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

42–305 PDF 2008

AVIATION AND THE 

ENVIRONMENT: 

EMMISSIONS 

(110–125) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 6, 2008 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman 

BOB FILNER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York, Vice Chair 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Altman, Richard, Executive Director, Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels 

Initiative ............................................................................................................... 16 

Coyne, Hon. James, President, National Air Transportation Association, 

Former Member of Congress ............................................................................... 16 

Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office .................................................................................. 5 

Elwell, Daniel K., Assistant Administrator, Aviation Policy, Planning and 

Environment, Federal Aviation Administration ................................................ 5 

Fahey, Dr. David W., Research Physicist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 5 

Glover, Bill, Managing Director, Environmental Strategy, the Boeing Company ....................................................................................................................... 16 

Lavin, Douglas, Regional Vice President, North America International Air 

Transport Association .......................................................................................... 16 

May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association ......................... 16 

Reis, Mark, Managing Director, Seattle Tacoma International Airport ............. 16 

Schaffer, Mary Ann, Air Line Pilots Association .................................................. 16 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 28 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 29 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 36 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 42 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 43 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Altman, Richard L. .................................................................................................. 45 

Coyne, James K. ...................................................................................................... 56 

Dillingham, Gerald L. ............................................................................................. 86 

Elwell, Daniel K. ...................................................................................................... 119 

Fahey, David W. ...................................................................................................... 143 

Glover, Bill ............................................................................................................... 152

Lavin, Douglas E. .................................................................................................... 161 

May, James C. .......................................................................................................... 167 

Reis, Mark M. .......................................................................................................... 187 

Schaffer, Mary Ann ................................................................................................. 198 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Elwell, Daniel K., Assistant Administrator, Aviation Policy, Planning and 

Environment, Federal Aviation Administration, responses to questions from 

the Subcommittee ................................................................................................. 138 

Glover, Bill, Managing Director, Environmental Strategy, the Boeing Company, responses to questions from the Subcommittee ...................................... 157 

May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association, responses 

to questions from the Subcommittee .................................................................. 182 

vi 


42305.001
vii 


42305.002
viii 


42305.003
ix 


42305.004
x 


42305.005
xi 


42305.006
xii 


42305.007
xiii 


42305.008
(1) 

HEARING ON AVIATION AND THE 

ENVIRONMENT: EMISSIONS 

Tuesday, May 6, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerry F. Costello [chairman of the Subcommittee] Presiding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

The Chair will ask all Members and staff and everyone to turn electronic devices off or on vibrate. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on avia- tion and on the environment emissions. Today, after the first panel, 

the Aviation Subcommittee will recess while we hear a briefing 

from Ambassador John Bruton. The briefing is open to the public, 

and Members can ask questions. After the ambassador’s briefing, 

we will then reconvene the hearing and will hear from the second 

panel. I will give a brief opening statement. Then I will call on the 

Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for any statement that he may have, 

and then we will recognize our witnesses. 

I welcome everyone to the Subcommittee hearing today on aviation and the environment, in particular, emissions. Globally, commercial aviation accounts for about 3 percent of emissions, and 

with 1 billion passengers expected to fly in the United States by 

2016, we need to responsibly manage aircraft emissions. Here at 

home and across the globe, more is being done to reduce energy 

consumption and emissions. Airlines, airports, manufacturers, and 

the Air Force are at the forefront of developing better planes, technology and operating procedures to conserve fuel and to reduce 

emissions. 

They are an example of how improvements are driven by necessity as fuel costs are the largest single expenditure for the airlines, 

accounting for about 40 percent or more of their total expenditures. 

In the last month, fuel has greatly affected the aviation industry, 

causing four carriers to file bankruptcy and other carriers to reduce 

capacity. Every penny increase in the price of jet fuel results in an 

additional $195 million in annual fuel costs for the U.S. airline industry. 

To combat this, aircraft fuel efficiency has improved by almost 31 

percent since 1990. On April 22nd, 2008, the ATA committed to 

work towards an additional 30 percent fuel efficiency improvements by the year 2025. Research also continues in engine effiVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:53 May 11, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\110\AVIATION\5-6-08\42305.TXT JASON
2 

ciency, airframe aerodynamics and in the use of lighter materials 

like the composites currently being used by Boeing on the 787. The 

implementation of NextGen will also have a positive impact on the 

environment, including fuel-efficient operation procedures, the introduction of new airframe and engine technologies and in developing alternative fuels. 

This is another reason why we need to move forward on modernizing our air traffic control system and in continuing to urge the 

FAA to produce and meet its timelines for modernizing our system. 

I am pleased to see that Boeing completed its first biofuels flight 

with Virgin Atlantic early this year and that it is working on fuel 

cells for future aircraft. I am also interested in hearing more about 

coal to liquids—CTL—coal to liquids technology and the benefits 

that it may bring to this discussion. I have been a long supporter 

of clean coal technologies. The United States has at least a 250- 

year supply of coal. Given that CTL fuels can be used in existing 

planes and engines and that they can help reduce our reliance on 

foreign sources of oil, I believe that CTL production should be pursued. 

Further, airports are facing a significant challenge to increase capacity while also managing the environmental impacts on local 

communities. Many airports are putting resources into infrastructure for natural gas, solar, electric, biofuels, and propane refueling 

stations that benefit the airports and many public users such as 

commercial vans, courtesy shuttles and taxis. 

I am interested in hearing more from SeaTac on its recycling program and on its greenhouse gas emissions inventory. Under H.R. 

2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, which passed the 

House on September 20th of last year, we provided historic levels 

of funding to upgrade our air traffic control system, to improve efficiency and to invest in aviation research. Other programs to reduce 

our carbon footprint in H.R. 2881 include the Clean Engine and 

Airframe Technology Partnership and the Green Towers Program, 

which was modeled after what is currently being done at O’Hare 

International Airport in Chicago. We continue to wait on our 

friends in the other body, in the Senate, to act on legislation to reauthorize the FAA so that we can move forward to going into conference and in producing a bill that can be sent to the White 

House. 

Finally, the European Union has proposed an emissions trading 

scheme to reduce emissions. Due to the global nature of aviation, 

I strongly believe that any effort to reduce emissions should be 

done by consensus through ICAO and must maintain economic 

growth while we are reducing emissions. 

I, again, welcome all of our witnesses today. I look forward to 

hearing your testimony. 

Before I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for his opening statement or remarks, I ask unanimous consent to allow 2 

weeks for all Members to revise and extend their remarks and to 

submit any additional statements and materials for the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Petri. 

3 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for calling this timely and important hearing today. 

As you pointed out, aviation is essential to the healthy economy 

and the free flow of travel and commerce worldwide, but as we all 

know, airplanes are currently solely dependent on petroleum-based 

fuels that emit greenhouse gasses. According to the FAA, the transportation sector is responsible for about one-quarter of greenhouse 

gas emissions, but to put things into perspective, aviation is responsible for only 3 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. 

Historically, the aviation industry has taken a leading role in the 

effort to reduce emissions. Emissions are directly tied to fuel consumption. With the soaring cost of jet fuel, airlines and operators 

have a clear incentive to reduce the fuel burden. Significant and 

environmental benefits have come along with the business incentive to conserve fuel. 

Multi-billion dollar research and development investments by industry are yielding more efficient, quieter engines as well as lighter, more aerodynamic frames. 

It is my understanding that for aircraft of the 70- to 150-passenger size, Pratt and Whitney’s newly developed, geared thermal 

fan engine will increase aircraft fuel efficiency of upwards of 12 

percent. Boeing’s groundbreaking new 787 Dreamliner design will 

require 20 percent less fuel, will be 60 percent quieter and will 

produce 28 percent less noxious oxide emissions than the plane it 

replaces. I think, on a per-passenger basis, this is about as fuel efficient as a mini automobile on a per mile basis. 

Realizing that aviation, like all other industries, is a contributor 

to greenhouse gas emissions, it is important to note that in the last 

35 years the U.S. air transportation system has experienced a sixfold increase in mobility. However, even with that growth in travel, 

aviation fuel efficiency has seen a 60 percent improvement. 

Aviation emissions have been and remain a controversial issue. 

Aviation’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions has recently 

received growing attention in our country and even greater attention overseas. 

The European Commission has proposed to regulate aircraft 

emissions in a proposal to add the aviation industry to the European Union’s emissions trading scheme. Some have raised the concern that the proposal violates several bilateral agreements, including the recently signed U.S.-EU Open Skies agreement. There are 

also concerns that it ignores recognized international civil aviation 

laws. 

While the second phase of the EU’s emission trading scheme is 

a vast improvement over the first phase, it is important that proposals to regulate aircraft emissions not unfairly burden an industry that has done so much to reduce its impact on the environment, 

an industry that we rely on to bring together the world community. 

In the U.S., the FAA and this Committee have undertaken several initiatives to address the impact aviation has on the environment. For instance, in this Committee’s current FAA reauthorization proposal that passed the House last September, we included 

no less than eleven programs to lower aviation’s impact on the environment. 

4 

In coordination with the airline industry’s emission reduction efforts, the voluntary airport low-emission and continuous low-energy 

emissions and noise programs have proven themselves successful. 

It is reauthorized in the House FAA reauthorization proposal. We 

are committed to continue to advance these programs going forward. 

Government has also had a responsibility to continue to invest 

in fundamental aviation research and development. In fact, for 

budget year 2009, the FAA plans to invest more than $336 million 

in research and development. 

According to U.S. Government sources, the number of commercial air carriers has doubled since the late 1970s. The number of 

U.S.-scheduled passenger enplanements has jumped by about 175 

percent. Domestic enplanements are projected to grow to over 1 billion by 2016. 

As aviation grows, it is critical that it continues to do so in an 

environmentally responsible manner. 

The aviation industry has proven that lessening aviation’s impact on the environment can be achieved without strict government 

regulations. As scrutiny over the aviation industry is on the rise 

around the world, we must be sure not to hamper productive efforts that have proven effective at reducing emissions. We must 

also continue our work on developing cleaner-burning, alternative 

jet fuels. 

Clearly, aviation emissions is a complicated issue, requiring a 

complex and multi-faceted approach, utilizing the expertise and 

knowledge of the FAA, NASA and of the aviation industry. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank all of our witnesses and Ambassador Bruton for coming, and I look forward to your testimony 

and to the discussion this afternoon. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member. 

Before I recognize Members for statements, opening statements 

or for comments, I want to make sure that Members and everyone 

are mindful that we are going to have a number of procedural votes 

on the floor, and we do have nine witnesses who will be testifying 

at this hearing today. 

So, with that, the Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from 

Texas, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

I will just ask unanimous consent to file my statement to save 

some time. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I will follow the gentlelady’s example 

and ask that my statement be entered in the record. 

I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Does any other Member wish to make a statement or a comment? 

If not, the Chair at this time will introduce our first panel of witnesses: Mr. David Fahey, who is a Research Physicist with NOAA; 

Mr. Daniel Elwell, who is the Assistant Administrator over at the 

FAA for Aviation Policy Planning and the Environment; and Dr. 

5 

Gerald Dillingham, who is the Director of Physical Infrastructure 

Issues with the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Mr. 

Dillingham has testified here many times before. 

So we welcome all of you. The Chair will recognize you, Dr. 

Fahey, for your opening comments and for your testimony. 

We would remind the witnesses that you will be recognized for 

5 minutes. Your entire statements will be entered into the record, 

and then, of course, Members will have questions after the three 

of you present your testimony. 

With that, Dr. Fahey. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID W. FAHEY, RESEARCH PHYSICIST, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; 

DANIEL K. ELWELL, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, AVIATION 

POLICY, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; AND DR. GERALD DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. FAHEY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. 

I am Dr. David Fahey, a Research Physicist with NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Thank you for inviting me to be a witness at this hearing. 

I have spent my career studying the atmosphere, with particular 

emphasis on ozone depletion and climate change, and have been involved with aviation issues in a number of research studies and 

policy-relevant scientific assessments. 

My written testimony addresses the basic aspects by which global aviation affects climate and discusses key uncertainties and 

knowledge gaps and the understanding of those effects. The results 

in my testimony are derived from the scientific assessments of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or ′′IPCC′′ as it is 

commonly known. The IPCC completed an aviation assessment in 

1999 and partially updated it in 2007. Here, I will highlight several 

key points from my testimony. 

First, aviation is one of several human activities that contribute 

to climate change by altering the natural amounts of greenhouse 

gasses, small particles or cloudiness in the Earth’s atmosphere. 

These activities create what scientists call ′′radiative forces′′ of climate which can be thought of as pushing the climate away from 

its current state. Scientists know that if it is pushed too hard the 

climate state will change, altering basic parameters such as temperature and precipitation. 

My next point is that there are three aspects of aviation operations which, when taken together, distinguish aviation from other 

human activities that contribute to climate change. 

The first of these is the aviation burns fossil fuels, releasing a 

variety of gases and particles into the atmosphere. A number of 

these emissions contribute to climate change. 

Secondly, most aviation emissions occur at aircraft cruise altitudes, well above the Earth’s surface, which allows some of those 

emissions to have a greater effect in the atmosphere and on climate 

than they otherwise would if the emissions occurred near the 

Earth’s surface. 

6 

Thirdly, aviation operations often increase cloudiness along and 

near aircraft flight tracks. Aircraft contrails shown in my Figure 1, 

here displayed, are the most familiar form. This is actually a picture over Washington, D.C. This increase in cloudiness contributes 

to climate change. 

So, to recap, aviation has a unique role in climate change because it burns fossil fuels high in the atmosphere and increases 

cloudiness. 

My next point is that the aviation climate impact is a sum of several component effects. A summary is shown in my Chart 1 where 

the unit of measure is radiative forcing. Current best estimate values are shown there as the bars for the emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, water vapor, sulfate, and soot particles and for 

cloudiness from contrails. This list reflects the complexity of the 

aviation climate impact. The total of these terms is positive, the 

bottom bar there, which means aviation leads to a warming of climate. For perspective, the aviation total is about 3 percent of the 

total climate forcing from all human activities. 

My fourth and final point is that uncertainties and knowledge 

gaps are associated with aviation’s climate impact. Computer models of the atmosphere are required to quantify aviation effects because of the complexity of the processes involved. Model estimates 

are associated with varying uncertainties because our representation of atmospheric processes and models is incomplete. 

Concerning knowledge gaps, two are worth noting here; namely, 

the lack of best estimates for the impact of contrails as they spread 

out to form more extensive cirrus clouds and the potential role of 

aviation particles in modifying cloud formation. 

So, in summary, aviation emits gases and particles high in the 

atmosphere and increases cloudiness. The emissions and cloudiness 

cause radiative forcings which lead to climate change. Currently, 

the overall impact of aviation is a positive radiative forcing, which 

leads to a warming of climate. Uncertainties remain when it comes 

to quantifying the separate impact of various aviation emissions, 

and some gaps exist in our knowledge of key processes involving 

those effects. 

So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify. I 

am happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Dr. Fahey, we thank you, and we will have some 

questions for you. 

The Chair now recognizes, under the 5-minute rule, Mr. Elwell. 

Mr. ELWELL. Chairman Costello, Mr. Petri and Members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Given the amount of misinformation circulating today about 

aviation emissions and climate change, I thought I might try to correct some misperceptions. 

Myth: Aviation is the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas 

emissions. Fact: Aviation currently represents, as we have heard 

several times, less than 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions 

worldwide. While that number may grow to 5 percent by 2050, the 

largest aviation market in the world—the U.S.—is burning less 

fuel today than in 2000. 

Myth 2: Aviation emissions have four to five times the impact on 

climate change because of the altitude where they occur. Fact: 

7 

There is nothing unique about emissions from aircraft engines. 

Just like your automobile, aircraft emissions are about 70 percent 

C02, 29 percent water and 1 percent other products, including NOx 

and particulate matter. It does not matter where CO2 is emitted. 

The climate impact of C02 is well-understood, and it is the same 

at altitude as it is on the ground. 

As my colleague just said, our knowledge of the impacts from the 

other products is not very good, both as to intensity and, in some 

cases, even whether there is a net warming or cooling effect. 

Myth 3: Other forms of transport are out-performing aviation in 

fuel-efficiency improvement. Fact: the fuel efficiency of aircraft has 

improved by 70 percent in the last 40 years. Even over the 20-year 

period, 1985 to 2005, improvements in U.S. aviation far outpaced 

the emission intensity improvements in other methods of transport, 

including automobiles, trains and rail. 

Myth 4: European aviation is doing better than U.S. aviation 

with respect to emissions performance. Fact: between 1990 and 

2005, the greenhouse gas emissions of commercial aviation in the 

European Union grew about three times as fast as those of the U.S. 

aviation sector. Further, since 2000, while EU aviation emissions 

rose over 30 percent, U.S. commercial aviation actually burned 4 

percent less fuel even though it carried 12 percent more passengers 

and 22 percent more cargo. 

Myth 5: The U.S. opposes the use of market-based measures to 

address aviation emissions. Fact: During last year’s ICAO assembly, the U.S. and most of the world endorsed the utility of marketbased measures in general and emissions trading in particular, as 

long as those measures are implemented for international emissions through mutual consent. Europe disagreed with the mutual 

consent part of that resolution. 

Finally, myth 6: The U.S. has no plan to address aviation’s 

greenhouse gas impacts on climate. Fact: We have placed environmental stewardship at the heart of our efforts to transform the 

U.S. aviation system through NextGen. We are addressing the 

challenge of aviation emissions via a five-pillar plan. 

Number one: Improve our scientific understanding of the impacts 

of aviation emissions. As Patrick Moore, cofounder and former leader of Greenpeace, recently noted, ‘‘We all have a responsibility to 

be environmental stewards, but that stewardship requires that 

science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.’’ 

Two: Accelerate air traffic management improvements and efficiencies to reduce fuel burn. We are putting about a billion less 

tons of CO2 in the atmosphere per year since we implemented the 

reduced vertical separation minimum in 2005, and we are accelerating the use of enhanced navigation procedures like RNP and 

CDA to further improve fuel efficiency. 

Three: Hasten the development of promising environmental improvements in aircraft technology. The President’s budget funds, 

and this Committee’s authorization bill authorizes, a research consortium called CLEEN, which will accelerate the maturation of 

technology that will lower energy emissions and noise. 

Four: Explore the potential of alternative fuels for aviation. The 

FAA helped form and is an active participant in the Commercial 

Aviation Fuels Initiative. You will hear from Rich Altman later, the 

8 

CAAFI Director, about progress we are making in this area. Alternative fuels will be the game-changer technology that gets us closer 

to carbon neutrality. 

Five: Market-based measures and emissions trading may be useful to reduce emissions if technological operational and procedural 

improvements are not enough. 

Aviation succeeded in its first century because it constantly met 

the challenge of innovation—flying safer, faster, quieter, and cleaner. Going forward, climate change could be the most significant 

long-term challenge facing aviation. I am confident NextGen and 

our five-pillar plan will provide a science-based, technology-driven 

approach that focuses on performance. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Elwell. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Dillingham. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Mr. Petri and 

Members of the Subcommittee. 

In my testimony today, I will address three questions: First, 

what is the nature and scope of aviation emissions? Second, what 

is the status of key Federal efforts to reduce emissions? What are 

some other steps that could be taken to reduce emissions? 

Regarding the nature and scope of emissions: Aviation emissions 

can have adverse health and environmental effects. They contribute to local air pollution on the ground and to greenhouse gases 

in the atmosphere. Over the last 30 years there has been a steady 

reduction in aircraft emissions. However, the increased number of 

flights, coupled with system congestion and delays, has partially 

offset these reductions. The forecast is for continued growth in air 

traffic for the coming decades. Some experts have argued that it 

will be difficult for the technology needed to mitigate emissions to 

keep up with the forecasted growth in traffic. 

Regarding key Federal efforts for reducing emissions: In the near 

term, the technologies and procedures that are being developed as 

part of the NextGen to improve the efficiency of flight operations 

can also reduce aircraft emissions. According to FAA, implementing 

NextGen technologies and procedures will allow for the more direct 

routing of flights, which will also improve fuel efficiency and will 

reduce greenhouse gases between 10 and 15 percent. In the long 

term, emissions controls are going to be derived from research and 

development that is focused on increasing fuel efficiency and in 

mitigating the effects of emissions and noise. 

The national plan for aeronautics R&D supports the integrated 

R&D goals for increasing fuel efficiency and for reducing emissions 

and noise. One of the goals of this plan is to better understand the 

nature and impact of aviation emissions. The results of this work 

are expected to support the development of lower emitting alternative fuels, more efficient air traffic management technologies and 

procedures and more fuel-efficient aircraft engines. Both the FAA 

and NASA have developed strategic plans for work that could help 

to achieve these national goals. 

Turning now to next steps going forward: As mentioned, 

NextGen has the potential to help reduce emissions. Therefore, a 

first step going forward is that FAA should expedite the moving of 

9 

NextGen from planning to implementation. In taking this step, the 

FAA might consider establishing a single office that would have the 

authority to implement NextGen and that would be accountable to 

the FAA Administrator. 

Another step for FAA is to deploy and demonstrate as soon as 

possible an integrated suite of NextGen technologies and procedures that are currently available. Such a deployment could demonstrate the benefits of NextGen, including greater system efficiency and lower emissions. These benefits could also incentivize 

airlines to equip for operating in the NextGen environment. 

A next step for Congress is addressing the decline in Federal 

funding for aeronautical research. One way that this can be accomplished is by reauthorizing FAA. The House FAA reauthorization 

bill includes funding for the CLEEN Initiative that could lead to 

the early maturation of certain emission-reduction technologies. 

Additionally, FAA is requesting a threefold increase in its budget 

for R&D, including $688 million for NextGen. 

Another step for Congress is to continue considering proposals to 

address climate change, including market-based mechanisms and 

other incentives for technological change. These considerations 

should include the global nature of aviation and the potential unintended consequences of the various proposals. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, although FAA 

and the aviation industry have exceptional environmental records, 

the issue is not past performance but future achievements. Adequately addressing emissions and other environmental concerns 

must be an integral part of efforts to improve the efficiency, safety 

and capacity of the national airspace system. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham. 

Again, we thank all three of our witnesses on the first panel for 

your testimony. 

Dr. Fahey, talking about research and policy, what discussions 

need to take place to improve the scientific knowledge of aviation’s 

impact on the atmosphere? 

Mr. FAHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is very clear that the science is not exactly where you 

would want it to be if the objective is to evaluate the need for regulation and to follow through with some regulation. 

First of all, I think a way to improve the science is to consider 

updating the IPCC 1999 assessment of aviation. This was an international scientific exercise, much like the climate change assessments that they do, that brought together scientists along with 

stakeholders, both the industry and policymakers, to consider what 

was the impact of aviation. Back in 1999, no one really could put 

a number on it. So a decade hence we are not where we would like 

to be in terms of having updated that assessment because things 

have changed. Models have gotten better; the problem has shifted 

a bit. So that is one thing that could be done. 

The second—and it has come up here just in this testimony—is 

that any assessment of aviation’s climate impact and any assessment of whether regulation is appropriate needs to have a scenario 

of what the future of aviation is going to be, meaning I can speak 

very clearly today as I did about what aviation has done to date, 

10 

but I cannot speak nearly as well about what the future is. That 

is because no one necessarily knows the future. 

So, again, scientists could come together with policymakers, aircraft, airline industry representatives, and their stakeholders to develop those scenarios, and those scenarios would address not only 

expected but also desirable changes in the technology in the operations, in the fuels, and traffic growth. Again, they are things that 

have already come up here this afternoon. 

So, from a scientific point of view, scientists need to know what 

is most likely going to happen or need to know a range of things 

so that they can evaluate those scenarios, rather than all possible 

scenarios, for the climate impacts and then hand those over to the 

policymakers. Well, first of all, they must finish an international 

assessment that says what we think those scenarios mean, and 

then that provides the basis for policymakers. 

Then the final thing that could improve the science is simply to 

strengthen the commitment of U.S. science and regulatory agencies 

to actually spend quality time carrying through with these things. 

Again, we have heard that there are ongoing programs that are 

trying to address these problems, but I think, again, we should 

strengthen that, and we should, probably more importantly, coordinate that so we do not reinvent the wheel and that we share resources and efforts to bring to bear on this. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Dr. Dillingham, in your testimony, you identify a potential research gap for emissions reduction technologies. I wonder if you 

might talk a little bit about the implications of this gap. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

What we are referring to is, prior to, I think, about 2005, NASA, 

which conducts a significant part of the aeronautical research for 

the U.S., restructured its portfolio in terms of the kind of research 

it would do and the level to which it would develop that research. 

Prior to that time, NASA was developing research to, let us say, 

the technology readiness level of five or six, which meant that this 

level was closer to where the industry would pick it up and move 

it further into the potential for something to be used in the development of a new product design. 

Since that time, not only has NASA restructured its research 

portfolio, but it has seen a significant decline in the amount of 

money that is available for aeronautical research. Part of what was 

scheduled for that budget was research that was going to support 

NextGen technologies and environmental issues for NextGen. So 

that all had to be reevaluated, reshuffled, and so you had a gap between where NASA was able to take the technology and where industry would pick it up. So that is the gap we are talking about. 

The proposal that you mentioned in your opening statement—the 

CLEEN proposal—as well as other provisions within the House reauthorization bill are efforts to close that gap. FAA is also, as I 

said, trying to close the gap. It has the potential to slow down 

NextGen if FAA is not able to get that research done that will 

allow it to move forward with NextGen and emission and noise reduction technologies. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham. 

11 

Mr. Elwell, I think we are all very familiar with the FAA’s view 

of the EU legislation, which of course would include U.S. carriers 

and its emissions trading scheme. 

What actions or measures would the FAA or the U.S. Government be prepared to take if, in fact, the EU adopts and applies the 

legislation to U.S. carriers? 

Mr. ELWELL. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. COSTELLO. First, you might, for the record, state the FAA’s 

view of the EU legislation. 

Mr. ELWELL. Regarding the EU legislation in its current state, 

the Administration is against. I want to highlight, obviously, the 

Administration is not against the effort to reduce emissions. Clearly, we have had pretty good success in recent years. 

Right now, the state of the EU legislation is such that its unilateral nature is unacceptable to the U.S., and I would say it is so for 

quite a number of countries. That is why we have right now the 

Group on International Aviation and Climate Change which came 

out of the 36th Assembly last year, which is where this impasse 

sort of came to a head. 

We do not know the final state of the legislation, because it is 

still being worked on. In fact, it is probably having a little more 

difficulty between the EU Commission and the Parliament now 

than it had several months ago. We cannot really make a statement on the legislation. It has not reached its final form. 

Mr. COSTELLO. But in its current form, clearly the administration 

opposes it? 

Mr. ELWELL. Clearly. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, 

Mr. Petri, for any questions he may have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

I really wanted to follow up on the questions you were just asking and maybe lay a little, or help you lay a little foundation for 

the briefing we are going to be receiving from Ambassador Bruton. 

I understand you were over in Brussels some time ago and had 

considerable discussions. The issue of carbon-based emissions is not 

an EU problem or an American problem; it is a problem that we 

feel that needs to be addressed by China and India and Europe and 

the United States, and so on. 

So are there opportunities rather than arguing? What is someone 

to do? The Europeans are trying to move forward. There are a 

number of issues when you get beyond the borders of international 

that are impacting people outside in their own countries, and aviation clearly raises almost all of those issues. Is there some way we 

can switch this into a positive discussion? Do you have hope that 

that is going to be possible or are we here in a sort of tit-for-tat 

facedown? 

Mr. ELWELL. Well, certainly, there is hope to come to an agreement. I agree with you, Mr. Petri. This is a global problem, for 

international aviation as well as maritime. Maritime emissions 

have unique problems. Because so much of the emissions are emitted internationally, aviation is in a unique position in that, unlike 

ground-based sources of C02, we have currently—aviation has no 

alternative propulsion source. 

12 

As far as the question of, is there a way to get past this, I think 

absolutely. I think, Mr. Chairman—Chairman Costello—mentioned 

phase 2 of the US-EU open aviation negotiations. I think that is 

an excellent opportunity, and I believe it will be on the agenda to 

try to figure out a way. The rest of the world believes ICAO still 

has the mandate to lay out a global framework. To that end, the 

GIACC, the Group on International Aviation and Climate Change, 

will be working hard, very hard, over the next 18 months or so to 

come up with that framework in time to help inform the U.N. process in general. 

So, I am a strong proponent, the U.S. is a strong proponent for 

allowing individual states—respecting sovereignty, for allowing individual states to work with a suite of measures. There are a number of measures that can be used, not just ETS, to achieve set 

goals. I do believe that we need to set some goals going forward 

and then allow states the discretion to use this suite of measures 

necessary to achieve those goals. 

Mr. PETRI. Are there opportunities—I should know more about 

the enforcement mechanism or whatever, but are there opportunities for sort of a carrot approach as well as for a stick approach? 

We have a relatively older air fleet which can be made much more 

efficient. I know California, as an example, some years ago discovered the most efficient thing they could do to reduce emissions was 

to have a bounty on old cars. If we could come up with some system like that as part of this, it would be a great benefit to a leader 

in industry that I think wants to modernize its fleet but that is 

really behind the eight ball for a variety of reasons in doing that 

right now. Most of the sales of these wonderful new composite 

planes are going to airlines around the world rather than to our 

domestic fleet because of the financial situation. Are there any 

ideas of that sort? 

Mr. ELWELL. I do not want to answer a sort of ‘‘carrot’’ question 

with a ‘‘stick’’ answer. I think right now, clearly, the biggest carrot 

out there is getting the most modern fleet mix. For any user of the 

aviation system, whether it is a commercial airline or an individual, private owner, getting the most fuel-efficient and modern 

airframe as soon as possible to reduce this cost of fuel burden is 

the clearest approach. But I do think—and I noted—there are a 

number of States that want to incorporate, for instance, an affordable loan program for NextGen equipage. I think that it is innovative, and I think it is a great idea. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now 

recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. Thank you to Ranking Member Petri for leading the 

way on some of these questions. 

Dr. Fahey, am I correct in reading your testimony that there is 

no other means of propelling our aircraft today other than by using 

fossil fuels from some source? 

Mr. FAHEY. I did not really address that in my testimony. In 

terms of what we have done so far, that is certainly the case. So 

I am mostly addressing it in terms of the climate impact of aviation. Looking backwards in time, what has aviation done to date? 

That ties in with my comment about the need for scenarios where, 

13 

if you want a scientific assessment of the future of aviation, we 

first have to discuss what the scenario is of that. The scientists do 

not define that. We should be handed that, so to speak. 

Mr. KAGEN. Right. All of the fossil fuels used in transporting people and goods in aircraft are giving out emissions, as you have stated. There are nitrogen oxide components. There are respiratory irritants in sulfates. 

So, as far as you are aware, all of the fossil fuels are not healthy 

for people, right? You would agree with that? 

Mr. FAHEY. Well, certainly, as to some of the byproducts of fossil 

fuels, that is correct. 

Mr. KAGEN. Yet, it is a very small component of what might affect human health? 

Mr. FAHEY. That I cannot speak to, but I would guess that is the 

case. 

Mr. KAGEN. With regard to the cap and trade that you mentioned, Mr. Elwell, has there been any consideration on the part of 

the administration to include the pollution that comes our way 

from China? As you know, China has developed its economy largely 

at the expense of the sacrifice of its environment, and their pollutants do not remain in their airspace; they travel over to the United 

States, to the West Coast. What measures have you taken to include China into any possible cap and trade that moves forward? 

Mr. ELWELL. Well, the cap and trade—again, in the aviation context for the U.S., for U.S. aviation’s contribution to climate change, 

the U.S. does not believe cap and trade is appropriate for us. 

Again, this goes right back to every nation is in a different place. 

China is a country that is part of the Group on International Aviation and Climate Change. They plan to grow their aviation system 

15 percent a year going forward. They see possibly mitigating that 

by 5 percent with NextGen-like technology. Clearly, they are in a 

completely different, very robust growth state. 

We currently do not have a plan for walling off a cap-and-trade 

system for other countries’ emissions. Again, that is what the global framework is designed to address. It is intended to take into account the different socioeconomic conditions vis-a-vis aviation that 

other countries are in but still getting to an overall global reduction. I think that is the goal globally, to get a global reduction even 

while allowing growth where you can allow growth. 

Mr. KAGEN. Has the administration at all considered generating 

or synthesizing fossil fuels by extracting carbon dioxide from the 

atmosphere and then synthesizing jet fuels much as the FischerTropsch reaction has been shown to do? 

Is that beyond your area of expertise? 

Mr. ELWELL. That would be beyond my area of expertise. 

Mr. KAGEN. That is the safest answer on that one. 

I will not ask Dr. Dillingham. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. KAGEN. Back to you, Dr. Fahey. 

Mr. FAHEY. I am aware of that process. It is not clear to me that 

it is carbon neutral or sufficiently carbon neutral, and I do not 

know that it has been discussed for aviation. 

Mr. KAGEN. Very good. 

I yield back my time. Thank you. 

14 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

There may be other Members who will have questions to submit 

in writing, but at this time, we would recognize Mr. Ehlers, the 

gentleman from Michigan. I understand he may have a few questions. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one fairly 

brief one for Dr. Fahey. 

What can you tell me about the emissions problem at the various 

altitude levels? Obviously, we have piston aircraft from 0 to 10, 

maybe 15, and you have jets at varying altitudes. What is the 

interaction of the emissions with the atmosphere at the different 

levels? Which are worse and which are better? 

Mr. FAHEY. Which altitudes are better? 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, I am just wondering what is the byproduct of 

the emissions. Does it depend on the altitude? Does the interaction 

of the emissions with the atmosphere vary with altitude? Which is 

the problem area? Which is less important? 

Mr. FAHEY. Well, the short answer is, yes, the effect of emissions 

is certainly a function of altitude. That is part of its complexity. 

As I mentioned in my oral testimony, one of the key distinguishing factors for aviation is the fact that it is up in the atmosphere, well above the Earth’s surface. What I did not say is why. 

The reason why is that the emissions’ lifetime or the time before 

they are actually removed from the atmosphere—as to some of the 

emissions—increases the higher you put them in the atmosphere. 

So, if an emission is going to have a deleterious effect, you enhance 

it by emitting it high in the atmosphere. 

This is not true for C02, as you probably well know, because its 

lifetime exceeds any other one that we are considering, so that is 

not the issue. The nitrogen oxide is probably one of the more interesting ones. Nitrogen oxides are emitted at the Earth’s surface, 

also in fossil fuel burning, but at altitude nitrogen oxides linger 

around, so to speak. They interfere or they contribute to ozone production in a way that they do not on the surface of the Earth, 

meaning they are producing that ozone at the same altitude, and 

they have an effect on methane, which you may know is a principal 

greenhouse gas. So that aspect of aviation is one that stands out, 

for example, that no other sector really is noted for having this dependency. Again, it depends on altitude. So if all aviation—I will 

conjecture—you know, never flew above 3,000 feet, we probably 

would not have the NOx—or the nitrogen oxide—ozone methane 

problem, but the fact that they are more at 30,000 feet, 40,000 feet 

now, you do. 

Then there is another example. A small component is water 

vapor, that fossil fuel burning releases water vapor. At the Earth’s 

surface that is completely inconsequential, but if you are at the 

high altitudes and in the troposphere and into the lower stratosphere, now that water is consequential because nature removes 

most of the water from air as it moves. It circulates in the atmosphere, so the stratosphere is significantly drier by orders of magnitude than the Earth’s surface. So if you put in water, even if it 

looks like it is a small amount, it can have a disproportionate effect. Water vapor, in the case of aviation, is not the largest impact, 

15 

as you can see from my charts, but it is there; it is measurable; 

it is quantifiable. 

Then of course there are sensitivities, that if you increase the altitude of all aviation you would increase that term where you may 

reduce other terms. 

Then another important example is contrails. As you may know, 

contrails require cooperation from the atmosphere, that the atmosphere has to be cold enough for a contrail to form and it has to 

have high enough relative humidity, and that does not happen in 

the lower regions of the atmosphere. It is too warm. And so you 

need to go up into the colder troposphere, the lower region of the 

atmosphere before a contrail is likely to form given current aviation technology. And so if you were to fly all aircraft, I will conjecture, below 3,000 feet you would not have contrails. So, if you look 

at the chart, contrails are a significant component of the overall 

contribution to aviation. 

So, you see those kinds of trade-offs. It really does matter. For 

example, the over-the-pole routes that have become popular as a 

way of shaving distance off of aviation, those flights operate a 

greater fraction of the time in the stratosphere because the stratosphere is lower in the polar regions. And so an aircraft flying at 

a constant altitude, which they tend to do, will spend more of its 

time in the stratosphere as it goes over the poles than it would if 

it went across the continental U.S. or across the equator. So you 

can even bring it down to not only does it depend on altitude—well, 

it does depend on altitude, but it also depends where you are in 

the latitude-longitude space when you make those emissions. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. That is very interesting. I 

apologize. I was detained and could not be here, but I will have to 

peruse your written statement because I find this very intriguing. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Michigan 

and thanks our first panel of witnesses for being here and for your 

valuable testimony. You are dismissed. 

I might ask Ambassador Bruton his time schedule. We have just 

been called to the floor for votes, and timing is everything around 

here. There are 10 votes that have been called for, which means 

that we will recess, and it will be about an hour and 20 minutes. 

You have one or two options, Mr. Ambassador, depending on your 

schedule. We could take your briefing, your 5-minute briefing, and 

if you cannot remain here, we will submit questions to you in writing. We are respectful of your time. In an hour and 20 minutes, we 

will come back and get to our next panel of witnesses. 

So I am giving you the option depending on your time. Do you 

want to go forward with your briefing? Yes. 

The Chair thanks our first panel and will call Ambassador 

Bruton to the witness table, please. 

Now that we have concluded the first panel of the Subcommittee 

hearing, we will recess the hearing and will proceed to an open 

briefing by the head of the delegation of the European Commission 

to the United States, Ambassador John Bruton. During this time, 

the official reporter will take a break and will rejoin us when we 

reconvene with the second panel of the hearing. 

16 

I welcome Ambassador Bruton. Ambassador, I thank you for 

being here today, and the Subcommittee appreciates your participation and recognizes that neither this Subcommittee nor the 

House has jurisdiction over the ambassador. 

Ambassador Bruton was the Prime Minister of Ireland from 1993 

to 1997. He also had a leading role in the Constitutional Convention of the European Union. He was appointed as a commission 

head of the delegation in the United States in November of 2004. 

I have worked, through the Friends of Ireland, with the ambassador in his years as the Prime Minister of Ireland. 

Ambassador, we welcome you. We thank you for being here, and 

we look forward to your briefing. 

[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at approximately 4:45 p.m., this same day.] 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair 

will announce that we hope that we are finished voting for an hour, 

but we had 10 or more votes but we are hoping that we have a little bit of time we can go to your testimony immediately. And we 

appreciate your patience. 

The second panel, let me introduce quickly Mr. Bill Glover who 

is the managing director, Environmental Strategy for the Boeing 

Company. Mr. James C. May, president and CEO of the Air Transport Association. Mr. Douglas Lavin, the regional vice president for 

North America, International Air Transport Association. Mr. Richard Altman, the executive director, Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative. Mr. Mark Reis who is the managing director of the Seattle Tacoma International Airport. Captain Mary Ann 

Schaffer, the Air Line Pilots Association. And the Honorable James 

Coyne, the president of the National Air Transportation Association and a former Member of this body. 

TESTIMONIES OF BILL GLOVER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY, THE BOEING COMPANY; JAMES C. 

MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION; 

DOUGLAS LAVIN, REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, NORTH 

AMERICA INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION; 

RICHARD ALTMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL 

AVIATION ALTERNATIVE FUELS INITIATIVE; MARK REIS, 

MANAGING DIRECTOR, SEATTLE TACOMA INTERNATIONAL 

AIRPORT; MARY ANN SCHAFFER, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION; HON. JAMES COYNE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR 

TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION, FORMER MEMBER OF 

CONGRESS 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Glover under the 

5-minute rule. 

Mr. GLOVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri. 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify. In view of the hour, I will keep my remarks very short. Recently, the environment has been page 1 news all over the world. 

At Boeing, we have spent 50 years making environmental performance of our products a cornerstone of our business. 

Today, the Boeing Company produces a family of 18 different aircraft, all quieter and more fuel efficient than earlier generations of 

aircraft. Through ICAO, the industry has reduced the noise footVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:53 May 11, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\110\AVIATION\5-6-08\42305.TXT JASON
17 

print around airports and driven down aircraft-specific emissions, 

carbon monoxide, soot and nitrogen oxides on a world-wide basis. 

As aircraft are a uniquely mobile asset, designed to fly and be acceptable anywhere in the world, ICAO feels a key role in developing clear global standards. This is critical for Boeing, as 80 percent of our commercial airplanes are delivered outside the United 

States. We urge Congress to allow ICAO to continue its historic 

role of regulating aircraft emissions. 

Improving aircraft is, of course, only part of the problem—part 

of the solution I should say. In order to reduce CO2, air traffic 

management, biofuels and other types of new solutions are equally 

important. Sustainable alternative fuels can also help reduce aviation environmental footprint. We are focused on second-generation 

biofuels that do not compete with food sources or require large 

quantities of land or water. For example, we completed the firstever biofuel trial with Virgin Atlantic and G.E. earlier this year on 

a Boeing 747. We are planning a similar demonstration with Continental Airlines in 2009. 

Boeing recognizes we must do our part to improve the footprint 

of aviation. Government must also do its part. Specifically, we urge 

Congress to foster policies that will enable NextGen to become a reality. We also need to accelerate air traffic management practices 

and projects that can provide improvements to capacity and reduce 

emissions. And finally, ICAO should be allowed to fulfill its wellestablished role of regulating aircraft noise and emissions. Mr. 

Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Glover. 

And we now recognize Mr. May. 

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will also be brief. I would 

like to emphasize three key points. First, that commercial airlines 

are extremely greenhouse gas efficient; secondly, that we are 

proactively committed to further limiting our emissions footprint 

and are aggressively pursuing a plan to achieve that outcome; and 

third, there is a critical role for the Federal Government to play. 

Commercial aviation in the United States has a decidedly strong 

track record that is often overlooked, or, in fact, even misstated. 

We contribute just 2 percent of domestic greenhouse gas emissions 

compared to 25 percent for the balance of the transportation industry. This is no small achievement considering the commercial aviation is essential to our economy and supports nearly 9 percent of 

U.S. employment. Today’s airplanes, thanks to Billy and the folks 

at Boeing and Airbus, are not just smarter. They are quieter, cleaner, use less fuel than ever before, and we fly them smarter. U.S. 

airlines have been able to deliver more value by constantly improving fuel efficiency. We have improved 110 percent since 1978, resulting in 2.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide savings which 

is roughly equivalent to taking more than 18.7 million cars off the 

road in each of those years. What is even more amazing is that we 

burn 4 percent less fuel in 2006 than 2000 yet carried 12 percent 

more passengers, 22 percent more cargo. So we are delivering the 

payloads with less fuel and more carbon efficiently. 

Today our planes are as fuel efficient as compact cars, carry 

more goods and people more than six times faster, and our jets are 

five or six times more fuel efficient than corporate aviation. 

18 

U.S. airlines are highly motivated to continue this trend. And 

this may be one of the most important points I can make. Fuel is 

our largest cost center, averaging 30 to 50 percent of operating expenses. 2007 the bill was $41.7 billion. Projected 2008 $60 billion 

and climbing. The market is sending commercial airlines an overwhelming price signal. As demand for air services grows, some 

growth in aviation services are predicted but that is not a bad 

thing because we drive more environmentally efficient economy optimizing global value change, creating greater social and economic 

opportunities. IPCC has estimated that by 2050, we will grow a 

whopping 1 percent in terms of total greenhouse gas emissions. 

That is, worldwide we will go from 2 percent to 3 percent. 

Now we have got a commitment, ATA carriers, to improve fuel 

efficiency an additional 30 percent by 2025. That means another 13 

million cars coming off the road each of those years. But we are 

going to have to invest over $730 million in new equipment and 

airplanes. We have got $20 to $30 billion—and I said million. I 

meant billion. $730 billion in aircraft. We have a big bill for Next 

Generation coming up and that recognizing carbon’s fuel supply— 

carbon-based fuel supply can only take us so far, you are going to 

hear from our friends at CAAFI who are talking about all the great 

things they are doing for alternative fuels. So Congress can make 

all the difference. 

Four areas I would like to suggest, first, update our outdated air 

traffic control system, something that you have been leaders on 

and we have talked about many times. It shows us that we can add 

10 to 15 percent on top of the already 30 percent goal that we have 

got. That is a big, big number. We urge Congress to reinvigorate 

NASA and FAA environmental aeronautics R&D programs, ask 

you to spur further commercial development of alternative fuels, 

and most importantly, we ask Congress to forbear from imposing 

climate change-related legislation that would work against our efforts. 

If we continue our fuel efficiency and other advances, we have 

got to have the capital to invest. Punitive economic measures that 

siphon funds out of our industry would severely threaten that 

progress. If you enact a Lieberman-Warner kind of legislation with 

cap and trade, it is going to cost us $100 billion over the foreseeable near-term future. And that is money we could use to spend on 

air traffic control, new planes, avionics, all sorts of things to remain green and as green as any industry in the world. We ask for 

your help and we appreciate your time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

And now recognizes Mr. Lavin. 

Mr. LAVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to brief you on 

the steps the commercial aviation industry is taking to reduce our 

environmental footprint. IATA is made up of 235 carriers from 

some 140 countries that together represent approximately 94 percent of scheduled international traffic. 

My colleague, Jim May, has provided you an excellent summary 

of commercial aviation’s impressive environmental record to date 

and our industry’s commitment to further reduce our carbon footprint. For IATA’s part, our members have committed to improve 

19 

our fuel efficiency by 25 percent by 2020. As part of that effort, this 

year IATA is developing an industry-wide passenger carbon offset 

program. In the medium term, we will implement a strategy to 

reach carbon-neutral growth. And over the longer term, IATA has 

a vision of a zero emissions commercial aviation industry. Significant reductions in carbon emissions will require strong cooperation 

among air carriers, air frame and engine manufacturers and alternative fuel suppliers. However, the aviation industry cannot 

achieve these critical targets on our own. We must rely on the support of governments around the world if we are going to reach carbon neutrality. First, as Jim May already stated, we need this Congress to put the right economic incentives in place for the development of radically new green technologies. Second, we need you to 

take the steps necessary to address the global infrastructure shortage. We need accelerated funding for NextGen and to encourage 

Europe to deliver on their long-promised Single Sky project. In operations, we need the Congress to promote the optimization of U.S. 

and global air routes and the FAA’s deployment of key capabilities 

like RNP, RNF, and ADS-B. Third, we need this Congress to set 

an example for the world by refusing to implement barriers to the 

airline industry’s effort to reduce its carbon footprint. We are 

strongly opposed to negative economic measures that do nothing to 

support the environment. Some examples of these negative measures may be useful. 

As the Chairman noted previously, the U.K. recently announced 

its intention to require aviation to pay more of its environmental 

cost by replacing an already onerous air passenger duty tax with 

a duty payable based on the size of the aircraft and the distance 

it is travelling. This extraterritorial scheme violates international 

law and is simply using the environment as a cover for an effort 

to address a budgetary shortfall. Likewise, we cannot tolerate including aviation in flawed emissions trading schemes. IATA believes that a properly designed global ETS may help close the gap 

between growth in aviation and emissions as long as it is accompanied with investments in technology, improved operations and 

better infrastructure. Unfortunately Europe is proposing to include 

aviation in an ETS that is anything but properly designed. It is a 

unilateral regional measure when our mobile industry needs global 

solutions. 

It is extraterritorial to the point that it proposes to control emissions by U.S. carriers while operating in U.S. airspace and over 

international waters. It would require airlines to buy permits for 

all of our emissions by 2020, thereby ignoring the progress we have 

made and our aggressive carbon reduction targets. It is also important to note that the European Commission is now studying how 

to impose controls on NOx emissions despite existing IKO global 

controls of these emissions. 

Here in the United States, we share Mr. May’s concern about the 

structure of the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill. It proposes 

to control aviation emissions by requiring fuel producers to acquire 

allowances to cover the greenhouse gas content of the fuel they sell 

to the transportation sector. The cost of these allowances would be 

passed on directly to airlines, thereby serving as a tax on airline 

operations and ultimately our passengers. To make matters worse, 

20 

unlike other dirtier and less progressive industries, the producers 

would not be granted any allowances for the progress we have 

made to date on fuel efficiency. 

We urge the House to oppose the Senate climate tax that only 

hinders industry’s efforts to address this global problem. In closing, 

IATA and its member airlines are proud of their environmental 

record and are committed to further aggressively reduce our carbon 

footprint. We look forward to working with this Subcommittee to 

promote solutions that allow us to reach our shared green goals. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Lavin and now recognizes Mr. Altman. 

Mr. ALTMAN. Mr. Chairman, in your April 8 op-ed for The Hill 

you stated that aviation is leading the way in research in alternative fuels. In testifying today as a representative of that effort, 

my goal is to provide new information and overall progress on alternative fuel efforts since we last spoke. For those not familiar 

with CAAFI, the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative 

is a data gathering communications collaboration that seeks to increase both the quantity and the quality of dialogue amongst airline, airport, manufacturer and FAA sponsors. CAAFI engages multiple government, industry and university stakeholders. Over 20 

energy suppliers are now stakeholders in CAAFI. We are global in 

reach with stakeholders on four continents. CAAFI now sees our 

catalyst for informed and expedited solutions that serve all components of the supply chain. The goal is to make our relatively small 

sector of transportation a customer of choice for introducing alternative fuels. 

I will focus on three specific areas. First is to make sure that alternative fuels are certified. Second are the environmental considerations for both greenhouse gases and local air quality. Third is 

establishing an opportunity for buyer-supplier dialogue that can result in aviation being an early buyer for alternative supplies. 

The first 4 months of 2008 have seen unprecedented level of activity in all these areas. Regarding certification, on April 11 the Air 

Force Certification Office approved the new JP8 Mil Spec embracing 50/50 blends of Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene. These include 

coal, gas and biomass. This quantification is the first critical break 

from the long-term certification approach which qualified fuels on 

an individual producer/individual plant basis. In February, the 

CAAFI certification team provided a similar proposal for commercial approvals. Taken together, these investments form critical 

signposts to investors that aviation fuel plan investment is viable. 

These include plants in Illinois and Ohio with candidates from 

Rentech, American Clean Coal Fuels and Baard Energy. If initial 

approvals for these projects are granted this year, initial production will occur as early as 2012. 

Promising developments do not stop there. CAAFI’s R&D and 

certification teams are working together to achieve long-term goals 

of approving sustainable biofuels. Such progress involves fuels from 

hydrogenated plant oils. Recognizing that just CAAFI having a goal 

of 2013 for sustainable aviation biofuel is inadequate, we have a 

roadmap that our R&D team lead and our certification team lead 

in concert with what the Air Force has put together. 

21 

Ultimately, fuel from algae may have the greatest yield of all energy crops, as much as 100 times the yield of current biofuel crops. 

Commercial aviation’s effort and the environment have taken a 

similar large stride. 

The MIT-led PARTNER Center of Excellence’s precedent setting 

Well to Wake environmental life cycle models co-2 outputs for over 

a dozen candidates fuel types. The first phase of the FAA-funded 

project is complete. The second iteration is planned. 

Work to date on these models suggests that there are a wide 

range of options that have the potential to outperform current oil 

refineries in greenhouse gas production. The key characteristics of 

alternative fuels is that they are extremely low in sulfur and result 

in small soot parcels, now identified in EPA-issued standards. With 

over half the airports in the U.S. identified nonattainment areas 

under the standard use of emerging alternative fuels may be one 

of the best tools to control growth in PM2.5 exposure that could ultimately limit the growth of commercial aviation. 

To ease new fuels introduction to airport markets, CAAFI recommended a project to combine these tools via development of an 

airport handbook calculation procedure. The TRB Airport Cooperative Research Program initiated that program last year. 

The last piece of the puzzle is to have buyers for these new fuels. 

And I would like to thank Jim for his action on Earth Day to put 

together a policy on which we can base that dialogue. 

Now to ensure that this process is substantive the ATA Energy 

Council and the CAAFI business and economic team will bring suppliers and airline users together in the September and October 

time period here in Washington to initiate dialogue. 

In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 

support of CAAFI and I would like to thank publicly the approximately 150 largely volunteer members of the CAAFI coalition for 

their contributions to these efforts. For most including our team 

leaders, this is not their day job. 

So thank you also to FAA and Dan Elwell for supporting the effort and for recognizing immediately that was a very important 

part of the puzzle. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Altman. 

And the Chair, now recognizes Mr. Reis. 

Mr. REIS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today about airport efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

While I serve as the managing director of SeaTac Airport, I am 

also on the board of directors of Airports Council International 

North America. So, while my testimony today will focus on the 

progress we have made at SeaTac, but I also represent the broader 

airport community here today. 

Environmental protection has for decades been an integral part 

of airports’ responsibilities. As the public face of the aviation industry in our communities, airports play a leadership role in demonstrating environmental stewardship to the local and global communities we serve. Airports’ contribution to aviation’s global greenhouse gas emissions is relatively small. And airports have little or 

no control over some of the larger contributors such as aircraft and 

private vehicles. But in spite of that limited role, we recognize that 

everyone has a responsibility to reduce their contribution to climate 

22 

change, and airports are committed to doing everything appropriate. 

Last year, SeaTac Airport prepared a greenhouse gas emissions 

inventory. Not surprisingly, aircraft were found to be the largest 

contributor to the 4.7 million tons of CO2 at SeaTac, about 90 percent of the total. Public movement to and from the airport accounted for about 8 percent of that number. And airport-controlled 

emissions were only 1.4 percent. 

The value of the inventory of course is that it allows us to identify opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and measure 

our progress. However, we did not wait for the inventory to initiate 

our focus on emission reductions. For the past several years, we 

have purchased green power to serve 25 percent of our electric 

load. We have initiated energy conservation investments that have 

reduced our electrical energy consumption by 25 percent despite expanding our terminal facilities by 20 percent and have transitioned 

to many CNG vehicles. 

Price signals are a key component to reducing our footprint. Like 

every other airport, we used to mask the real cost of some of the 

utilities—power, water, sewer—by including those costs in the airline landing fees. 

In 2001, however, we established a utility system using the same 

rate-making methodology that regulated utility would use to charge 

airlines, concessionaires and other customers for their actual utility 

usage. Instantly, these clearer price signals allowed us to demonstrate to our customers the cost effectiveness of conservation 

measures. We have recently used a similar system to change the 

economics of waste hauling at SeaTac as well. 

Mr. Chairman, we have also found that we can cut greenhouse 

gases even as we pursue operational and customer service enhancements. For example, our parking pay on foot system and space 

count systems, our underground fuel hydrant system and the future consolidated hotel shuttle system will all enhance customer 

service, decrease operating costs for us and our customers, improve 

local air quality and cut greenhouse gas emissions. 

We are working closely with our airline partners in a variety of 

initiatives to reduce fuel burn and emissions on the ground. In 

2006, we opened a ramp tower that has significantly improved the 

efficiency and safety of ramp operations, saving the airlines 

800,000 gallons of fuel each year and reducing emissions by 8,500 

tons per year. We also provide airlines the option to power aircraft 

electrical needs with gate-side electricity, which reduces the need 

to run auxiliary power units and will soon be providing chargers 

so the airlines can transition to electric ground service equipment 

fleets. 

We are now designing a centralized preconditioned air system 

that will save approximately 5 million gallons of aircraft fuel each 

year, and we are working very closely with Alaska Airlines and the 

FAA to explore accelerated implementation of an offset RNP approach that could further reduce fuel burn and greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

Mr. Chairman, while airports are quite focused on reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions, some irports, especially smaller airports 

with fewer financial resources, could do more. My written testiVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:53 May 11, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\110\AVIATION\5-6-08\42305.TXT JASON
23 

mony includes some suggestions for changes in AIP provisions, over 

and above those the Committee has already included in the reauthorization bill, that could help airports pursue additional initiatives. 

In closing, let me reiterate the greenhouse gas emissions are just 

one of many important environmental challenges that airports and 

aviation face each day. We must carefully balance the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a need to reduce impacts from 

noise and local air quality. In doing so, airports must continue to, 

and pledge that we will continue to, lead the environmental stewardship role within our communities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Reis, and now recognizes Captain Schaffer. 

Ms. SCHAFFER. Good afternoon Chairman Costello, Ranking 

Member Petri. I am Captain Mary Ann Schaffer, chairperson of the 

Air Line Pilots Association’s Task Force on Aviation Sustainability 

and the Environment. I have been an airline pilot for a major network carrier for more than 19 years and certainly serve as an A320 

captain. Thank you for the opportunity to represent ALPA’s 56,000 

pilot members and to present an airline perspective on aviation 

and the environment. 

Airline pilots work at the nexus of air traffic technology, aircraft 

capability and operational limitation. We bear the ultimate responsibility for the safety of our passengers, cargo and crew. 

In our view, any change to regulations, laws or operational initiatives must be based on maintaining or improving aviation safety. 

To be more direct, pilots must be fully engaged to ensure that 

ALPA’s top priority, safety, remains paramount. That said, pilots 

fly airplanes powered by engines that burn fuel. 

Members of this Committee may remember the thundering noise 

and plumes of exhaust of a first-generation jet laboring down a 

runway for takeoff. Thankfully, the noise of today’s jets are mere 

whispers in comparison. In fact, today’s aircraft carries 6 times 

more payload and use 60 percent less fuel. 

ALPA pilots’ jobs and careers rely on a financially strong and 

stable airline industry. The current challenges we face are unprecedented. Record high fuel prices, industry consolidation and an 

aging airspace system that requires complete overhaul. On environmental policy, we also have the added challenge of a patchwork of 

local, State, national and international environmental regulations 

or proposed initiatives that add taxes and charges. 

So challenges certainly exist but real solutions do too. ALPA is 

now fully engaged in many initiatives to further decrease greenhouse gas emissions and reduce fuel burn. Let me give you an example. RNP and RNF procedures use satellite-based technology. 

We can track a shorter lateral path with a more efficient descent 

profile to a runway. The same techniques are applied to departure 

paths, allowing for precise ground tracks to minimize noise and 

provide more efficient climbs to higher fuel-saving altitudes. These 

procedures have already proven increased efficiency, reduced noise 

and emissions and lowered pilot and controller workload. Last 

week, a controller had to issue 10 different heading and speed 

changes to me as I approached San Francisco. The controller, clearVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:53 May 11, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\110\AVIATION\5-6-08\42305.TXT JASON
24 

ly skilled, timed our arrival onto the landing runway while clearing 

crossing runway traffic for takeoff between each landing. The skill 

of the controller maximized runway use, but our approach was far 

from fuel efficient. 

So what can industry and government do to make rapid progress 

to cut emissions, save fuel and reduce noise? 

First, we need a national energy policy that promotes innovation 

and provides robust funding for energy research and development 

to find a reasonable alternative to jet fuel. Second, we need to support modernization of the air traffic control system in every way 

possible, including accelerating NextGen. As an example of inefficiencies in the current ATC system, last month in San Juan, I delayed starting the second engine on my airliner to save fuel on taxi 

out. Based on my experience operating in and out of San Juan, I 

elected to start the second engine with three aircraft in front of me 

for takeoff. 

My judgment proved incomplete. We sat for an additional 45 

minutes waiting for a significant number of inbound aircraft to 

land. If I had had all the traffic information available, I would have 

made a different decision. Current NextGen plans will provide such 

information sharing. 

We also need to back infrastructure improvements like new runways and taxiways such as at O’Hare, Atlanta and Washington 

Dulles. All of these critical improvements can and must be implemented without imposing new economic burdens on the struggling 

airline industry. The U.S. airline industry has already made enormous strides in improving its environmental impact without instituting market-based measures. ALPA is committed to helping establish international emissions standards and standard operating 

procedures to protect the environment, promote the economic 

health of our industry, and maintain safety. After all, with oil hitting $121 a barrel, our industry already has the economic incentive 

to save fuel and reduce emissions. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present our view from 

the cockpit. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Captain Schaffer and now 

recognizes our former colleague, Mr. Coyne. 

Mr. COYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member Petri. As you know, NATA represents some nearly 

2,000 aviation businesses at airports across the country from 

Cahokia, Illinois, to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and everywhere in between. And at each of those airports there are aviation businesses 

that are just as committed as some of our larger colleagues in the 

industry to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Fundamentally, of 

course, greenhouse gas emission reduction is a function of aircraft 

size, engine efficiency and the operational route and procedures 

that aircraft follows. Small airplanes have the same opportunity to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions as larger airplanes. 

In fact, as you may know, both of you may know, some of the 

most efficient aircraft in the world are some of our smallest aircraft. And I am pleased to report that in the last 10 or 15 years, 

there has been tremendous research advances in both the engine 

efficiency of small aircraft and the efficiency of the aircraft themVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:53 May 11, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\110\AVIATION\5-6-08\42305.TXT JASON
25 

selves as the aircraft become lighter, able to make a more efficient 

use of their time and the engine activity that they have. 

We strongly encourage all of the other things that have been said 

here, especially with regard to airspace redesign and NextGen development. NextGen is going to be one of the most important elements of reducing our greenhouse gases because the tremendous 

waste that we have already heard from my colleagues at ALPA and 

IATA and ATA. 

But I might point out that smaller aircraft, especially private aircraft and charter aircraft, are uniquely victimized by air traffic control rules that oftentimes lead these aircraft to operate at a much, 

much lower altitude than is operationally efficient. They are also 

subject to far more involved routing departures, arrivals many 

times. Many of the small aircraft pay what amounts to a 50 percent premium in inefficient fuel and waste for a typical flight. 

So we strongly support the development of NextGen and hope 

that we can see Congress in the new FAA reauthorization accelerate the NextGen implementation. 

I remember testifying before this Committee in 1994 when the 

first proposals were advanced from the FAA for NextGen. That was 

14 years ago. At that time somebody asked—one of the Members 

of the Committee asked the FAA experts how long would it take 

to implement advances in ADS-B and satellite navigation, all of the 

things that are now part of NextGen. And back in 1994 the answer 

was: it would take 20 years. Everyone in the room at that time almost laughed, thinking, how could it take 20 years to implement 

something like that? Well, here we are 14 years later and many 

would say that we are really not that much closer to implementing 

the NextGen advances that we need to move forward. 

It is up to this Committee to set the timetable I think for 

NextGen development and I hope that you will take very seriously 

the opportunity that is now provided by the added fuel cost to 

make it even more imperative that we bring NextGen to a reality. 

NATA and our member firms very much want to be a part of 

that development, that research. And you will have an opportunity 

on Monday to see two of the more innovative companies in our industry out at Dulles Airport. We are going to be bringing the 

Eclipse aircraft and DayJet, and an operational firm down in Florida will be there as well, along with several other small charter operators to demonstrate how small aircraft can be especially efficient 

in these high fuel cost days. 

One of the things to be mindful of is that the entire carbon footprint of a traveller is the sum of all of his travel to the airport, 

then in the aircraft and then back once he lands. And so for you 

to get from eastern Illinois up to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, to meet your 

Ranking Member on an occasion, I submit that taking a private 

plane may be the most efficient way with the least carbon footprint 

to get from that point A to point B rather than trying to get to an 

airline and get on an airplane and then onto a car and so on and 

so forth. 

So please bear in mind that small aircraft are a very important 

part of the solution, a very important part of working together with 

government and industry to make this happen. And we hope that 

26 

some of you can come out to Dulles Airport and see some of these 

new aircraft next Monday. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Coyne. 

You can hear the bells. We are being called for additional votes. 

I have one quick question. I am going to yield to the Ranking Member to ask a question, and then he and I have agreed that we will 

submit written questions to you. I have some for Mr. Glover, Mr. 

Lavin and Mr. Altman. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Altman, your organization and the Air 

Force, you have been working on a joint roadmap to achieve full 

certification of sustainable aviation biofuels. Where are you in the 

process? 

Mr. ALTMAN. Where we are in that process. DARPA, in particular, has completed early research on three different hydrogenated plant oils. In addition, they have programs Centrolium and 

Tyson Food on a separate item from animal oil. 

There may be some additional fuels that Boeing will supply to 

that process. So we will have about a half dozen different samples 

by the end of the year that we can put through the certification 

protocols for what they call fit-for-purpose testing. With that in 

mind, we have the opportunity then to certify—from what the experts have told me, it will take quite some time to do that. But it 

would appear with all the engine tests and the component tests 

that need to be done that this could be accomplished on a generic 

basis with pure sustainable biojet fuel by 2013. 

It will require—the big linchpin in this is, can we get adequate 

investment to produce 250,000 to 500,000 gallons of biofuel for 

those tests? That is what the energy companies have told us they 

need. To do that would require a good $100 million in investment. 

The way we have approached that is to start a dialogue to incorporate EER&E, the renewable side of DOE and USDA in our dialogue. Perhaps they can be helpful within the environment to get 

some sustainable biofuel production going along to match up with 

our efforts in the certification area. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank you, Mr. Altman. As I said, I have some 

other questions that I will submit in writing. And the Chair now 

recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Well, I would just like to thank you all for your indulgence. Our schedule, as you know, some of you have been here 

many times before know that we just can’t control it. We are doing 

the best we can under the circumstances. We appreciate your rolling with the punches, so to speak. I just will submit additional 

questions. But Mr. Coyne, I think in your written testimony, you 

referred to a kind of a rule of thumb that air transport flights have 

three times the greenhouse gas effect of surface transportation 

flights. Is that sustainable? Is that in dispute? That would make 

quite a difference in all of these discussions. 

Mr. COYNE. Well, at altitudes, the consumption of fuel is much, 

much lower than it is at sea level for the same engine. And because 

the air—you have a couple of combined effects. The air is, of 

course, less dense, so you don’t need as much force to get through 

the air. And the efficiency of the engines increases as well. So we— 

all of us, whether we are flying an Airbus or a Cherokee prefer to 

27 

be flying as high as we can most of the time. And this is one of 

the reasons that the continuous ascent approach, the RNP approaches that the NextGen is talking about and especially the ability to get up to altitude as quickly as you can and to stay there 

as long as you can. And there is a lot of research that needs to be 

done. 

There is mid-level altitudes at the 20,000-foot level we don’t 

know as much about. Because the troposphere there doesn’t lead— 

we don’t have the contrails typically developing around 20,000 feet. 

So we have some of the newer jets which—especially the smaller 

jets, the DayJet-type aircraft that can operate efficiently at 26,000, 

27,000, 28,000 feet may find that it is more from a footprint issue 

better to operate at that level without the contrails being developed 

even though the engines aren’t quite as efficient as they might be 

up at 41,000. But we need research because we don’t have easy answers. And one of the things we are doing with DayJet and others 

is get aircraft involved in testing these different issues of altitudes 

height and, of course, improved approaches into and from airports. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair, again, thanks all of you not only for 

your testimony, but your patience. I know some of you have been 

here 4 hours. So we do appreciate your testimony and your patience. And we look forward to continuing to work with you and 

this important issue. With that, the Chair now adjourns. I am so 

used to recessing today. The Chair now adjourns the Subcommittee. 

[Whereupon, at 6:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

28 


42305.009
29 


42305.010
30 


42305.011
31 


42305.012
32 


42305.013
33 


42305.014
34 


42305.015
35 


42305.016
36 


42305.017
37 


42305.018
38 


42305.019
39 


42305.020
40 


42305.021
41 


42305.022
42 


42305.023
43 


42305.024
44 


42305.025
45 


42305.026
46 


42305.027
47 


42305.028
48 


42305.029
49 


42305.030
50 


42305.031
51 


42305.032
52 


42305.033
53 


42305.034
54 


42305.035
55 


42305.036
56 


42305.037
57 


42305.038
58 


42305.039
59 


42305.040
60 


42305.041
61 


42305.042
62 


42305.043
63 


42305.044
64 


42305.045
65 


42305.046
66 


42305.047
67 


42305.048
68 


42305.049
69 


42305.050
70 


42305.051
71 


42305.052
72 


42305.053
73 


42305.054
74 


42305.055
75 


42305.056
76 


42305.057
77 


42305.058
78 


42305.059
79 


42305.060
80 


42305.061
81 


42305.062
82 


42305.063
83 


42305.064
84 


42305.065
85 


42305.066
86 


42305.067
87 


42305.068
88 


42305.069
89 


42305.070
90 


42305.071
91 


42305.072
92 


42305.073
93 


42305.074
94 


42305.075
95 


42305.076
96 


42305.077
97 


42305.078
98 


42305.079
99 


42305.080
100 


42305.081
101 


42305.082
102 


42305.083
103 


42305.084
104 


42305.085
105 


42305.086
106 


42305.087
107 


42305.088
108 


42305.089
109 


42305.090
110 


42305.091
111 


42305.092
112 


42305.093
113 


42305.094
114 


42305.095
115 


42305.096
116 


42305.097
117 


42305.098
118 


42305.099
119 


42305.100
120 


42305.101
121 


42305.102
122 


42305.103
123 


42305.104
124 


42305.105
125 


42305.106
126 


42305.107
127 


42305.108
128 


42305.109
129 


42305.110
130 


42305.111
131 


42305.112
132 


42305.113
133 


42305.114
134 


42305.115
135 


42305.116
136 


42305.117
137 


42305.118
138 


42305.119
139 


42305.120
140 


42305.121
141 


42305.122
142 


42305.123
143 


42305.124
144 


42305.125
145 


42305.126
146 


42305.127
147 


42305.128
148 


42305.129
149 


42305.130
150 


42305.131
151 


42305.132
152 


42305.133
153 


42305.134
154 


42305.135
155 


42305.136
156 


42305.137
157 


42305.138
158 


42305.139
159 


42305.140
160 


42305.141
161 


42305.142
162 


42305.143
163 


42305.144
164 


42305.145
165 


42305.146
166 


42305.147
167 


42305.148
168 


42305.149
169 


42305.150
170 


42305.151
171 


42305.152
172 


42305.153
173 


42305.154
174 


42305.155
175 


42305.156
176 


42305.157
177 


42305.158
178 


42305.159
179 


42305.160
180 


42305.161
181 


42305.162
182 


42305.163
183 


42305.164
184 


42305.165
185 


42305.166
186 


42305.167
187 


42305.168
188 


42305.169
189 


42305.170
190 


42305.171
191 


42305.172
192 


42305.173
193 


42305.174
194 


42305.175
195 


42305.176
196 


42305.177
197 


42305.178
198 


42305.179
199 


42305.180
200 


42305.181
201 


42305.182
202 


42305.183
203 

Æ 


42305.184