heating in New 

England has passed for this calendar year, and I think they could 

32 

release that into the market to make a very real difference in supply. 

The next thing—and it is not a new subject to this Committee 

by any circumstances—but do no harm. Try and make sure that 

the TSA and the CBP and others do not continue to add additional 

burdens onto this industry which are terribly burdensome and are, 

quite frankly, the responsibility of the Federal Government to 

begin with. 

The third thing is pass meaningful FAA reform, and by meaningful FAA reform, I would encourage this Committee not to do—you 

have done well in drafting that legislation and passing that legislation out of Committee thus far, but we need to make sure that before it goes further, it has a good, clear, clean, balanced, and fair 

funding formula. The vast majority of that $18 billion a year that 

we spend in taxes as an industry and that our passengers are 

charged is a direct result of the fees that we pay to the FAA, and 

those need to be rebalanced. That in turn, I think, will yield a 

much more modern and positive air traffic control system that allows us, as Mr. Banmiller said, to fly more efficiently and productively, cutting our fuel costs to the extent that we can. 

Mr. Chairman, we have a long history of working with this Committee under your leadership and that of Co-Chairman Stevens, 

and we look forward to continuing to work with you. We will be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. May follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES C. MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

I appreciate your urgent concerns about the future of air service in Hawaii. Air 

transportation is essential to the economic health and social fabric of the state and 

of all Hawaiians. Without a question, the shutdown of passenger service and auction 

of its air cargo business by Aloha Airlines is painful, not only for its employees and 

their families, but also for the overall ease of travel and shipping throughout the 

islands. People depend on air travel to meet their needs and support the state’s vibrant tourism industry in a fundamental, unique way. 

Truth be told, my affinity for Hawaii goes back some 25 years. My wife and I visit 

Hawaii every year and have traveled extensively among the islands. It is hard for 

me personally to imagine a more idyllic paradise, so I am keenly interested in the 

state’s well-being. 

Although I would like to reassure you that the recent service disruption is nothing 

more than a passing anomaly in an otherwise stable airline industry, nothing could 

be further from the truth. Some analysts view Hawaii as just the beginning of a 

sea change in the Nation’s air transportation network. 

And change will come because U.S. airlines are facing overwhelming odds: U.S. 

airlines’ significant increases in taxes, fees, security burdens and environmental 

costs; ongoing labor concerns; staggering capital costs for new aircraft and infrastructure improvements; and unprecedented fuel prices. From 2001 to 2006, the industry lost $35 billion and more than 20 carriers filed for bankruptcy (including four 

of the six large network carriers), employee benefits and numbers were cut; planes 

were parked; and the industry scrimped to cut costs. 

In 2007, the future looked somewhat brighter. With a modest profit, the airlines 

seemed to have turned the corner. But in 2008, our shaky recovery hit a brick wall: 

the economy deteriorated and jet fuel prices went through the roof. Today the forecast is grim. 

Record-high fuel prices were the breaking point for some airlines. This year the 

industry likely will pay $55 billion for fuel—$14 billion more than last year—a staggering 35 percent increase. That’s the equivalent of employing 440,000 airline workers full-time or purchasing 330 new wide-body airplanes. Last week, jet fuel averVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:07 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 074892 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\74892.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
33 

aged $135 per barrel—a 30 percent-plus increase since January. In Hawaii, some 

pay a premium for jet fuel that increases the financial hit. 

Mr. Chairman, yesterday brought even more discouraging news. The price of 

home heating oil in the New York Harbor a well-accepted price marker for jet fuel— 

jumped to over $150 per barrel. That’s a record that shocked even the most seasoned 

analysts. 

With the brutal jet fuel costs and elimination of the low-hanging, ‘‘cost-saving’’ 

fruit gone, airlines large and small again are forced to take painful steps that have 

painful consequences for their customers, employees and shareholders. Airlines are 

literally fighting for survival as they: 

• File for Bankruptcy: Three carriers filed in the past 2 weeks—Aloha Airlines, 

ATA Airlines and Skybus. Champion Air, a charter operator, will stop service 

at the end of May. After 61 years and facing severe financial difficulties, Aloha 

shut down passenger service—laying off some 2,000 employees and terminating 

aircraft and ground-support leases. The impact on Hawaii’s economy, its passengers and shippers, is abrupt and widespread. 

• Cut Employees: Delta offered early retirement to 30,000 employees—half of its 

workforce—to eventually reduce headcount by 2,000; American and Northwest 

announced hiring freezes. 

• Charge for Amenities: Carriers are imposing additional fees for extra and oversize bags; telephone reservations, onboard meals; unaccompanied minor service; 

and pet transport. Some carriers also have added fuel surcharges, particularly 

on international routes. 

• Cut Unprofitable Service: United, Delta, Northwest and others are parking 

planes; carriers are reducing service on marginal routes and eliminating service 

on unprofitable routes. Delta will end service to several small communities and 

US Airways cut 30 percent of its overnight flights into Las Vegas. If demand 

softens as the economy weakens, more unprofitable routes may be cut. 

None of these changes are popular with our passengers. As airlines try to pass on 

their increased operating costs, the number and volume of complaints will jump 

even higher. 

In short, we’re doing everything we can to get ourselves out of this tailspin. But 

there is a limit to how much more we can cut costs and increase revenue. 

The Nation’s economy depends on a vibrant national air transportation network 

with secure access to a stable, rationally priced fuel supply. That is not what we 

have today. The only solution is for the Federal Government to develop a national 

energy policy and a forward-looking aviation policy. As these policies takes shape, 

we’ve asked the administration to do what it can now to alleviate the pressure on 

fuel prices. We’ve asked the Department of Energy to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that takes fuel out of the marketplace and increases costs, and for 

a release from the Home Heating Oil Reserve to remove the premium for jet fuel. 

In closing, record-high fuel costs touch passengers and shippers in ways they do 

not like—the people of Hawaii will feel the demise of Aloha as their everyday lives 

are impacted. One key component of the national air transportation system has 

been hit hard. The Federal Government must take some bold steps very soon, or 

the entire system will suffer. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. May. Your suggestions, as they relate to the reserve system, I think are deserving 

of further inquiry. If I may, I would have my staff call upon your 

staff to see if hearings are justified. 

Mr. MAY. Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to participate. We 

would be happy to suggest some experts in the area of fuel. It is 

not, as Senator Smith suggested, a pure silver bullet, but it is certainly something that will have an impact. 

When we are averaging $135 a barrel in this industry—and that 

is because the so-called crack spread, the refining premium, Jet A, 

is so terribly, terribly high. It has gone up just as much on a percentage basis as the cost of the raw product to begin with. And it 

is those middle distillates in that barrel that are so terribly expenVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:07 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 074892 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\74892.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
34 

sive. Diesel fuel here, if you happen to drive a diesel car—and the 

truckers I am sure you are hearing from—it is just amazing. 

And anything that can be done is a marginal benefit because we 

have lost five carriers. We are going to lose more. Small communities are going to lose service. 50-seat RJ’s are the least efficient 

planes in the fleet. So Bend, Oregon and other places are going to 

be very much at risk. And we cannot help it with fuel being as expensive as it is today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. May. 

Our final member of the panel is Mr. Fukunaga. Do you have 

anything to add here? 

STATEMENT OF BARRY FUKUNAGA, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE 

OF GOVERNOR LINDA LINGLE, STATE OF HAWAII 

Mr. FUKUNAGA. Thank you, Chair Inouye and Senator Smith. I 

do realize that we were a late addition to the panel, and I do not 

have written testimony as a result. But I do appreciate the opportunity to join this august body and to appear before you. 

My prior experience was I was a director at the Hawaii State Department of Transportation before my current position. In my earlier life, I did 25 years at the international airport, 15 of which I 

was the manager there. 

The situation that we see today is certainly profound. It is not 

like anything that I have ever experienced in my time at the airport. And I certainly sympathize with the plight that is faced by 

the air carriers. 

When all of this came about, we certainly had a real concern 

about the impact that the shutdown of a carrier like Aloha would 

have on our State, simply as an island economy. We are so dependent on connectivity by air. As a result, we quickly rode to help the 

employees and certainly the stranded passengers, and I think the 

industry as a whole in Hawaii, our travel partners, made that possible for us to do that. 

But looking forward, we do not see the ability to really entice or 

encourage a significant amount of increase, and that is an area of 

concern for us. 

Nevertheless, I think we really need to work closely with the carriers that do service our islands so that we can continue to embrace 

and embody travel opportunities for those not only who reside in 

our state, but also those that come to visit us. 

The Administration has certainly been concerned about the reliance on air alone. So we introduced the support of Hawaii’s 

Superferry, and hopefully we will be able to offer at least options 

and alternatives, if they can be successful in providing their trade. 

The Airports Division has taken on an airport modernization program in collaboration with the air carriers that operate in Hawaii. 

It is a $2.3 billion effort. Certainly it is intended to not only upgrade and improve our facilities, but to make it easier so that the 

carriers and operators and the users of our facilities find themselves able to do so more efficiently and thereby reduce some of 

their operating costs. 

It is important that we continue to recognize that our system is 

unique in terms of airports. We operate all of our major airports 

throughout the State. We are unique in that respect and, as a reVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:07 Jul 03, 2012 Jkt 074892 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\74892.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
35 

sult, have been able to provide service to our neighbor islands over 

and beyond what they would otherwise be able to do if they were 

left only to themselves and the traffic that they generate. 

As a result, we continue to retain a differential in our fees and 

charges to our inter-island air carriers such that they can be able 

to operate at a lower cost than what would otherwise be the norm 

because we can subsidize these operations through the activity that 

is conducted through Honolulu International Airport. 

We provide a preferential hold room price. It is about 64 percent 

of what the others would be charged using that same facility for 

inter-island carriers, and the same thing with a joint facility utilization charge. These things, I think, certainly help and encourage 

that. 

And yet, we see the reduction in inter-island airlift primarily because, as was mentioned earlier, of the direct flight by overseas 

carriers to our neighbor islands. Yet, we still need to maintain that 

connectivity between our islands for our residents and for the visitors that have the opportunity to move between our islands. And 

we certainly would like to see more support in that area, and it is 

certainly something that we would be involved with. 

It was mentioned that the EAS service does benefit three of our 

smaller communities, but what we experienced with the EAS program is that the company that was awarded the bid essentially indicated that they no longer needed the subsidy. That action alone 

resulted in their raising rates, and we saw some drop-off in service. 

There have been numerous complaints about that activity, the fact 

that they did not provide the kind of frequency that was anticipated or expected. And that creates a problem. 

The fact that they are providing service means that the DOT will 

not open up a bid opportunity again. And we feel that it was important to do that. We need to provide service to these communities 

that would otherwise be held hostage without it. 

It was mentioned early in a news release that the cost to go to 

Hana was equivalent to the same travel between Hawaii and the 

West Coast. Now, that certainly cannot be, and that is a problem. 

Communities like Hana, which only have a roadway to connect 

them, and a long one at that, depend on it. The hotel there provides employment to a remote community that helps sustain that 

particular economy. So it is important that we try to get that kind 

of service. As small as it may be, it talks about the problems that 

we face and the challenges that we encounter in trying to maintain 

and provide for our communities throughout our State. 

So going forward, I think it was mentioned about the pending 

legislation. We are coming down to a crunch where it is going into 

committees, and we need to see these bits of legislation passed. We 

had mentioned to the State legislature that the loan agreement 

would need some adjustments. There is no provision in our current 

administrative budget to provide the kind of funding that would be 

needed to underwrite these loans. We need about 25 percent of 

what the loan would be offering. The legislature will have to make 

that adjustment to the state’s budget so that we can do that. 

Second, the fuel surcharge that would be levied on our inter-island carriers—we are supportive of that measure as well. 

36 

So the Governor has always made it known that she is interested 

and open to exploring any possibility that is out there in terms of 

programs, but we would do so judiciously and in concert and discussion with our operating partners to make sure that what we do 

put into play does not adversely or inadvertently create a problem 

bigger than the solution that it seems to want to offer. 

So with that, I certainly appreciate the opportunity again for 

being here and having the chance to join this group. Certainly I am 

available for questions. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Fukunaga. 

Now, if I may, I would like to ask Mr. Banmiller a few questions. 

Mr. BANMILLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is Aloha Airlines doing anything to assist employees in transitioning to other employment? 

Mr. BANMILLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I discussed this issue last 

week with the CEO of First Hawaiian Bank and the mayor. And 

there was a job fair that was held yesterday at the Blaisdell Center. And I am pleased to report that there were almost 200 employer groups set up there to interview our employees, I think, in 

part a testament to the quality of our employee population. And 50 

businesses were actually turned down because they ran out of 

space, and last reports were 1,600 people were in there interviewing and talking about employment. 

We had separately set up resume services in that same facility 

to assist people in developing their resumes. 

We have separately been in touch with the State Department of 

Labor and have set up separate groups to work directly with our 

employees to educate them on things like health care, COBRA, and 

there is a separate website that has grown out of the job fair to 

assist employees in linking them up with employers. 

So we feel, even under these difficult circumstances, Mr. Chairman, that there is a lot of very positive activity going on in terms 

of the employment of these fine people. 

The CHAIRMAN. So are you confident that most, if not all, of your 

employees will have new employment? 

Mr. BANMILLER. Sir, that word ‘‘confidence’’ I used to have more 

of until I got into the past couple years in this business, but I think 

the answer is yes. Between some requirements that Hawaiian Airlines is going to have, coupled with a fairly low unemployment 

level, particularly in certain of the locations, our people will be 

mostly absorbed. And it is our job to facilitate that. 

The CHAIRMAN. In your statement, you indicated that cargo operations are continuing. 

Mr. BANMILLER. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is your intention to continue or to sell this? 

Mr. BANMILLER. In the current process, all of the assets of Aloha 

Airlines are up for sale through the Chapter 11 process. When you 

look at the four divisions that we operated, cargo was the most 

profitable, in part because we were able to manage our own fuel 

situation and our customers. The second was contract services 

where we service other carriers. That is modestly breakeven and 

employs about 1,000 people. 

The passenger service inter-island and the ones on the mainland 

were both most vulnerable to fuel and Mesa’s activity inter-island. 

37 

As a result, when we ran out of money, we found nobody that was 

willing to support the passenger end of the business. 

We did, however, in terms of our responsibilities to the lenders, 

who now have a focus on the assets of the company, see what we 

needed to do to sell the various assets of the company. If someone 

were to come in during this process, which is going on over the 

next several weeks, supervised by the bankruptcy court, and wishes to buy the entire operation, including the name, that is certainly 

a possibility. I do not see that indication, but it is a possibility. 

There are many people interested in the cargo operation. We 

have maybe 40 interested entities of which I would characterize 

five as extremely serious. And their view would be to step in and 

take over the cargo operation as we run it today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you considering any prospects for future passenger operations? 

Mr. BANMILLER. We are, Chairman. The problem is with the conditions in the marketplace and the subprime problem, the access 

to money, the investor that we found several years ago we do not 

believe is out there. We could be surprised. We still are having 

talks with several people, but I am not optimistic. 

The other was strategic opportunity with other airlines, and 

frankly, in those discussions the airline executives have said to us, 

in addition to the fare war inter-island, the cost of fuel is such a 

problem for the industry in general that where several years ago 

joining forces with us might have been an opportunity, it really is 

not today. So we hold out some hope, Chairman, but we see no active participants on the passenger side at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. You have heard Mr. May in his opening remarks 

about the Reserve. 

Mr. BANMILLER. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree with him? 

Mr. BANMILLER. Yes, I do, and especially at the price point that 

we are looking at today, those of us in the industry going through 

the daily problems of keeping the ship afloat and having to furlough people, combine operations, and faced with all of our daily 

challenges, to put it frankly, look at an administration that does 

not seem as sensitive to our current plight and to hear not just the 

woes of Aloha Airlines, but within the industry, and look the other 

way, I personally do not understand it. And I support Jim May in 

his observations and I suspect every airline CEO would say the 

same. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have further questions, but I will yield now to 

Senator Smith. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Banmiller, I want to make sure as a preface to my questions 

you do not take this as any criticism of you or your airline, but I 

am going to be asking these based on my own desire to learn more 

about the problem of deregulation. 

You made the comment that you started with TWA. You shared 

counters with Eastern and Pan Am. These were great marquees of 

my boyhood memory, and they are gone. Are they gone because of 

deregulation? 

Mr. BANMILLER. I think if you were carrier-specific, it would be 

better to isolate the dilemmas. As an example, you can put the 

38 

blame on certain carriers on management, ownership changes, aggressive behavior, and mergers. You need to almost go by carrier. 

Eastern was a combination of all kinds of things that I would not 

necessarily lay on deregulation. 

Senator SMITH. But are you arguing for us to re-regulate? 

Mr. BANMILLER. I would argue a revisit of the regulation process. 

Total re-regulation I do not endorse. I do not think that toothpaste, 

as they say, can be put back in the tube. I think for the State of 

Hawaii, it was a problem because I do not think it was geographically considered. I think there is an answer between regulation and 

deregulation. 

When I said we deregulated revenue, the markets were open. 

You could go anywhere and it was crazy in 1978–1979. But nobody 

looked at the expense columns. What is it going to cost? What are 

the labor agreements? What are the agreements and responsibilities with the pensions? And as a result, we all focused on opening 

up markets and not the expense side, and some of the carriers that 

lost were foolhardy in those early days. 

Senator SMITH. Well, to that point, Jim May, I am from Pendleton, Oregon. We used to have United Airlines fly in there and 

fly empty planes in and out of there, and we loved having United 

Airlines there. 

Mr. MAY. They are missing one of the great rodeos in America. 

Senator SMITH. And it still is. It has been filled by another carrier and occasionally a second one, and so we have air service still. 

But I have wondered in my own mind. I am not a re-regulator. 

I will state that right up front. I have made a list of your suggestions. I think that they are excellent. But you also said no new burdens. Re-regulation would represent, I think, a significant additional burden. 

Mr. MAY. Senator Smith, I would beg to differ ever so slightly 

with my good friend, Mr. Banmiller, in that I would argue that airlines remain one of the most highly regulated businesses in the 

world today. We have had prices deregulated. We have had routes 

deregulated, but I think it stops right about there. I can go down 

the list of the amount of regulation that we have with the FAA and 

the DOT and the TSA and the CBP and the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, and we can go right on 

down the line. There are very few things that happen at an airline 

that do not require some governmental supervision or responsibility. So I do not think that simply re-regulating is the answer. 

I would suggest that a pretty good case could be made for further 

deregulating this industry and get us out of the business of some 

of the responsibilities in the areas of security, for example, rebalance the equation on FAA funding, things of that sort, and I think 

that would go more to reducing the economic burden. 

Senator SMITH. Well, how about as it relates to—you know, we 

give slots at airports. We give airspace and we do that federally. 

How about getting a flight to Hana that keeps Hana in business 

and Pendleton, Oregon in business? In exchange, should there be 

some sort of re-regulation in that sense for the rural folks in the 

Hawaiian islands to continue to have some measure of protection 

in terms of passenger transportation? 

39 

Mr. MAY. We have always supported the EAS program, and I 

think this committee needs to continue to take a hard look at it 

and see how it can be improved because it is always going to be 

a very tough economic put, if you will, for a lot of particularly small 

communities. I love Hana. It is one of the garden spots of this 

world. 

Senator SMITH. I spent my honeymoon there. I think the same 

thing. 

Mr. MAY. So we both share that affection. But it is going to be 

a difficult place to maintain economically viable service on a regular basis without some form of government assistance or subsidy. 

Mr. BANMILLER. Senator Smith, may I just add one comment? 

Senator SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. BANMILLER. When I said deregulation versus regulation, I 

agree with Jim May. My point was how do you, in our situation, 

address everybody I could talk to about the predatory pricing activity and everybody said we cannot do anything about it. So somewhere between the Department of Justice, the Department of 

Transportation, all the regulators, there must be an answer in here 

somewhere other than we cannot do anything about it. And now I 

sit here before you. 

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask one more question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Please. 

Senator SMITH. Let me just say up front, again so you do not 

take this in any way personally. I am not trying to insult Aloha 

Airlines. I have used it many times and have affection for it as 

well. 

But I wonder if you could go back now, go back to 1978, are there 

things that Aloha should have been doing to get ready for a Mesa 

Airlines and Go? I mean, the mix of airplanes? Were there contracts that were agreed to that just simply were unsustainable in 

a deregulated environment? 

Mr. BANMILLER. Senator, I will be honest and say I wish I had 

that answer. I am sure, between 1978 and now, the company could 

have done some things differently like any company. 

Senator SMITH. Well, no company, in defense of Aloha, can deal 

with these kinds of fuel increases. As far as I am concerned, you 

are off the hook on that basis alone. 

But as you look back at it—it just seems to me that we are in 

a world now where oil is just going to get shorter and shorter and 

shorter because we have these huge emerging middle classes of the 

biggest populated nations on Earth, and they are buying cars and 

they are buying planes and they are joining the industrialized 

world. And it is a resource that, at least in our country, we do not 

believe in tapping anymore. 

Mr. BANMILLER. I think what happened in 1978 with deregulation, there was something called the Public Utilities Commission. 

We had it in California. I think perhaps the company, if they had, 

should have been more vociferous in saying we do not have roads. 

We do not have rail. And when you are in the continental United 

States, you view transportation differently. 

When I went to Hawaii, I had a different view of transportation 

than I do now because the only way to get to each one of those islands really is to fly. The ferry does not really work comfortably 

40 

and it does not promote commerce. Having the ability perhaps for 

Hawaii not to have jumped into deregulation in the way that it did, 

that probably should have been visited a bit differently. 

Senator SMITH. Is Go Airlines making money? 

Mr. BANMILLER. No, sir. 

Senator SMITH. Have you got a case? It sounds to me like you 

have a case in terms of predatory pricing, I mean, if you are giving 

a seat away for 9 bucks and fuel costs being what they are. Are 

they filling their seats? 

Mr. BANMILLER. On advice of counsel, I am going to give you a 

modified remark. A 50-seat airplane does not work in the islands 

because of the high cycles. We fly 20–30 minute trips. That is not 

the airplane that works. So in addition to that, we estimated—and 

they have now admitted to losses, $20 million–$25 million a year. 

That is on four airplanes. 

Senator SMITH. Have they added seats, flights since you have left 

the market? 

Mr. BANMILLER. They have added some flights. Yes. 

Senator SMITH. Have their prices gone up? 

Mr. BANMILLER. They still have $49 fares, although I believe 

their inventory of $49 is probably going down. And I suspect within 

the next 6 months, the fares in the State of Hawaii, the average 

fares, are going to be up substantially. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Can I ask a few questions, Mr. Fukunaga? Listening to your comments, am I correct to assume that Governor Lingle will support 

and sign into law the airline loan guaranty program and the tax 

exemption for jet fuel? 

Mr. FUKUNAGA. On the tax exemption, she would. We supported 

that piece of legislation. We recognize the application to our interisland operators is certainly advantageous. 

On the loan guaranty, we asked the legislature to make some adjustments so that such a bill could be made viable. In other words, 

there is no funding that was provided for it. Certainly it is not in 

our administrative budget. And so they would have to provide that 

for us so that we can have a mechanism that would be capable of 

supporting loans. Again, your comments earlier about lenders recognizing the plight of our carriers to make those loans available 

certainly would be the other half of the dimension there. But she 

certainly is supportive. 

The CHAIRMAN. In your testimony, you spoke of EAS communities having reduced service and receiving a lot of complaints. 

Have you transmitted these complaints to DOT? 

Mr. FUKUNAGA. We are not allowed to do that, but we did mention to Representative Hirono and had her put her staff in contact 

with the source of the complaints so that they could work that directly because it is an issue that is outside of our jurisdiction. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you say that the Governor cannot communicate with DOT? 

Mr. FUKUNAGA. On the issue of asking them to get involved. 

That is my understanding, and that is the reason why we took this 

other alternative approach. 

41 

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the law prohibits our Governor from 

communicating with DOT? 

Mr. FUKUNAGA. I believe that we cannot get involved in the EAS 

process. It is not one that the State is involved in. And so we have 

to just put the parties together to make sure they understand the 

impact of the situation that we are experiencing. 

Essentially the request was to allow the USDOT to reopen the 

bidding opportunity even though there is service being provided, 

and I think because that service is being provided, the requirement 

is being met in terms of having service. The question is not so 

much the service but the quality of the service and the type of service. I think that is the thing that is creating some difficulty. 

Hana is one example. Kalaupapa is maybe even more difficult. 

Obviously, the patients and the residents who are there depend on 

a lot greater reliability and reasonable cost in terms of being serviced. So we would certainly like to see that issue be addressed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Secretary Reynolds, is the Governor of the State 

of Hawaii prohibited from communicating with you on matters of 

EAS complaints? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I am not familiar with any restriction from our 

end. We routinely seek the views of local officials, including State 

officials in many cases, whenever we are involved in a particular 

Essential Air Service case. 

We are aware of some of the issues at Hana. Congresswoman 

Hirono has brought those to our attention. And we have been working a little bit with the carrier there. Of course, as Mr. Fukunaga 

indicated, the carrier is providing subsidy-free service at this time, 

but we are working with the carrier on some of the issues associated with some of the complaints that we have heard. 

But to your point, I am not familiar with any restrictions on contacting us. I do not believe there are any such restrictions, at least 

on our end. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, does your Department monitor 

predatory practices in the aviation business? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We do not actively monitor predatory pricing in 

the airline industry. In the past, airlines have come to us and 

brought us what they feel—allegations of predatory pricing in the 

past. But we do not actively monitor fares at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, when they do submit a complaint, what do 

you do about it? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. It depends on the particular type of complaint. 

Usually an air carrier will provide its allegations and then provide 

evidence and other information to support it. Depending on what 

is happening, we will look into it and we will speak with the other 

carriers involved if there is an actual investigation going on. 

I will note that, of course, when it comes to predatory pricing, we 

share jurisdiction over anticompetitive behavior with the Justice 

Department. And when it comes to taking formal actions, the Justice Department has tended to be the point agency in these cases. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Banmiller, did you share your concerns 

about predatory pricing with the DOT? 

Mr. BANMILLER. Yes, I did, Chairman. I met with both Secretaries of Transportation on this issue over the past two and a half 

years, and I met with lawyers from the Department of Justice. 

42 

The CHAIRMAN. What was the reaction or response? 

Mr. BANMILLER. We will look into it, and that is all I heard. We 

followed up on several occasions through various legislators, and 

the comment back continued to be, including people from the DOT, 

well, predatory pricing is very hard to define and our interests are 

for the consumer and low fares. So I did not get very far. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, I do not know if you can respond 

to this, but did you consider the report submitted by Aloha Airlines 

worthy of your consideration? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We were familiar with the allegations, as Mr. 

Banmiller indicated. He met with officials on several occasions. 

Further information or evidence I am not aware was ever provided 

to the Department. I was not in the conversations that he had, so 

I cannot speak to what went on exactly. 

In this particular case, there is litigation going on, obviously, of 

the nature of the claim that Aloha is pursuing on their own. So I 

do not want to get into too many details. 

On its face, this is an issue that is very different from any other 

predatory pricing claim that we have ever seen before because in 

other cases, wherever there were investigations, it was a new entrant coming in and then complaining about an incumbent carrier 

lowering prices and dumping capacity and trying to drive the new 

carrier out, where in this case, it is the incumbent that has the 

issue. And routinely when air carriers go into new markets, they 

offer discounted fares in order to attract business. So at least initially, it did not have a look of the traditional cases that we have 

seen in the past. 

The CHAIRMAN. Because one of the reasons for bankruptcy, as 

cited by Mr. Banmiller, was predatory pricing, it is a serious matter. Mr. Secretary, can your Department provide this Committee 

with a report on the complaint submitted by Mr. Banmiller and 

your response to it? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, I can, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much. 

In the years I have been on this Committee, I have been led to 

believe that most of the airlines on this globe are either fully or 

partially owned by the host governments. The ownership interest 

may be 5 percent or it may be 100 percent, as in Saudi Arabia. 

What is the situation with the United States? Does the Government of the United States have any ownership interest in any airlines other than the military? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I do not believe so except perhaps for interests 

that the PBGC might actually have in a few carriers. I know they 

have had interests in the assets of various carriers. But the Federal Government, other than when there were the loan guarantees 

following September 11, there were some warrants and other interests held in U.S. carriers which eventually were redeemed after the 

loans were repaid. So I am not aware of any active investment or 

interest on behalf of the Federal Government unless there is residual interest in something, for example, at the PBGC. 

The CHAIRMAN. If that is the situation, is there a level playing 

field between international airlines and U.S. airlines? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think, for the most part, there are level playing 

fields in the most active markets. We always have the opportunity 

43 

to go after foreign air carriers if we feel that there are unfair competitive practices, and if there is improper government involvement 

in a particular air carrier that is affecting service, our carriers are 

not shy about bringing those sorts of issues to our attention. And 

we will usually go to the home governments of any of these carriers 

and try to deal with these situations. I am not familiar with any 

in the recent past having a major issue there, at least dealing with 

areas where the U.S. carrier is competing with the foreign carrier. 

A lot of the heaviest competition is over the Atlantic. Most of 

those carriers are privately held, for the most part, and even the 

EC has been taking steps against state investment and involvement in the carriers to reduce that as they compete amongst themselves. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you consider that the load placed upon 

the operations costs by the Government of the United States is proportionately higher than what other governments place upon their 

airlines? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I do not know offhand the comparative burdens 

of different governments. I imagine it probably varies widely. I do 

not know if Mr. May might even have any insight on that, but offhand I do not know. We would have to look into that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. May, do you think we have got a level playing field here? 

Mr. MAY. No, sir, I do not. 

I think we could even things out, but a lot of it is competitive 

in its marketplace. One of the areas where the European carriers 

have a distinct advantage, probably as much as 30 percent right 

now, is on fuel because they are paying for it in Euros. We are paying in dollars, and the dollar is significantly devalued. So they have 

got a real advantage there. 

I think that we are happy to compete internationally and will do 

well internationally in most areas. I acknowledge that there are 

foreign government investments in some carriers around the world, 

some very extensive. But we are happy to compete trans-Atlantic, 

trans-Pacific here in the United States. 

I think there is a lower burden imposed by governments in terms 

of taxes in many countries than there are here. I think ours are 

probably as great as anywhere you will find on the globe in terms 

of what carriers are paying. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much. 

What role does the Department have in enforcement when you 

come across predatory pricing? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. As I mentioned earlier, we will take complaints 

frequently—or not frequently. In the past, we have had complaints 

from carriers, and we have looked into the matter, as I mentioned. 

We will take the information, evidence that is provided by the carrier that feels it has been affected by the behavior. We will then 

frequently talk to the carrier that is accused of predation. And frequently our involvement has had an effect in the past. 

Again, we have not actually had a formal predation claim in the 

last decade, and even informally on predation, the allegations of 

Aloha are the only ones we have had in the last 10 years. So it is 

not really a common occurrence at this time. I cannot speak to who 

44 

may have complained to Justice about behavior, but just in terms 

of what we do. 

Again, we share enforcement responsibilities with the Department of Justice, and we will work with them as they move forward 

on cases. In fact, they have only brought one action, and that was 

about 10 years ago. Maybe it was begun a little bit more than that 

against an airline. The Justice Department—a lot of people thought 

they had a very strong case—was not able to prevail in court 

against the carrier in the one case in the last decade and a half 

on predation. 

The CHAIRMAN. I realize that you have not been made fully 

aware of the Aloha Airlines situation, but from what you have 

heard at this hearing, would you consider the allegations worthy of 

study or investigation? Predatory pricing, that is. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Well, we can look into it further. Again, I do not 

have all the information, and since there is a pending lawsuit, I too 

do not want to speculate on evidence that is not, frankly, before me 

or the Department at this point. So, again, I just would resist opining on something I do not really have full information on. 

Again, we will provide a response to you about the allegations 

that were brought to us by Aloha and can talk further on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Willis, do you agree with Mr. Banmiller that 

there was predatory pricing in Hawaii? 

Mr. WILLIS. There is absolutely no question. I can give you or 

your staff numerous examples of it. I mean, we lost almost half of 

our traffic through what Mesa and Go had done. What they did is 

they diluted and diverted our traffic. In fact, their percentage of 

the marketplace actually came mostly from our traffic. It was a 

combination of our traffic and Hawaiian and Aloha’s. 

One thing I just wanted to mention, if I may. Senator Smith had 

mentioned his concern about re-regulation. One thing that might 

be worthy of your consideration to provide some sort of a level playing field in the stabilization in the marketplace would be something similar to what Aloha and Hawaiian did post-9/11, which was 

the inter-island cooperation agreement. Right now, we need stabilization in those markets. Otherwise, you are just going to see a 

monopoly condition present itself. That is number one. 

The second thing is what you had mentioned to Mr. Fukunaga 

about SB–509 because I got the impression that they may not be 

able to support that bill. Right now, lending to airlines is closed. 

That is why that bill is very, very important for the existing carriers in Hawaii to have access to the capital markets. 

I apologize for getting off subject, but it is kind of important to 

address that. 

The CHAIRMAN. And 30 years ago, when this committee considered airline deregulation, after long and lengthy hearings and debates, we took a vote. It was almost unanimous. One vote against. 

I was the one against. When the vote was announced, you can 

imagine the controversy. You know, I felt like an outsider all by 

myself. 

But my concern was that the change was too sudden in deregulation of scheduling and costs, and I suggested to some of my friends 

in other states that if this ever goes through, you may be losing 

business in your state. I recall a little city called Charlestown in 

45 

West Virginia that at one time was receiving nine flights a day, 

and suddenly almost overnight, they got none. 

I cannot tell you whether I did right or wrong, but I think something has to be done, not to re-regulate but maybe we should revisit that. 

Mr. May, you were speaking of a couple of things that we can 

do. Can you just reemphasize it again? 

Mr. MAY. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I think the idea of filling the 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve at today’s prices borders on criminal 

infringement of the rules of economics. 

The CHAIRMAN. Has your organization formally indicated your 

concern to the Government of the United States? 

Mr. MAY. We have not recently done that. I did it during the last 

dust-up over fuel prices, and we asked for both the release and to 

stop filling at current prices then, which were probably about 70 

bucks a barrel. And we were rejected. 

Within the last 3 weeks to 4 weeks, I sent a letter to Secretary 

Bodman asking for a release from the Northeast Home Heating Oil 

Reserve, and I have not received a response from him on that. 

But we got together with our energy committee within the last 

few days, kicked around a series of ideas, some of which are not 

quite ready for prime time, but I would be happy to provide them 

to the Committee. One of the ideas that we came up with is our 

concern that there is a premium involved in the price of a barrel 

of oil today as a result of speculation. There are a lot of exchanges 

operating out there, ISE down in Atlanta and elsewhere. A lot of 

people making a whole lot of money on the price of oil right now. 

If the U.S. Government would exercise a whip hand and release 

from the SPR, increasing supply, arguably driving prices, they 

would not be able to act with such impunity thinking that nobody 

is going to have any impact on pricing. 

So we think a 10 million barrel release would have a dramatic 

effect and would send a signal. We would not want it announced 

in advance. We would like it just to happen. Every now and again, 

if you release some of that oil, that will keep everybody on their 

toes, and I think we would have a more meaningful marketplace 

reflection on price. So those are two ideas. 

The third idea is a balanced funding formula and FAA reauthorization, not a new subject to this Committee. 

And the final idea was to try and encourage that we get the next 

generation air traffic control systems in place as quickly as we can. 

2025 is not going to do it. We have adopted the phrase suggested 

by others. The ‘‘now generation’’ as opposed to next generation is 

what we need because the more efficiently we can fly point-topoint, the more efficiently we can route our aircraft into crowded 

airports and out of crowded airspace, the less fuel we are going to 

be able to burn and the more efficiently we can conduct our operations. 

So those were the four things that I recommended to the Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. From what I gather, you consider these matters 

to be urgent and should be acted upon right away. 

Mr. MAY. Mr. Chairman, I think without question. We have had 

five carriers, including Aloha, go bankrupt since Christmas. I think 

46 

there are others that are very much on the edge. There is no sign 

whatsoever that fuel prices are coming down anytime soon. Most 

of the business plans for our carriers were built on a projection of 

probably $85 oil, maybe $90 oil in some instances, and when you 

look at the impact of the crack spread on top of the price of a barrel, 135 bucks on average is what we are paying right now. And 

that is just unsustainable. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Snowbarger, your agency is an important one for employees. 

You speak of pension guarantees. In making plans for the future, 

do you anticipate more bankruptcies, layoffs, and pension guarantee problems? Is there going to be an increase or decrease? 

Mr. SNOWBARGER. There will be an increase in bankruptcies. We 

have seen a number in industry, for instance, that have gone 

through bankruptcy once that may very well come back like Aloha 

for a second bankruptcy, and maybe they were able to keep their 

pension plans the first time through, maybe not the second time 

through. I think with the credit markets the way they are, with the 

economy the way it is at this point, I think we are going to see an 

increase over the next few years. 

We are sort of a lagging indicator of the economy. We normally 

have an up-tick in the number of plans that we take on maybe 2 

or 3 years after the worst of the economic cycle. So that may not 

hit us this year or next year, but maybe late next year, a couple 

years down the road. 

And it also depends on sort of the cycles within each industry. 

Again, we probably will not take over many more steel plans because there are not many more steel plans left. We have taken over 

a considerable number of the pension plans in the airline industry, 

although there are still more out there that do cause us some concern. 

I think that is the reason Congress provided for extended payment of their contributions in the Pension Protection Act that was 

passed in 2006. But I think anytime you see a troubled industry, 

it is very possible that we will be taking over plans. 

The CHAIRMAN. When you speak of increases in bankruptcies, 

does that apply to the airline industry also? 

Mr. SNOWBARGER. Well, I think it is difficult for me to predict exactly what is going to happen in the industry. I think these gentlemen have given you pretty dire forecasts about what they are facing. I am not an expert on what they are facing, but fuel costs 

alone—I understand that. I am paying more at the pump, and I 

can imagine if that is 45 percent of their costs and the prices are 

not going down, that it will be difficult. I cannot tell you how they 

might react to that. It is possible that through combinations of airlines or something of that nature, there are economies that would 

allow them to continue in business. Like I say, I do not know that 

I am expert enough to predict what might happen. 

But there are airline companies out there that have sizable pension plans. The pension plans that we have taken over in the last 

few years, particularly from United, to a lesser extent Delta Airlines in their pilots’ plan, are some of the largest claims that have 

ever come to the agency. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

47 

Mr. Secretary, do you agree that this matter of deregulation 

should be revisited? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think the Administration supports the current 

deregulated environment. We know that there have been communities have have fared better than others under deregulation in the 

airline industry, but as Mr. Banmiller said, I do not think you 

could put the toothpaste back in the tube even if you wanted to. 

And I do not know that the Administration would support any form 

of economic re-regulation of the industry at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. This has been a long day, gentlemen, and I 

thank you for your patience. But as you can imagine, this is a very 

important matter for the people of Hawaii. And I thank you for 

your presence here and your testimony. It has been very helpful. 

If you do have amendments that you would like to submit, 

changes in your testimony, or if you have any added words you 

would like to place in the record, please feel free to do so. The 

record will be kept open for 3 weeks. 

So thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:34 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

I am pleased to join my good friend from Hawaii at this hearing today to look 

at the aviation challenges his state faces. Our states are very similar since they are 

so heavily dependent on aviation. 

When Aloha went out of business, it was not like Independence Air going out of 

business. In our states, airlines are the backbone of our economies. The effect on 

Hawaii of Aloha going out of business is a lot more like the Metro system shutting 

down in Washington D.C., than it is of just an airline going bust. 

Aloha provided 80,000 seats of service a week. That’s 80,000 people who now can’t 

go to their doctors, visit their family, get to their jobs, or conduct business. There 

really is no other practical or economical way of moving between the islands other 

than through the air. 

In addition to Aloha shutting down, ATA airlines ceased operations. ATA carried 

15 percent of visitors to Hawaii. Without ATA in the market, it is likely that there 

will be fewer visitors and prices will rise. This will no doubt have a serious impact 

on Hawaii’s economy which is so dependent on tourism. 

The Committee is very interested to hear more about this situation and what we 

can do to prevent it from happening in the future. As we all know, the airline industry is facing some really tough financial times because of the price of oil. We have 

already seen five airlines—Aloha, MAXjet, Skybus, ATA and Champion shut down. 

We need to figure out how best to help Hawaii and how to ensure that we don’t 

have even more bankruptcies. We are especially interested to hear from the U.S. 

Department of Transportation witness about what the Department can do in this 

area. 

Finally, I think we need to carefully watch how high fuel costs will affect other 

transportation sectors such as the trucking and railroad industries—and even the 

fishing industry which is an intense user of fuel. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

MICHAEL W. REYNOLDS

Question 1. Does the DOT monitor the U.S. aviation market for potential cases 

of predatory pricing? 

Question 2. Can you tell me how many examples of predatory pricing have been 

uncovered over the past decade? 

Question 3. What role does the DOT have in the enforcement of such predatory 

pricing cases? 

Question 4. Can you provide us any insight into the Administration’s views on the 

allegations of predatory pricing in the Hawaii market? 

Question 5. Do the Hawaii communities who are eligible for the EAS program, but 

do not receive EAS funding, have air service comparable to what they would receive 

under the EAS program in terms of the number of flights per day and destinations? 

Question 6. If the air service now provided to Kalaupapa is not comparable to the 

service provided under the EAS program, is it possible for the community to return 

to the EAS program? If it is not, why not? 

Question 7. What steps can Kalaupapa take to be placed in the EAS program? 

Answer 1–4. During my recent testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on the subject of Hawaiian air service, you requested that I provide a report on the Department of Transportation’s handling of 

allegations that go!, which is operated by Mesa Airlines (Mesa), might be engaging 

in predatory pricing. 

While the Department was aware that go! had entered the inter-island markets 

with very low fares, this strategy on the part of a new entrant carrier seeking to 

develop an initial market presence is not uncommon. Aloha’s President and Chief 

50 

Executive Officer, David A. Banmiller, had also expressed concerns to Department 

officials that go!’s pricing policies were largely meant to drive established carriers 

like Aloha from the inter-island markets. However, the Department was never presented with a factual basis to support allegations that go!’s activities constituted 

predatory conduct. Also, neither Aloha nor any other carrier has filed a formal enforcement complaint seeking an investigation. As was discussed at the hearing, both 

Aloha and Hawaiian Airlines have chosen to undertake private rights of action in 

the courts alleging misuse by go! of proprietary information, as well as, in the case 

of Aloha Airlines, engaging in predatory pricing. We understand that Hawaiian recently settled its case against Mesa for $52.5 million. 

Normally the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Antitrust Division takes the lead 

role in prosecuting cases of alleged predation in the airline industry, and when the 

Department of Transportation is presented with evidence that a carrier’s pricing 

policies might constitute predatory behavior, we share that information with the 

Antitrust Division. However, as I am sure you are aware, predation claims have 

proven particularly difficult to sustain in the courts in recent years. Moreover, virtually all predation concerns that carriers brought to the Department in the past 

concerned the impact of large incumbent airlines’ pricing on new entrants. A successful challenge by the Federal Government against the pricing activity of a new 

entrant such as go!, based on its potential harm to a long-established incumbent in 

the Hawaiian inter-island markets, would clearly require extensive supporting documentary evidence that in large measure the carriers alleging the competitive harm 

would have to provide. 

It is important to keep the allegations in this case in the proper context. As I testified, the Department has not received any formal complaints of predatory pricing 

over the past decade. We did, however, receive several informal complaints about 

predatory conduct in the mid-1990s. In each instance, a new entrant carrier contacted DOT and provided substantial evidence in support of its allegations. 

The characteristics of the Aloha-go! situation, as far as we have been made aware, 

are unique. First, it was the incumbent carrier, Aloha, which operated larger aircraft and more capacity in the market, alleging that a new entrant engaged in predatory pricing. Second, Aloha has alleged that Mesa obtained confidential, competitively sensitive information as a prospective investor and subsequently used this information in launching go!. 

Furthermore, DOJ has had difficulty in proving predatory pricing under the antitrust laws. Low prices, which new entrants typically offer when they enter a market, are not in and of themselves evidence of predatory behavior. Several years ago, 

DOJ brought suit against American Airlines for alleged predatory pricing and lost. 

The unique characteristics of the situation in Hawaii suggest that an important, 

and possibly differentiating, component is whether confidentially obtained proprietary information was used illegally or improperly to launch go!’s inter-island operations. Adjudicating such allegations is better left to private actions brought by the 

parties that believe they have been harmed. 

DOT’s statutory policies encourage us to oversee the airline industry in such a 

way as to encourage competition and low fares. Airline deregulation proves that new 

business models, especially low-cost carriers, are critical to ensuring that the benefits of deregulation are passed through to consumers in all sectors of the economy 

dependent on efficient air transportation. The usual challenge for government is to 

exercise economic oversight of the industry to promote vigorous competition. Therefore, in the past, our focus has been on structural economic issues that were largely 

unanticipated at the time of deregulation. 

Nonetheless, based upon the testimony that was provided to the Aviation Subcommittee, we will ensure that our colleagues in the Antitrust Division are aware 

of the concerns that have been expressed by Mr. Banmiller and others with go!’s 

inter-island market pricing policies. 

I can assure you that we are keenly aware of the unique role that air transportation plays in the State of Hawaii and that the status of air transportation both 

to and within Hawaii continues to be an important issue to the Department of 

Transportation, particularly in light of the recent cessation of passenger service by 

Aloha Airlines. The Department will continue to monitor air services in Hawaii, and 

will maintain its efforts to promote and sustain competition in Hawaii and throughout the United States. 

If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to call me. 

Æ