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

79–905 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 110–1109 

ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSAL TO REAUTHORIZE 

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

( PART II ) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, 

SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 8, 2007 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

MARGARET SPRING, Democratic General Counsel 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, 

Chairman 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi, Ranking 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 8, 2007 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Inouye .................................................................................. 65 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 68 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 70 

Statement of Senator Lott ...................................................................................... 64 

Statement of Senator Pryor .................................................................................... 66 

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

WITNESSES

Alterman, Stephen A., President, Cargo Airline Association ............................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Barclay, A.A.E., Charles ‘‘Chip’’ M., President, American Association of Airport Executives; on Behalf of the Airport Legislative Alliance ........................ 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Bolen, Edward M., President and CEO, National Business Aviation Association ........................................................................................................................ 49

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Forrey, Patrick, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association ........... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from Oklahoma ......................................... 1 

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

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

APPENDIX

Conners, Bill, Executive Director and COO, National Business Travel Association, prepared statement ..................................................................................... 77 

Letter, dated March 7, 2007 to Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV from David 

S. Stempler, President, Air Travelers Association ............................................ 78 

Principato, Gregory O., President, Airports Council International—North 

America, prepared statement .............................................................................. 78 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Thomas R. Carper to: 

Charles ‘‘Chip’’ M. Barclay, A.A.E. .................................................................. 87 

James C. May ................................................................................................... 91 

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

Charles ‘‘Chip’’ M. Barclay, A.A.E. .................................................................. 86 

Edward M. Bolen .............................................................................................. 93 

Patrick Forrey ................................................................................................... 84 

James C. May ................................................................................................... 88 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to 

James C. May ....................................................................................................... 90 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John Thune to: 

Stephen A. Alterman ........................................................................................ 84 

Charles ‘‘Chip’’ M. Barclay, A.A.E. .................................................................. 87 

Edward M. Bolen .............................................................................................. 95 

James C. May ................................................................................................... 91 

Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, prepared statement ................... 77 

(1) 

ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSAL TO 

REAUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION (PART II) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY AND

SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building. Hon. John D. Rockefeller 

IV, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. This hearing will come to order. And, we 

don’t have, we don’t have a lot of time, but we don’t have a lot of 

members, but we have the two most important members. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Except when Danny and Trent come in. 

And so, we would welcome your testimony, Senator Inhofe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Now? 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Good, good. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator 

Stevens, I’m really glad you’re here because I have a few references 

to Alaska that I’ll make during the course of this presentation. 

And I appreciate your letting me go first, we have an Armed 

Services hearing that I’m supposed to be attending. 

Well, I do thank you for letting me share my thoughts with you 

on what they’re referring to as the Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act. It’s been my experience over 

the years, that every time you raise taxes, you call it reform. And 

I think this is no exception. 

Now, as you know, certainly Senator Stevens knows, probably a 

little bit more than you do, Mr. Chairman, and I have a little bit 

of experience when it comes to—— 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. About taxes? I’m not so sure he does. 

[Laughter.] 

2 

Senator INHOFE. Well, on the transportation—I was Chairman of 

the Environment and Public Works—— 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Would you proceed as politely as you can 

with your testimony. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. I’m sorry? All right. 

Well, anyway, I’ll skip that part then. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. But I do want you to know that I also have a 

background in aviation, a lot of people are not aware of that, I’m 

currently still a flight instructor, an active commercially, instrument-rated pilot. This is my 50th year of flying. And I would say 

to you, and some of my friends in general aviation, that—I would 

ask the question, how much do you think it cost to get a license 

when I got my license? Either one of you want to venture a guess? 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. No. 

Senator INHOFE. All right—it was $32.00. It took 8 hours, $4 an 

hour, and that was for an instructor, an airplane and fuel. So, 

things have changed. 

Now, I’m not only interested in the proposal before you in my capacity as a United States Senator, but that is, in my State of Oklahoma, we’re the home of a major airline’s maintenance facility, and 

another major airline’s reservation facility, and we have a very vibrant general aviation community. 

So, as a user of the system myself, I think I’m somewhat qualified to comment on the proposed changes. I believe this is the third 

time in my Congressional career that a user-fee system has been 

proposed to fix our aviation infrastructure, and I say ‘‘fix’’ in 

quotations. 

Each time I have strongly opposed it, and will do so again today. 

The United States has the safest and most efficient air transportation system in the world, moving more aircraft and more people 

than the rest of the world combined. 

About 10 years ago, I flew a small, general aviation airplane, an 

old beat-up Cessna 414 around the world, recreating the flight of 

Wiley Post. It was on the 60th anniversary of his flight around the 

world. And so I went through Canada, and Goose Bay and Greenland, and Iceland and over to Great Britain and Berlin, Moscow, 

across Siberia and then into the State of Alaska. And during that 

time, I learned what other systems were, and it made me appreciate our system. And, I can assure you, from firsthand experience, 

that our aviation system is second-to-none, and it’s not broken. 

Congress is being asked to dismantle the time-tested aviation financing system for reasons that I’m not really sure. The need to 

keep improving our air traffic control system, to increase safety 

and expand capacity, is without question. But, I fail to understand 

how this proposed user-fee system will achieve that goal. 

User fees, in the form of excise taxes, are the appropriate and 

cost-efficient way for all aviation users to support the system, in 

my opinion. Despite what some believe, our aviation infrastructure 

is inherently governmental, and thus maintaining the historic level 

of General Fund contributions to the system is critical, and Congressional oversight is essential. 

3 

I’ve seen credible analysis that indicates that the Administration’s proposal will result in less money, not more money, for aviation. I think someone’s going to testify to that, and I’ve seen that 

proposal. 

Furthermore, because the fees can be adjusted by an unaccountable board, it would be impossible to accurately predict what the 

fees would be for users of the system. So, when we talk about, 

‘‘What’s this going to cost?’’ There’s no way to analyze that with the 

information we have right now. 

Congressional management and oversight of the FAA spending 

and programs is needed to protect the users. And again, as I read 

the proposals, these fees can be adjusted at the discretion of the 

Administrator and an outside board, without Congressional oversight. 

I’ve reviewed the Administration’s cost-accounting study, and seriously questioned their results—in particular, the 360 percent increase in fuel taxes for general aviation. I think it’s totally unacceptable. And, I know what’s behind it—it’s this attitude that there 

are so few pilots out there, you can hit them with something like 

this, and they’ll just have to pay it, because they don’t have the political clout to do it. 

I’d like to see what would happen if you wanted to have a 360 

percent increase on automobile taxes. Then they’d get your attention. 

In 2006, the Aircraft Owners and Pilot’s Association, the AOPA, 

did a survey of its members, and found that 88 percent of them— 

if they had to have this 70 cent increase—would either stop flying 

altogether, or dramatically reduce their flying. Now, that would 

have quite an effect on the revenue that would be derived from 

that. 

We nearly killed the general aviation industry, by uncontrolled 

tort claims, but thankfully, due to the work of this Subcommittee, 

and quite frankly, of me and of Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Congress passed in 1994, and President Clinton signed into law, the 

General Aviation Revitalization Act, that was an 18-year repose 

proposition. And that bill, alone Mr. Chairman, as you well know, 

changed us from a major importer to a major exporter of small aircraft and aircraft parts. 

General aviation now contributes over $100 billion annually to 

the economy, and accounts for 1.3 million high-skilled, high-wage 

jobs in professional services and manufacturing. 

Furthermore, it’s one of the few U.S.-based industries that actually makes a positive contribution to our balance in trade, which 

didn’t used to be the case. Why we’d consider destroying that is beyond my understanding. Make no mistake, if this proposal is adopted, there will be a dramatic, immediate, negative effect on general 

aviation, and on our economy. 

For 27 consecutive years, I’ve attended the Air Venture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin—this is the largest air gathering anywhere in the 

world, even has more people than the Paris Air Show, or the ones 

you and I have gone to many times, Senator Stevens. And contrary 

to some of the people’s belief, general aviation is not compose of fat 

cats. If you go there, and you watch the people, and you see, these 

are people who are single issue people—I understand that, I’m 

4 

among that community, I suppose—but these are people who are 

in a variety of levels of the economy, and you go and you see the 

enthusiasm these people have, it’s very, very exciting. I wish more 

members would get up there and see what kind of people are involved in general aviation. 

General aviation is also critical to small business viability, and 

a critical transportation means for many of the Nation. In fact, 70 

percent of all general aviation flight hours are for business. This 

includes, but is not limited to, farming, ranching, search and rescue, firefighting, law enforcement, news, traffic, weather and so 

forth—70 percent. As a former small businessman, I know that increased operating costs can not always be passed onto the customer, and certainly they can’t in this case. 

Now, in addition to increased fuel taxes, the FAA Proposal will 

subject all users of the system to substantial increases in fees for 

aircraft registration, airmen certificates, medical certificates, certificates for flight school, and training centers, certificates for repair states and maintenance facilities and schools and all of that. 

Now, you know, so you’re talking about a huge tax increase, in addition to that one that we can actually measure, and that would 

be a 360 percent tax increase on just the fuel. 

Now, though I don’t currently have the pleasure of serving on the 

Commerce Committee, I did serve on the relevant Committee in 

the House, and believe strongly that both Committees play a critical role in keeping our aviation system the best in the world. I 

merely ask you not to give up the right and responsibility to oversee that system, by abdicating that role to an unaccountable outside board. As I read the proposal, that’s what it appears to be. 

As you draft your bill, I would urge you to consider that the current system and many of the proposed system upgrades are designed for commercial and airline operations. General aviation is 

only an incremental user in that system. Stifling general aviation 

by imposing a crippling tax increase may help with congestion, because there are a lot of people who are not going to be flying anymore. 

We know that we’re talking about imposing a 360 percent increase on fuel, but we’re also imposing a tax that we can’t really 

measure at this time. 

I mean I—you know, I look at Senator Stevens up there, and remember when I was flying around the world, Senator Stevens, 

coming down from Fairbanks, Alaska, straight south on that 

river—tell him to listen. 

Senator LOTT. Was that the Kenai? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, there we go. 

Senator STEVENS. Oh, that guy. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Stevens, I was talking about, toward 

the end of my flight around the world, when I was coming down 

from Fairbanks, replicating the Wiley Post flight, I looked over 

there and I saw almost every little home has a little lake, a little 

pontoon—how are you going to go back and explain to these people 

that we’re imposing a 360 percent increase in their taxes, and even 

more than that? 

5 

A vibrant general aviation industry is an important part of our 

overall aviation innovation. General aviation has been, and continues to be, the incubator for cutting-edge aviation technology. 

I can remember—one of the planes that I own right now is one 

that is a composite—that was all done through experimenting in 

people’s garages—but this picture right here of the airplanes I own, 

that happens to be an experimental. And that experimental is 

doing things right now, and people are now copying that—not just 

general aviation, but others, military and others—seen the technology that was born in somebody’s garage. 

So, while some may be eager to point out that general aviation 

is not paying its fair share, I believe that an even-handed examination of the facts demonstrates that’s not true. Any changes to the 

current system needs to encourage and maintain general aviation, 

and not unnecessarily destroy it by imposing unreasonable and unfair taxes upon us. 

So, as you work on reauthorization, take the idea of user fees off 

the table, then the debate can occur on any changes and adjustments that may need to be made. And I would like to have, hope 

that you would take those fees off the table as we have in the past. 

I’ve worked with all of the sectors of the aviation community before, and while there may not always be agreement on all points, 

I do believe there is a way to reach consensus on a deal to benefit 

everyone. 

So, I thank you for listening to my views, and they come from 

the heart. I regretted it when John Glen retired from the Senate, 

because that kind of left me as the last one who really has a handson understanding of aviation, and I hope you look into what its real 

contributions are to our economy, and the American way of life, 

and freedom of choice. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Senator Inhofe, very much. 

And, our second panel consists of Mr. Steve Alterman, who is the 

President of the Cargo Airline Association; Mr. Pat Forrey, President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association; Mr. Chip 

Barclay, President of the American Association of Airport Executives; Mr. Jim May, President and CEO of Air Transport Association of America; and also, Mr. Ed Bolen, President and CEO, National Business Aviation Association. 

Gentlemen, we welcome all of you. And, Mr. Alterman, why don’t 

you start off, sir, since you’re the first person I named? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. And I genuinely welcome everybody here. 

I hope this is going to be a short hearing, and I’m hopeful that 

what we will get from this hearing, since you are the people who 

kind of run your operations and your organizations, that we will 

begin to get some dialogue between you—about ways that we can 

work on FAA problems, financing problems. My only position on financing, and I think it’s shared by Senator Lott, is that the status 

quo cannot stand. Other than that, we are open, waiting to hear 

what your suggestions are, in a communal way. So, this may end 

up in some kind of a Quaker meeting, I have no idea, in the meantime, Mr. Alterman—— 

6 

Senator STEVENS. Could we put our opening statements in the 

record, please? 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. I’m sorry, I apologize, Senator Stevens, 

for that. Absolutely. And I actually didn’t want to have any opening 

statements, so we could go right to that, and I apologize. Please. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN A. ALTERMAN, PRESIDENT, 

CARGO AIRLINE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, good 

morning. My name is Steve Alterman, I’m President of the Cargo 

Airline Association. Our Association represents those who operate 

all-cargo aircraft, and others with interest in the all-cargo supply 

chain, in the air cargo supply chain. 

We are an integral member of the air transportation community, 

but we are somewhat unique. We exist to serve our customers, and 

provide overnight service to virtually any place in the United 

States and around the world. That means we do a lot of flying at 

night, and off-peak hours. So, we do have a somewhat unique operation. 

We are one of the fastest-growing segments of the community. 

The FAA estimates that we will grow domestically, 3.1 percent, and 

internationally, 6.3 percent over the next decade or so, and in order 

to provide the service that is demanded by our customers, we are 

absolutely dependent on our modern air traffic system that provides the flexibility for growth. We simply cannot afford to continue 

to manage traffic with the technology that was basically invented 

to fight World War II, and matured in the 1950s, that’s radar. We 

must build a system using technology and procedures necessary to 

address the shortfalls in capacity, and this modernization of the 

current system must, therefore, be the major priority as we move 

forward. 

Moreover, modernization of the system exists for reasons other 

than simply addressing capacity. Operational procedures using satellite-based technology will yield more efficient operations, less 

noise, less fuel burn, reduction in aircraft emissions, and those cannot be overlooked, and neither can the potential safety enhancements that will result with the provision of better and more timely 

information to both pilots and controllers. 

Since air cargo is expected to continue to be a major growth element in the system, we have a significant stake in the modernization effort, and we strongly believe the effort to modernize must 

not be delayed, and Congress needs to move forward this year to 

ensure that the programs fundamental to a modernized system are 

both authorized and funded. 

Moving to the real subject of the hearing, and that’s the proposal—the reauthorization of the FAA. The FAA did release its proposal on February 14, and while the FAA over the past months and 

year has made significant strides toward modernization especially 

in the area of identifying ADS–B technology as the building block, 

we’re concerned that the proposed legislation doesn’t really lay out 

a comprehensive, next-generation plan. Until the details of this 

plan are known, it’s very difficult to assess the specific funding required. And yet, the proposal keys almost solely on funding. 

7 

We think, to some extent, this puts the process backward, and 

we need to answer some questions before we go forward. The questions revolve around the precise nature and cost of the system, 

what cost savings would be realized, what are the benefits to users, 

and whether the system needs to be purchased, or perhaps, leased. 

With respect to the funding question—I think there are certain 

fundamental elements. First, the U.S. aviation system—and I think 

all of us would agree—is a system that benefits all citizens and 

drives the Nation’s economy. We absolutely need a robust, Federal, 

General Fund contribution, at least at historic levels. We’re disappointed that the proposal does not grant that. 

Second, whatever funding mechanism you decide upon, it should 

be fair, and the obligations fairly allocated. As a basic principle, we 

do not believe that any industry segment should subsidize any 

other industry segment, but we should all pay for our use of the 

system. 

From the all-cargo perspective, we currently pay a 6.25 percent 

air waybill tax, plus a 4.3 cent per gallon fuel tax, and that results 

in our paying of just over 100 percent of the, of our system use. 

We don’t expect any relief for that portion that exceeds 100 percent, but neither should we be forced, or expected, to pay more 

than our current share that does represent 100 percent use. 

This result can be accomplished by simply retaining the current 

funding mechanism for the air transportation of cargo, or by ensuring that any new system applicable to us does not unfairly impact 

our industry segment. We also firmly believe that it is absolutely 

necessary to fund research and development, research and development becomes tomorrow’s facilities and equipment—we can’t skimp 

on that. 

With respect to the funding proposal, the FAA, we are not happy 

with it. We cannot support any proposal that gives unfettered authority to the FAA Administrator, with virtually no oversight, and 

no possibility for judicial review. 

We are also very concerned that it appears the user-fee system 

envisioned by the FAA, will require a complicated and costly new 

bureaucracy, simply to assess and collect the fees. The added costs 

of establishing and maintaining this bureaucracy is very difficult to 

justify, when there may be other, less costly ways of doing this. 

I might point out that we all get letters requesting charitable 

contributions every once in a while, and I always ask when I get 

that, what portion of money—if I contribute—will actually go to the 

intended recipient, and what will go to administrative costs? I have 

the same problem with the FAA proposal. If we’re going to—the 

funds are not unlimited, and those funds that go there, should go 

to modernization, not to fund another bureaucracy. 

Thank you very much. I would be glad to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alterman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN A. ALTERMAN, PRESIDENT, 

CARGO AIRLINE ASSOCIATION

Good morning. My name is Steve Alterman and I am the President of the Cargo 

Airline Association, the nationwide organization representing the interests of the 

all-cargo air carrier industry, as well as other businesses and entities with a stake 

in the air cargo supply chain. (A list of current members is attached). 

8 

1Such nighttime operations are clearly ‘‘off-peak’’ and result in an efficient use of system resources. 2See Air Cargo Airlines System Use Analysis, SH&E, 2006. 3 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2006-2017. 

The All-Cargo Industry 

Although an integral part of the air transportation community, the all-cargo segment is unique, with operating characteristics different from other segments, resulting in substantially different air transportation system use and relatively less stress 

on system resources. Since our only mission is to provide our worldwide customers 

and shippers with end-to-end transportation services, a large percentage of our 

flights are during nighttime hours, thus allowing us to meet time-definite demands 

and to offer expedited delivery throughout the Nation and the world.1 We currently 

pay for slightly over 100 percent of our share of air traffic system use through a 

combination of a 6.25 percent air waybill tax and 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax.2

The air cargo industry is one of the fastest growing segments of our commercial 

aviation marketplace, with growth rates of 3.1 percent domestically and 6.3 percent 

internationally expected over the next decade.3 In order to continue to provide the 

time-definite service that our shippers and the world economy demand, we are dependent on a modern air traffic management system that provides the flexibility for 

growth in the coming years. We simply cannot afford to continue to manage traffic 

with technology (radar) designed in the first instance to fight World War II. Rather, 

we must build a system using the technology and procedures necessary to address 

the shortfalls in capacity that will occur as future demand continues to grow. The 

modernization of our current system must therefore be the major priority in the ongoing FAA Reauthorization effort. Modernization of the system is critical for reasons other than simply addressing 

future capacity. Operational procedures using satellite-based technology will yield 

more efficient operations, resulting in less noise and less fuel burn, thereby reducing 

aircraft engine emissions. These environmental benefits cannot be overlooked. Nor 

can the potential safety enhancements that will result with the provision of better 

and more timely information to both pilots and controllers. 

Since air cargo is expected to continue to be a major growth element in this system, we have a significant stake in the modernization effort now underway. We 

strongly believe the effort to modernize must not be delayed and Congress needs to 

move this year to ensure that the programs fundamental to a modernized system 

are both authorized and funded. 

The Reauthorization Debate 

On February 14, 2007, the FAA released its long-awaited legislative plan for dealing with both the programmatic and financing elements of the Next Generation System. Unfortunately, this proposal provides more questions than answers, and the 

Cargo Airline Association cannot support the FAA proposal in its present form. 

While the FAA has, over the past few months, made significant strides toward 

modernization (especially in the area of making the decision to use ADS–B technology as the next generation surveillance tool), we are concerned that the proposed 

legislation does not contain a comprehensive Next Generation plan. Until the details 

of this plan are known, it is difficult to assess the funding required. Yet the FAA 

proposal focuses almost exclusively on the financing element and not on the details 

of the system. To some extent, therefore, we are putting the cart before the horse 

and need to step back to ensure that the right questions are being asked. 

These questions revolve around the precise nature and associated costs of the 

Next Generation system, what cost savings the FAA would realize from this modernization, the costs and benefits to the user community and whether the modernized system should be purchased or leased. Only after these issues are, at least preliminarily, addressed should there be a debate over how to fund the system, including whether the current system is adequate or whether a different system is necessary or appropriate. 

When funding questions are addressed, we believe the following principles and 

considerations should be paramount. 

First, the U.S. aviation system is a national asset that benefits all citizens and 

drives the nation’s economy. The consequences of a sub-par system are constrained 

economic growth and diminished U.S. competitiveness in the world marketplace. 

Congress has historically recognized these facts by providing a General Fund contribution in excess of 20 percent of the FAA Budget. We are disappointed that the 

President’s Budget and the FAA legislative proposal not only provide a smaller percentage of General Fund contribution for Fiscal Year 2008, but actually envision a 

9 

4 Indeed, without any detail in the proposed Bill, we have no idea of what expenses can be 

eliminated in a modernized system. 

decrease in funding for 2009 and 2010. With the need for significant infrastructure 

investments in the coming years, this Federal contribution should increase, not decrease. 

Second, whatever funding mechanism is ultimately decided upon, Congress should 

ensure that industry funding obligations are fairly allocated. As a basic principle, 

no industry segment should be forced to subsidize any other segment. From the allcargo perspective, where under the current system cargo industry members pay a 

6.25 percent air waybill tax plus a 4.3 cent per gallon fuel tax, studies indicate that 

our industry segment pays somewhat more than 100 percent of our system use. This 

is before taking into account that much of our use of the system is at off-peak 

times—meaning that not only do we place a relatively low burden on the system 

but, by spreading operations over 24 hours, we also enhance the system’s overall 

efficiency. While we do not expect any relief for that portion of our system use that 

exceeds 100 percent, neither should we be expected to pay any more than our current share in order to make up for the shortfall in contributions from other industry 

segments. This equitable result can be accomplished by simply retaining the current 

funding mechanism for the air transportation of cargo or by ensuring that any new 

system applicable to us does not unfairly impact our industry segment. 

Third, we strongly believe that Congress should support the funding necessary for 

Research and Development in an amount adequate to develop the necessary ‘‘outyear’’ modernization products. As a practical matter, today’s R&D provides tomorrow’s Facilities and Equipment, and any funding gaps in this area will seriously impede the modernization effort. This issue is of special concern in light of the reprioritization of NASA R&D funding to concentrate on future space travel and ‘‘deprioritize’’ short and mid-term aeronautics research. A specific area of R&D concern 

is the research necessary to address growing environmental concerns. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we have serious concerns with the specific 

user fee proposal set forth in the FAA’s February 14 proposal. Even if it is determined that the current excise tax system must be completely overhauled, we cannot 

support a new structure that gives the FAA Administrator virtually unfettered authority to set the level and structure of fees at will, with little or no Congressional 

oversight and no provisions for judicial review. While the proposed Bill does list userelated factors that the Administrator might take into consideration in setting user 

fees, all of these elements are discretionary and need not be used. Such authority 

would clearly eliminate any incentive for the FAA to cut costs 4 or restrain future 

cost increases since fees could always be raised to cover unnecessary agency spending. 

Moreover, it appears that the user fee system envisioned by the FAA proposal will 

require a complicated and costly bureaucracy simply to assess and collect the fees. 

The added costs of establishing and maintaining this bureaucracy cannot be justified, especially when other, simpler, options may be available. At the least, these 

other options should be explored before committing to any proposed user fee scheme. 

The Cargo Airline Association and its member companies are committed to working with Congress, the FAA and colleagues in the aviation community to arrive at 

an equitable system that meets the needs of all aviation interests. While the proposed FAA Bill is a useful beginning of the debate, it must not be viewed as a viable 

final product. 

Thank you very much. 

10 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Interesting comparison. And I thank you 

very much, Mr. Alterman. Very, very much. 

Now, we turn to Mr. Pat Forrey, the President of the National 

Air Traffic Controllers Association. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK FORREY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR 

TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. FORREY. Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Lott, Vice 

Chairman Stevens, on behalf of the 15,000 air traffic safety professionals that make up the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify here today. 

I know I was invited here to discuss the Administration’s FAA 

reauthorization proposal, however, my workforce is having a troubled time, concentrating on user-fees and NextGen, due to the disVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:26 Mar 19, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\79905.TXT JACKIE

308alt.eps
11 

traction associated with our ongoing labor disputes and contract 

disputes. 

NATCA has been shut out of the development of vital modernization equipment, which the GAO cites as a major reasons for billions 

of dollars of cost overruns. We have been shut out of the development of a new staffing plans, which fails to staff to traffic, and instead staffs to budget. And we are largely shut out of the Agency’s 

reauthorization proposal, which includes an ill-advised user-fee system, and other precursors to privatization of the safest and most 

efficient air traffic control system in the world. 

But most frustrating to my membership and I is the fact that we 

were even shut out of any possibility of good-faith negotiations on 

our own contract last year. In July 2005, the FAA unilaterally imposed work rules on 11 NATCA bargaining units, consisting of 

many aviation-safety related professionals, including operations engineers, aviation safety engineers, aircraft certification engineers, 

test pilots, nurses, lawyers, drug abatement, and others. 

Although the FAA continually refers to a contract, the truth is 

that the safety-related professionals NATCA represents are not 

working under a contract, but working under imposed pay and 

work rules. Let me be clear, no labor law considers imposed work 

rules to be a contract. Morale among FAA employees is extremely 

low, retirements are far exceeding FAA’s planning, fatigue among 

those employees remaining is a major concern, and these are all direct effects of the imposed work rules and pay system. 

In 2003, according to the FAA Administrator’s Fact Book, there 

were 15,691 air traffic controllers. At the end of 2006, there were 

14,206, and of the 14,000 working today, almost 2,000 of them are 

trainees, and not fully certified. 

At the same time, by no means by coincidence, operational errors 

are on the rise at the FAA’s busiest facilities, including AtlantaHartsfield, and Southern California TRACON. As an air traffic controller with the FAA for 23 years, I can assure you that those 1,485 

controllers would make a significant difference in the level of safety 

in the sky—1,485 controllers would eliminate the need for mandatory 6-day work-weeks, forced overtime, the fatigue and the burnout felt by overstaffed, overworked controllers throughout the country. 

Without a concerted effort to attract experienced controllers and 

retain our current workforce, the ATC system will continue to lose 

controllers, and that will mean flight delays, runway incursions, increased chances of aviation disasters. 

Controllers are leaving the workforce at a rate of exactly three 

per day, since the start of this current fiscal year. At the current 

pace, the number of controller losses would be 1,095 by the end of 

the year—that’s 150 more, more than the FAA has projected. 

It’s likely that those controllers are retirement-eligible, will 

choose to leave the system, unless something can be done to keep 

them, like returning to the negotiations table under fair conditions, 

and with the intentions of reaching a mutually agreeable contract. 

It’s important to note that the FAA is not currently hiring air 

traffic controllers, they’re hiring trainees. It takes an average of 3 

years for a trainee to become fully certified. The staffing plan reVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:26 Mar 19, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\79905.TXT JACKIE
12 

leased by the FAA just yesterday is the Agency’s latest smoke-andmirrors screen. 

With traffic increased since 1998, and no significant deployment 

of new ATC equipment, I see no justification for a decrease in the 

controller staffing levels. When we lose veteran controllers, we are 

moving from the on-the-job instructors that assist the development 

of new hires. Trainees become controllers by plugging in and working air traffic alongside veteran, certified controllers. With the pool 

of instructors continually shrinking, the length of time it takes for 

trainees to become fully certified, and able to work traffic, will continue to increase. 

The gap—that gap from the day a veteran controller retires, to 

the day their replacement reaches full certification level, is where 

we have the most reason to worry about the Agency’s continued 

ability to maintain the margin of safety in the system, by ensuring 

that redundancy. Our greatest challenge today is maintaining the 

margin of safety, knowing the level of redundancy has become 

whittled away to its bare minimum. We need more eyes watching 

the sky. 

The FAA’s Air Traffic Organization has stated they are considering structured staffing to deal with shortages to train new hires. 

Unfortunately, this will mean air traffic facilities will be staffed 

with less-than-experienced controllers, only partially certified. Currently, FAA projections are that by 2010, 40 percent of the air traffic control workforce will have less than 4 years of experience on 

the job. And that’s without figuring in the 50 percent failure rate 

at facilities such as the New York TRACON, according to the FAA’s 

Eastern Regional Administrator, Doug Murphy. 

I have often—with aviation contributing $640 billion a year to 

the American economy, representing 4.5 percent of the U.S. GDP 

and accounting for over 9 million jobs, it is increasingly important 

that inefficiencies be eliminated in the system. 

As Transportation Secretary Mary Peters recently said, ‘‘If we 

continue along the current path, estimates are that by 2022, congestion in our skies will cost the Nation $22 billion each year in 

lost economic activity.’’ Yet, the FAA has failed to plan for the retirements that are 26 years in the making. 

In fact, the Agency has recently admitted that the work rules imposed on this workforce is actually exacerbating the retirement 

wave, and the understaffing epidemic. The rampant understaffing 

of facilities across the country will mean increased delays, and unnecessarily increased risks. 

It is urgent that we get back to the table, because we are losing 

these controllers, at three a day. It is urgent we stop the bleeding, 

stop pushing out veteran controllers that are needed to help train 

the new ones, and work the airspace. It is urgent that we include 

language to fix the negotiation process, and FAA reauthorization, 

so that we have collective bargaining rights in the next round of 

negotiations. It is urgent we not wait for reauthorization to open 

up the current imposed contract, because the system can’t handle 

the current tidal wave of retirements. The bleeding must be 

stopped, and it can be stopped by getting back to the table. 

13 

It is urgent that we put the imposed work rules and pay system 

behind us, and be allowed to concentrate on the pressing need to 

modernize the system, and meet the demands of the future. 

At this time, I would like to ask that the Committee enter into 

the record a letter written by Congressman Jim Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 

and Congressman Jerry Costello, Chairman of the House Aviation 

Subcommittee, which articulates the need—the urgent need—to attach language to the Iraqi supplemental, to get us back to the 

table, and help stabilize air traffic control system. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. It is done. 

[The information previously referred to follows:] 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

March 6, 2007 

Hon. DAVID R. OBEY, 

Chairman, 

Committee on Appropriations, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Obey: 

We understand that several members of your Committee are urging that the 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for FY 2007 include a provision to 

change the grossly unfair bargaining process between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its air traffic controllers, which has resulted in the unilateral imposition of pay and work rules on this critical safety workforce. We strongly support 

including such a provision in the Emergency Supplemental. 

On April 6, 2006, the FAA declared an impasse in its contract negotiations with 

the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) and sent the dispute up 

to Congress under a provision that FAA argued gave it the right to unilaterally impose its contract terms if Congress did not act within 60 days. FAA imposed its last 

offer on the controllers in June 2006. This unilateral decision has had a harmful 

impact on the workforce, including an acceleration of retirements. According to 

NATCA, veteran controllers are currently retiring at a rate of more than three per 

day since the end of Fiscal Year 2006. 

FAA’s interpretation of the law gives it an inherent, unfair advantage to impose 

its contract terms on its employees. Such a one-sided process has been an impediment to good faith negotiations that could have led to a voluntary contract. 

Air traffic controllers are working under a contract they neither chose nor ratified. 

To restore collective bargaining for our Nation’s nearly 15,000 controllers and to 

preserve safety, we strongly support including a provision in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for FY 2007 that would bring both sides back to the table 

and force binding arbitration. 

Thank you for your attention to this request. 

Sincerely, 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, 

Chairman. 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, 

Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Aviation. 

cc: Hon. NANCY PELOSI

Hon. STENY H. HOYER

Hon. JAMES E. CLYBURN

Hon. JOHN P. MURTHA

Mr. FORREY. Once again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify, and look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forrey follows:] 

14 

1 In fact, over the past 5 years, only one Union, the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS), has reached a collective bargaining agreement with the FAA and shortly thereafter nearly all of the employees in its Flight Service Station (FSS) bargaining unit were separated from service or transferred to other parts of the Agency when their work was contracted 

out. FAA subsequently moved unsuccessfully to void the agreement for the remaining employees 

in Alaska when it petitioned the Federal Labor Relations Authority to decertify the NAATS FSS 

Alaska bargaining unit. 2When an impasse in bargaining is reached, the duty to bargain is not terminated but only 

suspended. NLRB v. Tex-Tan, 318 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1963). However, the fact of impasse enables the employer to make unilateral changes in working conditions that are ‘‘not substantially 

different or greater than any which the employer . . . proposed during negotiations.’’ Atlas Tack 

Corp., 226 NLRB 222, 227 (1976), enfd. 559 F.2d 1201 (1st Cir. 1977). 

Impasse, in effect, temporarily suspends the usual rules of collective bargaining, by enabling 

the interjection of new terms and conditions into the employment relationship even though no 

agreement was reached through the proscribed collective bargaining process. As the Supreme 

Court in Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service v. NLRB, observed: 

‘‘As a recurring feature in the bargaining process, impasse is only a temporary deadlock or 

hiatus in negotiations ‘which in almost all cases is eventually broken, through either a change 

of mind or the application of economic force.’ Furthermore, an impasse may be ‘brought about 

intentionally by one or both Parties as a device to further, rather than destroy, the bargaining 

process.’ 454 U.S. 404, 412 (1981).’’ 

In short, the impasse doctrine is designed, in part, to allow an employer to exert unilateral 

economic force by establishing new terms and conditions of employment as set out in the employer’s bargaining proposals. However, the impasse is always viewed as a temporary circumstance, and the impasse doctrine allowing implementation of employer proposals is 

legitimated only as a method for breaking the impasse. The Parties, thus, remain obligated to 

continue their bargaining relationship and attempt to negotiate an agreement in good faith. The 

impasse doctrine, therefore, is not a device to allow any party to continue to act unilaterally 

or to engage in the disparagement of the collective bargaining process. NLRB v. Crompton-Highland Mills, 337 U.S. 217, 224 (1949). In the instant dispute, even assuming arguendo that the 

Parties reached impasse, FAA has interpreted its unilateral implementation as a contract, rather than a means of pressuring NATCA into reaching a contract. It has, in the Supreme Court’s 

language, disparaged the entire process of collective bargaining. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK FORREY, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION

There are tens of thousands of Federal Aviation Administration employees working without a contract including many employees represented by NATCA, PASS, 

and AFSCME, who are working without contracts for their respective bargaining 

units.1 In July 2005, the FAA unilaterally imposed work rules on 11 NATCA bargaining units consisting of many aviation safety professionals, including Operations 

Engineers, Aviation Safety Engineers, Aircraft Certification Engineers, Test Pilots, 

Nurses, Lawyers, Drug Abatement Inspectors, and others. On September 3, 2006, 

the FAA used that same tactic and imposed work rules and a two-tier pay scale on 

air traffic controllers. Currently the NATCA-represented aviation safety professionals do not have a contract with the FAA and air traffic controllers are working 

under imposed work and pay rules without a contract. Although the FAA continues 

to tell the big lie that there is a contract, that doesn’t make it true. 

It is axiomatic that in order to form a contract the parties must have a meeting 

of the minds. NATCA and the FAA did not and do not have a meeting of the minds 

over the terms and conditions of employment for the three Air Traffic Controller 

bargaining units. Instead the FAA unilaterally implemented its last proposal, forcing employees to work under imposed work and pay rules rather than a contract. 

The FAA did the same thing for in July 2005 for 11 non-Air Traffic Controller bargaining units. There is no contract for these bargaining units either. No labor law 

considers imposed work rules to be a contract. In fact, unilateral implementation 

is a form of economic warfare not unlike a strike or lockout in the private sector.2

Morale among FAA employees is extremely low. Retirements are far exceeding 

FAA’s planning. Fatigue among those employees remaining is a major concern. A 

lack of trust between employees and their supervisors creates additional tension. 

Decisions based upon the desire to display authority rather than based upon safety 

needs or common sense have become pervasive. Thousands of grievances are awaiting disposition. The failure of FAA to reach agreement with the unions that represent its employees has caused urgent safety concerns. 

Congress must act now to alleviate these problems by requiring the FAA to return 

to the bargaining table with NATCA. The current law is unclear. Unless the process 

is changed and clarified, FAA will have no motivation to reach agreement, and it 

will, unfortunately, once again fail to reach agreement. Congress must act to send 

the FAA back to the table, provide a clear impasse procedure, similar to the process 

that has been consistently successful for the United States Postal Service for over 

15 

3 Currently the Federal Courts do not have jurisdiction over these disputes. This is distinguished from the attempt to change the personnel regulations in the Department of Homeland 

Security. Under its statute (5 U.S.C. § 9701(a) (Supp. II 2002), DHS was to create a new system 

through the issuance of regulation (70 FR 5272, Feb. 1, 2005 codified at 5 C.F.R. Part 9701), 

making it subject to Federal Court jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedures Act. When 

the courts reviewed DHS’ proposed regulations it found that the Department had exceeded its 

scope by effectively eliminating collective bargaining, among other things. Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. Chertoff (Chertoff I), 385 F.Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005) , and Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. Chertoff (Chertoff II), 394 F.Supp.2d 137 (D.D.C. 2005), enf’d 452 F.3d 839 

(D.C. Cir. 2006). 

However, not unlike what has occurred in the negotiations between FAA and the Unions that 

represent its employees, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

wrote in enforcing the NTEU v. Chertoff cases, ‘‘the regulations effectively eliminate all meaningful bargaining over fundamental working conditions (including even negotiations over procedural protections), thereby committing the bulk of decisions concerning conditions of employment to the Department’s exclusive discretion. In no sense can such a limited scope of bargaining be viewed as consistent with the Act’s mandate that DHS ‘ensure’ collective bargaining 

rights for its employees.’’ Id. at 844. Similar to DHS, the FAA reserved to its own discretion 

all of the newly negotiable subjects under 49 U.S.C. 40122(a) in its last, best offer to NATCA, 

effectively nullifying the first section of the law, where negotiations are provided for, even 

though it relied upon the next section to unilaterally implement such discretion. 4Pub. L. 104–50, § 347, 109 Stat. 460 (1995). 5 Id. at § 347(b). 6Pub. L. 104–122, 110 Stat. 876 (1996). 

7Pub L. 104–264, Title II, 110 Stat. 3227 (1996). 

8 49 U.S.C. § 40122(a). 9 Id. 

10 49 U.S.C. § 40122(f). 

30 years, preserve the rights to ratification and agency head review, and provide 

jurisdiction for the Federal Courts to hear disputes and enforce the law.3

Statutory Background 

On November 15, 1995, Congress enacted Section 347 of the 1996 Department of 

Transportation Appropriations Act,4 directing the FAA to develop and implement a 

new personnel management system, to address ‘‘the unique demands on the Agency’s workforce.’’ Section 347(b) specifically stated that Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the 

U.S. Code would not apply to the new personnel management system, except for the 

prohibition of the right to strike in § 7116(b)(7).5

On March 28, 1996, the FAA issued a new Personnel Management System (PMS), 

organized in chapters addressing Staffing, Compensation, Performance Management, Training, Labor Relations, and Executive Systems. Chapter V, Labor Relations provided: 

Employee Rights 

The FAA, all FAA employees, and all labor organizations representing FAA employees shall have the same rights, and be subject to the same responsibilities 

and limitations, as are available to all Federal agencies, employees, and labor 

organizations under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71. 

On March 29, 1996, Congress passed the House Joint Resolution 170,6 which 

amended Section 347 of the 1996 DOT Appropriations Act, to require the applicability of Chapter 71 of Title 5, relating to labor-management relations, to the FAA’s 

new PMS. 

On October 9, 1996, Congress enacted the Air Traffic Management System Performance Improvement Act of 1996,7 (the 1996 FAA Act) to establish a procedure 

for ‘‘developing and making changes to the personnel management system initially 

implemented by the Administrator . . . on April 1, 1996. . . . ’’ 8 The FAA Act requires FAA to negotiate with its employees’ exclusive collective bargaining representatives over any changes to the FAA PMS, and to engage in mediation if such 

negotiations do not produce an agreement. However, if negotiations end in an impasse, the 1996 FAA Act ‘‘provide for the Administrator to transmit its proposals, 

along with the bargaining representative’s objections, to Congress. Proposed changes 

to the PMS will not take effect until sixty days after the Agency’s submission to 

Congress.’’ 9 At the same time Congress stipulated that all labor-management agreements then in effect were to remain in effect until their expiration dates.10

In 2000, Congress codified the provisions of House Joint Resolution 170 by adding 

subsection (g)(2)(C) to 49 U.S.C. Section 40122 to specify that Chapter 71 of Title 

16 

11Pub. L. 106–181, Title III, § 307(a), 114 Stat. 124 (2000). 12When FAA and NATCA failed to reach agreements over terms and conditions of employment for 11 bargaining units, NATCA filed a formal Request for Assistance on July 8, 2003 with 

the FSIP (Case No. 03 FSIP 144). PASS filed similar formal Requests for Assistance on various 

dates in July 2003 (Case Nos. 03 FSIP 149, 150, 151, and 157). The FAA filed statements of 

position with the Panel on September 22, 2003, asserting that the Air Traffic Management System Performance Act of 1996 completely divested the Panel of any jurisdiction over the impasses. After soliciting legal positions from all of the parties, on January 9, 2004, the Panel declined to address the impasses ‘‘because it is unclear whether the Panel has the authority to 

resolve the Parties’ impasse[s]. . . . This determination to decline to assert jurisdiction is made 

without prejudice to the right of either party to file another request for assistance if the underlying threshold question is resolved in the appropriate forum consistent with the Union’s interpretation of the applicable statutory provisions.’’ 

NATCA and PASS filed Civil Action No. 04–0138 in the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia on January 30, 2004. The District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the underlying claim. Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers Assn. v. FSIP, 2005 WL 418016 

(D.D.C. 2005). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed 

that it did not have jurisdiction to resolve the complaint on the merits. Instead it deferred to 

the Unfair Labor Practice processes within the Federal Labor Relations Authority’s auspices. 

Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers Assn. v. FSIP, 437 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Yet, the FLRA does 

not have any background in issues involving Title 49. This creates an inherent problem. 13The FLRA has not ruled on surface bargaining, however the National Labor Relations 

Board has significant case law on the subject. In Teamsters Local 515 v. NLRB, 906 F.2d 719 

(D.C. Cir. 1990) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reiterated some of the factors 

that the Board will consider in determining whether bad-faith bargaining had occurred. These 

include among others: unreasonable bargaining demands that are consistently and predictably 

unpalatable to the other party, unilateral changes in mandatory subjects of bargaining, and insistence to impasse on non-mandatory subjects of bargaining, all of which are present in the 

bargaining dispute between NATCA and FAA evidencing the Agency’s design to frustrate a bargaining agreement. 

5, ‘‘relating to labor-management relations’’ would apply to the FAA PMS.11 Yet, the 

statute still remains unclear as to how bargaining impasses are to be resolved.12

Air Traffic Controllers Dispute 

NATCA and FAA began negotiations for a successor to the 2003 two-year extension to the Collective Bargaining Agreement in July of 2005. During those negotiations and NATCA did not reach agreement with FAA. In fact, FAA from the beginning of the process, until the end, failed to adjust its proposals on pay and several 

other issues, believing that if it failed to reach agreement, it would submit its final 

proposal to Congress, Congress would not act, and after 60 days it could unilaterally 

impose its last best offer on the employees. Rather than engaging in collective bargaining, the result was a fait accompli. FAA would engage in what is referred to 

as surface bargaining 13 until it found an opportunity to end negotiations, submit 

its proposal to Congress, and unilaterally implement. 

After 9 months of meeting, on April 5, 2006, the day FAA unilaterally declared 

impasse in negotiations, NATCA presented a new proposal for Pay, Article 108. 

FAA’s Rick Duscharme inquired about whether this was NATCA’s ‘‘best and final 

offer,’’ presumably meaning last, best offer. NATCA’s Barry Krasner responded that 

he didn’t want it to be considered that, that he didn’t see a lot of movement, and 

wanted to see movement from the FAA. FAA’s Joe Miniace responded that he would 

reject or accept the proposal after looking at it during lunch. Previously the shortest 

time period between a Union pay proposal and an FAA response was approximately 

6 weeks: December 7, 2005 (NATCA’s second proposal on pay) to January 25, 2006 

(FAA’s third proposal on pay). On April 5, Miniance’s statement that a response 

could be generated while reviewing the Union’s proposal during lunch serves as a 

further indication that FAA’s intention to declare impasse on April 5, regardless of 

the proposals was a fait accompli. The conversation that followed further emphasized the FAA’s premeditation: 

MINIACE. We’re taking a very hard look at your proposal. I will take exception 

with your number, as soon as our folks are finished. 

KRASNER. You’re not finished. You don’t know that you’ll take exceptions. 

MINIACE. I think your clarifications make it even lower. I will ensure it gets 

the due consideration it deserves during our lunch, so we can plug in another 

number that you clarified today that we had not figured in. We’ll be able to do 

that. 

KRASNER. That doesn’t sound like, it sounds a little, we’ll give it due consideration it deserves during lunch. . . . 

As part of the pay proposal package, NATCA also tendered a new proposal on Article 106, Duration. 

17 

14Former NATCA President John Carr announced to the news media that negotiations had 

broken down several days prior to April 5, however that was due to the FAA wishing to terminate mediation at that time. It was also prior to NATCA developing its April 5 proposals. Moreover, since FAA provided new proposals on April 5, and NATCA had no opportunity to respond 

to those proposals before FAA unilaterally declared impasse, it is impossible to determine 

whether or not the Parties could have bridged the gap on those subjects. 15 VA, VAMC and AFGE Local 85, 32 FLRA 855, 874 (1988) (ALJ Decision-Findings of Fact 

#13). 

On April 5, 2006, NATCA also provided a U–3 proposal on Article 36 Pay Administration. FAA never responded to this proposal, yet declared impasse that same 

day. NATCA also provided FAA with formal requests for declarations of non-negotiability on several articles. FAA rejected Articles 116 Child Care Subsidy and 143 

Student Loan Repayments ‘‘on (their) merits.’’ Regarding Article 150, Facility ATC 

Levels, FAA’s Joe Miniace responded, ‘‘We will respond to 150. We’ll respond to all 

of them. I’m making no other statement on Article 150 for the record.’’ 

NATCA then presented a proposal on Article 38 Overtime and provided FAA with 

a formal request for a declaration of non-negotiability for that article since FAA had 

previously made unsolicited statements regarding the negotiability of portions of 

that proposal. NATCA provided proposals on Article 24 Annual Leave and Article 

28 Holidays. FAA then presented a proposal on Article 106 Duration and the Parties 

broke for lunch. 

After lunch FAA presented a proposal on Article 108 Pay. FAA also made new 

proposals on Article 18 Controller-in-Charge, which NATCA has alleged to constitute bad faith bargaining, and Article 33 Position Rotation and Relief Periods. 

FAA termed both proposals as their ‘‘best and final’’ offers. 

FAA then proposed Article 28 Holidays and gave planned speeches regarding impasse. 

DUCHARME. Let me address one issue—it’s been a hell of a process. Aside from 

the stuff in pay and upgrades and demotions, I want to thank you and Bob for 

your efforts and professionalism and I want to acknowledge the rest of the 

team. Based on what we’ve exchanged today, I see no value in reentering into 

mediation. I’m not the FAA Administrator, I don’t see it. It’s our intention to 

forward all of our outstanding articles to Congress as an impasse package. If 

there are any articles that you think we can work, the door is always open. If 

we can reach agreement on these articles, great. It’s not my call. I believe we’re 

at impasse, based on what we’ve seen today and I see no point in exchanging 

paper. I wanted a voluntary agreement. I acknowledge your team, but I’m disappointed that it didn’t work out. I think we’re done. 

MINIACE. I want to acknowledge this team as well, ours as well as yours. I don’t 

think I’ve worked with a more professional group ever. We knew this would be 

hard and difficult. We came to a stall, went to mediation for 4 weeks. There’s 

some fundamental issues we just can’t get over. Because of the philosophical 

differences between the Union and the Agency—particularly on the long term 

goals of the Agency—they’re going to be issues that remain between us. Rick 

said our intent is to take this through its process, which would be a congressional process. You said your pay proposal would be your congressional proposal. I think more mediation at this point is not in the cards. But I, too, extend 

an offer that we will continue to talk through any process if we can narrow the 

issues and complete the issues during this period of time, I think we’d be better 

people for it. The door is absolutely open on that. On behalf of the FAA, I feel 

that the Agency is declaring impasse. 

No Impasse 

It is NATCA’s position that since Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Mediator Kurt Saunders did not certify impasse nor release the Parties, and since the 

Parties provided each other with new proposals on April 5, some within minutes of 

the FAA’s unilateral declaration of impasse, the Parties were not at impasse on 

April 5, nor have they subsequently reached impasse. Furthermore, since the state 

of impasse requires that the Parties reach impasse over the entirety of the negotiations, the fact that there were ongoing discussions on April 5 over nearly all of the 

outstanding subjects precludes the finding of impasse over those subjects where no 

proposals were exchanged on April 5, and even those subjects where the Parties had 

not made any movement in some time.14

Impasse is a bilateral process, not just the cutting off of negotiations by one 

party.15 In the instant dispute, the FAA terminated negotiations immediately upon 

providing NATCA with substantively different proposals than had been provided 

previously on nearly every subject other than pay, which did not substantially 

18 

16 31 FLRA 620 (1988). 17See: NTEU and U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, 61 FLRA 

729 (2006) and U.S. Department of the Air Force, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Arizona and Local 2924, AFGE, 05 FSIP 104 (2005). 18 26 F.3d 1148, (D.C. Cir. 1994). 19 NATCA is not arguing that wages and the classification of facilities are permissive subjects. 

They are clearly mandatory subjects under 49 U.S.C. 40122(a). However, the waiver of the right 

to bargain is a permissive subject. Under the Statute, FAA can neither bargain to impasse over 

the permissive subject of waiver, nor implement total discretion over mandatory subjects, including wages. 20 321 NLRB 1386, 1391 (1996), enfd. 131 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied 524 U.S. 

937 (1998). 21 Id. at 1028. 22 Id. at 1030. 

change at any point during negotiations. Further, NATCA had, earlier in that day, 

provided FAA with substantively different proposals than had been offered previously. 

Moreover, if there are subjects or proposals of questionable negotiability, it is not 

proper to proceed with impasse resolution procedures until the FLRA can determine 

the negotiability. In Commander Carswell AFB and AFGE,16 the Authority held 

that interest arbitrators and the FSIP may apply settled case law determinations 

of negotiability when a proposal’s language is substantially similar to one previously 

found negotiable or non-negotiable. Further, the Authority held, when it is a matter 

of first impression, it is inappropriate for any other third party empowered to resolve the impasse to resolve the issue. That responsibility is within the exclusive 

jurisdiction of the FLRA. The Authority has consistently upheld Carswell even as 

a two member panel.17 The FLRA is currently only two members since President 

Bush has not nominated a Democrat to fill the third and final position. 

Since the negotiability of the Union’s proposals have not yet been determined by 

the Authority, the Parties never reached a state of impasse. The Authority has ruled 

that where the Union’s proposal has been ruled to be negotiable, it only requires 

that the Parties’ return to the table to negotiate over that proffer. It does not require the third-party impasse adjudicator or other impasse body to accept the 

Union’s proposal, nor does it establish that the Parties are at impasse. In POPA v. 

FLRA,18 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that, ‘‘The Agency’s refusal 

to bargain cannot be construed as an impasse which the arbitrator could rightfully 

resolve. The Agency’s refusal to bargain was premised not merely on a disagreement 

with the proposals, but on a threshold claim that the proposals were not negotiable. 

So long as these negotiability issues remained unresolved, coupled with the Parties’ 

resulting failure to negotiate over the merits of the proposals, there could be no impasse on the merits. Thus, there was nothing to be considered by the interest arbitrator, for it is well-established that an interest arbitrator cannot resolve negotiability issues.’’ 

The Agency Cannot Grant Itself Discretion Over Mandatory Subjects of 

Bargaining 

NATCA has argued that FAA’s proposal to grant itself discretion over wages, facility classification, and other matters, constitutes a waiver of NATCA’s right to bargain over working conditions. The Authority has ruled that such waivers are permissive subjects of bargaining and both the Authority and Board are clear that neither the Employer nor the Union may bargain to impasse over permissive subjects 

or proposals.19 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled on a similar 

matter for private sector negotiations in McClatchy Newspapers v. NLRB.20 Summarizing the Board’s opinion the Circuit writes, ‘‘In the Board’s view this case was less 

about impasse than statutory waiver: an employer who proposes unlimited management discretion over wages is really proposing that the Union waive its statutory 

right to be consulted about wage changes. That is fine, the Board reasoned—if the 

Union agrees. But impasse, by definition a lack of agreement, could not substitute 

for consent.’’ (emphasis added).21 As the Circuit wrote in McClatchy Newspapers, in 

the instant dispute, it seems ‘‘somewhat anomalous to refer to the institution of a 

new wage regime as ‘implementation of terms’ ’’ since here like in McClatchy Newspapers, the Employer’s proposal has no terms. 

The Circuit even went on to see value in the question of whether or not bargaining to impasse over this wholly discretionary matter (waiver) constitutes true 

impasse, but did not reach the question since it was not in the Board’s holding.22

NATCA, however, does make the argument that the Parties were not at impasse, 

so it is incumbent upon the Authority to answer this question. In McClatchy Newspapers this is even further supported since certain clauses could not be implemented 

19 

23 Id. 24 Id. at 1032. 25 Id. 26 347 NLRB No. 88 (Aug. 31, 2006). 27 Id. ALJ decision at 7. 

specifically because they are over permissive subjects. While not specifically applicable in the Federal sector under the 5 U.S.C. 71, the Board’s treatment of the nostrike clause is entirely applicable to the overall concept argued by NATCA. ‘‘The 

Board has held that because the right to strike is ‘fundamental,’ it cannot be relinquished by employees except by consent—which implies a specific contractual waiver.’’ 23

McClatchy Newspapers clearly identifies the problem with the FAA’s inappropriate unilateral implementation. The Circuit found circumstances identical to those 

in the instant dispute. ‘‘Rather than merely pressuring the Union, implementation 

might well irreparably undermine its ability to bargain. Since the Union could not 

know what criteria, if any, petitioner was using to award salary increases, it could 

not bargain against those standards; instead, it faced a discretionary cloud.’’ 24 The 

Board’s interpretation highlights FAA’s predetermined strategy when it wrote, ‘‘the 

present case represents a blueprint for how an employer might effectively undermine 

the bargaining process while at the same time claiming that it was not acting to circumvent its statutory bargaining obligations.’’ (emphasis added).25

The Board’s decision in Mail Contractors of America and Des Moines Area Local, 

American Postal Workers Union,26 reinforces NATCA’s position. In adopting the 

ALJ’s decision, the Board agreed that ‘‘an employer may not compel a Union to 

grant it unlimited discretion on important mandatory subjects of bargaining even 

after bargaining to overall impasse. In addition, to allow an employer to do so 

unjustifiably affects the balance of power between labor and management and thereby undermines an important goal of the Act of encouraging the parties to reach a 

collective-bargaining agreement. This is so because, as this case shows, there are 

occasions when an employer may desire unlimited discretion on a mandatory subject 

of bargaining and may seek in bargaining to persuade a Union to relinquish its 

right to bargain over the matter. In order to do so a Union may seek concessions 

from the employer on other conditions of employment. But if an employer can relegate to itself this discretion a Union’s bargaining strength is diminished and the 

likelihood of reaching an agreement is decreased. . . . Certainly the Act, which was 

enacted for the purpose of ‘encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining,’ forbids such a result.’’ 27

As NATCA has argued FAA’s goal was not to reach agreement; it intended to 

reach impasse and unilaterally implement a vested right of full discretion over pay, 

facility classification, and other matters to itself with no duty to bargain, something 

abhorrent to the Statute itself. As in Mail Contractors of America, it would not be 

unreasonable to believe that the Union would have sought other concessions (i.e., 

retaining the status quo ante pay bands and work rules) and agreed to the Agency’s 

discretion on future annual raises and increases to the bands. However, the Agency 

instead had no desire to reach agreement. Its intention was to grant itself full discretion through a manipulation in the process, while not conceding on any particular issue. The Agency’s actions are antithetical to the definition of collective bargaining as well as the Statute. 

Ratification Required To Form Contract 

NATCA’s position has always been that it has a right to ratify the contract once 

a complete agreement has been reached or the appropriate impasse procedure has 

been determined by the FLRA and has been concluded by the appropriate body. On 

May 12, 2005, the date the Parties agreed to the ground rules for negotiations, 

NATCA provided notice to the FAA regarding its Constitutional requirement to ratify as a precondition to a binding final agreement between the Parties. Specifically, 

the letter from Barry Krasner, NATCA Chief Negotiator, to Melvin Harris, then 

FAA Chief Negotiator, stated: 

Although not specifically addressed in the Parties’ Memorandum of Agreement 

Concerning Ground Rules Governing the Conduct of Negotiations of a successor 

collective bargaining agreement, dated, May 12, 2005, the Union provides the 

following notice to the Agency. The ratification of a tentatively agreed upon contract by NATCA’s membership is a precondition to a final and binding agreement between the Parties. In the event the membership rejects the tentative 

contract, NATCA will notify the Agency that the membership has failed to ratify the contract. The Agency is obligated to resume negotiations with NATCA. 

NATCA will be willing to meet and resume negotiations in order to complete 

20 

28 46 FLRA 1404, 1415 (1993) (ALJ Decision). 

our contract negotiations should a ratification of a tentative contract fail. The 

Agency’s right to Agency Head Review is only triggered by execution of agreement, a condition not effective until ratification is complete. 

Furthermore, the Parties have had a past practice for all other collective bargaining over term contracts that NATCA’s Constitution and Standing Rules require 

ratification by the membership. The Parties have never deviated from that practice. 

In the instant dispute FAA provided NATCA with a final offer on April 5, 2006, 

and immediately and unilaterally declared impasse without NATCA having the opportunity to respond to the proposals. Simultaneous with its declaration of impasse 

and in evidence of its predetermined posture to not reach agreement, FAA improperly submitted its proposals to Congress. NATCA has filed Unfair Labor Practice 

Charges over the improper submission to Congress, but the FLRA does not have expertise regarding Title 49 of the United States Code, so it is unclear how it will resolve the issue, if at all. Since NATCA disagrees with the FAA’s use of Congress 

as the appropriate impasse procedure, NATCA cannot submit the FAA’s imposed 

agreement for ratification or risk acquiescence to the FAA’s improper impasse procedure. Only after a clear and final impasse procedure is completed would a full and 

complete collective bargaining agreement be ripe for a ratification vote by NATCA’s 

membership. 

In SSA and AFGE Council 220,28 the Authority adopted the ALJ’s decision that 

provided that the Union’s right to ratification need not be expressed in ground rules 

as long as, as in the instant dispute, the Union provides the Agency with notice of 

the ratification as a precondition to a final and complete agreement between the 

Parties and does not waive its right to ratification. In the instant dispute NATCA’s 

past practice has been to require ratification as a precondition to a complete agreement and NATCA provided FAA with a letter to that effect the same date as the 

ground rules were agreed to. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Forrey. Thank 

you. 

Now, we have Mr. Chip Barclay, and we welcome you, sir. And 

you are the President of the American Association of Airport Executives, on behalf of the American Association of Airport Executives, and the Airport Legislative Alliance. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES ‘‘CHIP’’ M. BARCLAY, A.A.E., 

PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES; ON BEHALF OF THE AIRPORT LEGISLATIVE 

ALLIANCE 

Mr. BARCLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. That’s a large title. 

Mr. BARCLAY. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it’s 

always a privilege to testify before the Commerce Committee, and 

I thank you for that opportunity. 

I’d like to just make three very brief points in addition to what’s 

in our written testimony. 

The first is that our members are concerned about their ability 

to meet future demand in this system with adequate airport capacity. One of their particular challenges is the 7–10 year time-frame 

it takes to go from planning to implementation of any major project 

at airports. Some even take longer than that. So, we are planning 

right now and are in various stages of projects to meet capacity 

needs far into the future. 

And regardless of the challenges that we, or anyone faces, the 

fact is what’s coming at our system is growth in passengers that’s 

going to be equal to one-third of what we currently have of people 

flying today being added to the system. It’s the equivalent of adding the population of the United States to the system within 8 

21 

years from now. And, those of you traveling through airports at 

crowded times know that the capacity isn’t currently there to handle that kind of passenger growth. But we absolutely have to handle it because of the impacts it will have on aviation gridlock and 

our economy in general, if we don’t. 

So, we’re here seeking the Committee’s help in order to meet 

those capacity needs, at airports in particular, but on behalf of the 

entire industry for the ATC system as well. 

The second point is that the existing dollars for financing major 

capital development at airports have been absolutely ravaged by 

construction inflation costs. This is not the consumer inflation 

that’s been moderate, that most of us are familiar with. Construction inflation in the last 3 years has increased 26.5 percent. It’s 

over 8 percent a year recently, and I know a number of members 

of the Committee know this firsthand. 

And, as a result of that and the need to meet these growing demands of the system, we are recommending to the Committee significant increases over what the Administration plan calls for both 

airport improvement program funds and for the limit on Passenger 

Facility Charges. Specifically, we’re recommending $3.8 billion for 

AIP with annual increases and a $7.50 cap on the Passenger Facility Charge with indexing for future inflation costs out into the future. That would be up from the $4.50 cap that was set back in the 

year 2000. 

Both of these fees are needed in the system. We do have a network of airports—smaller airports rely more on AIP for their funding, large airports more on PFCs. But this is the right way to look, 

we think, at airports is as a system. Virtually all of the passengers 

who depart at a small airport have the end of their destination at 

a large airport somewhere in the system. Many of the people getting on airplanes at large airports are bound for small airports. So, 

we need to look on this as a network and we’ve found in the past 

that when you have a bottleneck anywhere in that network, it 

quickly cascades pain, delay and problems throughout the entire 

airport system. 

So, looking at both of those fees as part of a needed system that 

helps all there, we think, is the right way to view the system. 

And the final point I’d like to make is that we don’t agree with 

the Administration’s funding proposal to both cut AIP dramatically 

and use a very narrow form of funding for future airport development costs. Our argument would be for the Committee to continue 

with its historic view of aviation, user fees, and the Trust Fund. 

This Committee authored the bill in 1969 that was set up to collect 

fees from users and have them go first to capital needs in the system both air traffic control and airport improvements, in order to 

meet future demand—and second, if there were funds remaining, 

to go to FAA operations, which prior to that time had been 100 percent funded by the General Fund. 

The Administration’s plan would—in our view—turn that 

around, and put FAA operations and the desire to make a smaller 

General Fund contribution first. Capital needs of both air traffic 

control and airports come second, and we would not recommend 

that to the Committee. 

22 

Finally, I’d like to say that we would like to work with the Committee on stronger, small community air service provisions which— 

I know the panel knows very well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the 

Committee and the staff. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barclay follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES ‘‘CHIP’’ M. BARCLAY, A.A.E., PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES; ON BEHALF OF THE AIRPORT

LEGISLATIVE ALLIANCE

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Lott and members of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety and Security, thank you for inviting me to appear before your subcommittee to discuss the Administration’s proposal to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). I am testifying 

today on behalf of the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) and the 

Airport Legislative Alliance (ALA). 

AAAE represents the thousands of men and women who manage primary, commercial service, reliever and general aviation airports throughout the county. The 

ALA, representing America’s airport system, is comprised of airports of all sizes 

from across the country that have come together to address Federal legislative and 

regulatory matters on behalf of the industry. A roster of ALA members is included 

at the end of my testimony. 

As we begin the debate on the next FAA reauthorization bill, I would like to 

thank the members of this subcommittee who played a key role in the last two FAA 

reauthorization bills: H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR–21) and H.R. 2115, Vision 100—Century of 

Aviation Authorization Act. During consideration of those two bills, lawmakers 

agreed to increase the cap on Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) from $3.00 to $4.50 

and steadily increase AIP funding from approximately $2.5 billion in Fiscal Year 

2000 (FY00) to $3.7 billion in FY07. 

The aviation system has faced many challenges since Congress passed AIR–21 7 

years ago. Despite the temporary downturn that occurred after September 11th, 

passenger levels, flight delays, airport capital needs and construction costs continue 

to rise. To help airports keep pace with increasing capacity and financial demands, 

we urge you to increase the PFC cap to $7.50 and increase AIP funding to $3.8 billion in FY08. By continuing the trend of increasing funding for airport capital development projects established in AIR–21 and Vision 100, this subcommittee can help 

to improve safety, increase capacity and reduce delays at airports around the country. 

In addition to increasing funding for airport capital development projects, another 

top priority for AAAE and the ALA is to help small communities that are struggling 

to retain and attract new commercial air service. During consideration of AIR–21 

and Vision 100, this subcommittee extended a helping hand to small communities 

suffering from infrequent air service and high airfares. We look forward to working 

with you to build on those successful efforts during consideration of the next FAA 

reauthorization bill. 

Increasing Demand, Delays and Airport Capital Needs 

Increasing Demand: About a year ago, the FAA released its Aerospace Forecast 

for 2006 to 2017. The forecast indicated that the number of passengers flying in the 

United States was about 6 percent higher in 2005 than it was before the terrorist 

attacks on 9/11 and 7.1 percent higher than 2004. The FAA is also predicting that 

passenger enplanements will increase from approximately 739 million in 2005 to 

more than one billion passengers in 2015 at an average annual increase of 3.1 percent. 

23 

Former Secretary of Transportation Noman Y. Mineta, commented on these projections and the need to increase capacity when he spoke at the FAA Forecast Conference on February 28, 2006. ‘‘And looking at this year’s aviation forecast, it is 

clear that we had better prepare to expand capacity if we are going to keep from 

being snowed under by gridlock and congestion,’’ Mineta said. 

The demand for air cargo is also growing. The FAA is predicting that total Revenue Ton Miles—or the measurement of moving one ton of cargo one mile—will increase from 39.2 billion in 2005 to 71.7 billion in 2017. This is an average of 5.2 

percent per year. To handle that increased load, the number of cargo aircraft is expected to increase from just over 1,021 in 2005 to 1,345 in 2017, which is an increase of 31.7 percent. 

More regional jets and Very Lights Jets (VLJs) will be filling the skies, too. The 

FAA is predicting that the number of regional jets will increase from 1,758 to 2,819 

by 2017, an average annual increase of 4 percent per year. When Nicholas A. 

Sabatini, the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety at the FAA, testified before the Senate Commerce Committee in September, he mentioned that 5,000 VLJs 

will likely be operating by 2017. 

Increasing Delays: Flight delays are also on the rise. According to the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS), 22.6 percent of all flights between January and December of 2006 arrived at their gates 15 minutes or more after their scheduled arrival time. That’s a 2.1 percent increase from 2005, and it’s nearly as high as the 

record delays that occurred in 2000 when 23.86 percent of all flights arrived at their 

gates behind schedule. 

BTS also tracks the number of flights that leave their gates on-time. Between 

January and December 2006, almost 20 percent of all flights left their gates 15 minutes or more after their scheduled departure time. That’s more than a 2 percent increase from the previous year and it’s even higher than the delays that occurred 

in 2000 when 19.9 percent of all flights left their gates late. In other words, delays 

measured in both arrivals and departures are close to or have actually exceeded the 

2000 levels when one in four flights was delayed canceled or diverted. 


308barc.eps
24 

Increasing Airport Capital Needs: As the number of passengers and aircraft in the 

aviation system increase, airport capital needs continue to rise. In 2004, the FAA 

issued a report entitled, ‘‘Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System.’’ The report examined which of the busiest 35 airports in the FAA’s Operational Evolution 

Plan will be able to meet future demand. It indicates that plans to increase capacity 

at 15 airports ‘‘are not enough to keep up with projected levels of demand’’ by 2013. 

By 2020, ‘‘18 airports are identified as likely needing additional capacity.’’ Given the 

time it takes to bring airport infrastructure projects to completion, it is critical that 

we act now to address this situation. 

Late last year, the FAA also released its National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) for 2007 to 2011. The report indicates that there will be $41.2 billion 

of AIP4-eligible projects during the next 5 years—or approximately $8.24 billion per 

year. This is 4 percent higher than the $39.5 billion that FAA estimated for AIPeligible construction projects for 2005 to 2009. Additionally, in its letter of transmittal of the draft bill, referring to the 4 percent increase over the previous report, 

the Administration states, ‘‘we believe that this figure is understated.’’ 

The NPIAS identifies 3,431 airports that are eligible to receive AIP grants. According to the report, 27 percent of the planned development is to bring airports up 

to current design standards, and 21 percent is for capacity-related projects. Another 

17 percent of the planned development is for replacing or rehabilitating airport facilities such as pavement and lighting systems. 

Airports rely on a number of sources for airport capital development projects. The 

overwhelming majority of funds come from airport bonds, AIP and PFCs. However, 

the FAA acknowledges in the report that ‘‘the NPIAS includes only planned development that is eligible to receive Federal grants under the AIP. . . . It does not include development eligible under the Passenger Facility Charge program but ineligible under the Federal grant program, such as gates and related areas.’’ 

The Airport Capital Development Needs Survey, prepared by Airports Council 

International—North America (ACI–NA), also indicates that there are significant 

airport capital needs. The survey determined that airports will need $87.5 billion 

between 2005 and 2009—or approximately $14.3 billion per year. Unlike the NPIAS, 

however, the Airport Capital Development Needs Survey includes projects that are 

AIP-eligible and those that airports intend to fund with other revenue including 

PFCs and airport bonds. 


308barc1.eps
25 

The Airport Capital Development Needs Survey reveals that there is a sizable gap 

between airport needs and the revenue that is available for capital development 

projects. On average airports issued about $5.2 billion in new bonds per year during 

the past 5 years. That amount coupled with the $3.5 billion that Congress recently 

approved for AIP in FY07 and the $2.6 billion that the FAA expects will be generated from PFCs this year totals about $11.3 billion. The total of primary funding 

sources, which does not include the local match or other airport revenue, is about 

$3 billion short of the $14.3 billion mark. 


308barc2.eps 308barc3.eps
26 

ACI–NA is in the process of updating its Airport Capital Development Needs survey. The results are expected to show a significant increase in airport capital needs 

between 2007 and 2011 due to increasing capital requirements and rising construction costs. According to the Means Construction Cost Indexes, the average construction costs for 30 major U.S. cities jumped 26.5 percent in the past 3 years. So the 

gap cited above could be even higher unless Congress takes action. 

The Solution: Provide Airports with the Resources They Need to 

Accommodate Increasing Demand and Skyrocketing Construction 

Costs 

FAA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) should be commended for highlighting the need for a Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Although there may be strong disagreement on how best to pay for transforming the 

national air transportation system, there is wide agreement on the need to move 

from a ground-based to a satellite-based navigation system. This is another airport 

priority, and I am pleased that AAAE is working closely with other aviation stakeholders to develop a plan on how to implement NextGen and avoid congestion in 

the aviation system. 

As I mentioned previously, the passenger level is expected to increase from 739 

million to 1 billion 7 years from now. That is the equivalent of adding the entire 

population of the U.S. on to an already delayed, already constrained system. While 

many are understandably focusing on the need to implement a satellite-based navigation system to reduce congestion in the skies, we should not lose sight of the need 

to increase capacity and reduce congestion on the ground. 

In an effort to be build the infrastructure necessary to accommodate increasing 

demand and to offset the impacts of skyrocketing construction costs, airport executives are urging Congress to raise the cap on PFCs, increase AIP funding and reduce the costs of airport bonds. 

Increase the PFC Cap: The Aviation Safety and Capacity and Expansion Act of 

1990 included a provision that has allowed airports to impose a local fee of up to 

$3 on passengers boarding aircraft at their facilities. AIR–21, which Congress 

passed in 2000, included a provision that allowed airports to increase that amount 

to $4.50. Money generated from PFCs augments AIP funding and other sources of 

revenue that airports use for a variety of purposes including building new runways, 

taxiways and terminals as well as paying for debt service. 

Last year, airports collected about $2.4 billion from PFCs. Unfortunately, however, the value of PFCs has eroded over time due to inflation and increased construction costs. When you factor in the Consumer Price Index, a $3.00 PFC in 1990 

is expected to be worth only about $1.86 in 2007, and a $4.50 PFC in 2000 is expected to be worth about $3.10. 

The picture gets even worse when you examine the increasing construction costs, 

which provides you with a more accurate picture of the costs associated with airport 

construction projects. In that case a $3.00 PFC in 1990 is expected to be worth only 

about $1.73 in 2007, and a $4.50 PFC in 2000 is expected to be worth only $2.86 

in 2007. Unless corrective action is taken, the value of PFCs will erode even more 

by 2010 when a $3.00 PFC is expected to be worth only $1.55, and a $4.50 PFC 

is expected to be worth only $2.56. 

27 

Conversely, a $3 PFC in 1990 would need to be adjusted to $4.77 in 2007 to offset the impact of inflation, and a $4.50 PFC in 2000 would be need to be set at approximately $6.58. If adjusted for increasing construction costs, a $3 PFC would need to 

be set at $5.21 in 2007, and a $4.50 PFC would be $7.20. 

Airport executives commend the Administration for calling for a PFC increase. Its proposal to increase the cap to $6.00 is an encouraging step in the right direction. 

According to the FAA, raising the cap by an additional $1.50 could allow airports 

to generate an additional $1.2 billion per year. That would help close at least some 

of the gap between airport capital needs and the amount of revenue that is currently available for airport capital development projects. But it is not enough. 

It is not enough to close the funding gap especially when the Administration is 

simultaneously proposing to cut AIP spending by almost $1 billion from the authorized level. And it is not enough to keep up with inflation or increasing construction 

costs. By 2010—the final year in the Administration’s FAA reauthorization proposal—a $4.50 PFC would need to be raised to $7.14 to keep up with expected inflation and to $8.03 to keep up with the anticipated increase in construction costs. 


308barc4.eps 308barc5.eps
28 

Airport executives are asking Congress to take the next step and raise the PFC 

cap to at least $7.50. That would be enough to offset the expected impact of inflation 

over the next 3 years and the projected increased construction costs in 2008. To prevent further erosion of PFCs, we also ask Congress to include a provision in the 

next FAA reauthorization bill that would index PFCs to account for increasing construction costs. 

Increase AIP Funding: In addition to raising the PFC cap, airport executives ask 

that Congress increase AIP funding. AIP is an important source of funding for all 

sizes of airports. According to the FAA, AIP funding counted for 51 percent of capital expenditures for small hub airports in FY03, 94 percent for non-hub airports 

and 89 percent for nonprimary commercial service airports. Large and medium hub 

airports also depend on AIP funding—particularly money distributed through the 

Letter of Intent Program (both entitlement and discretionary funds) to help pay for 

large capacity projects. 

Given the increasing demand, inflation and construction costs, airport executives 

are dismayed that the Administration is requesting only $2.75 billion for AIP in 

FY08. This is approximately $1 billion less than the amount Congress authorized 

in FY07 and $765 million less than the appropriated level. The Administration is 

proposing to increase AIP to $2.9 in FY09 and $3.05 in FY10. However, even the 

highest proposed level would be $150 million less than the amount that Congress 

authorized for AIP 6 years ago. We cannot afford to take such an enormous step 

backward in terms of critical AIP funding. 

We urge this Congress to reject the Administration’s proposal to drastically cut 

AIP funding and roll back the progress made in AIR–21 and Vision 100. Instead 

we urge you to continue to increase AIP funding as Congress did in the previous 

two FAA reauthorization bills. At the very least, we urge you to increase AIP funding so that the program will keep up with increased construction costs. Doing so 

would translate into $3.8 billion for AIP in FY08, $4 billion in FY09, $4.1 billion 

in FY10, and $4.3 billion in FY11. 

Reclassify Airport Bonds: The largest source of funding for capital development 

projects at airports is generated from airport bonds. Large airports particularly rely 

on the bond market to finance capital development projects at their facilities. In 

2006, airports used approximately $3.9 billion in new bonds to finance capital development projects at their facilities. Over the past 5 years, airports issued an annual 

average of $5.2 billion in new bonds. 


308barc6.eps
29 

Unfortunately, Federal tax law unfairly classifies more than 60 percent of airport 

bonds as private activity bonds even though they are used to finance runways, 

taxiways and other critical facilities that benefit the public. Since private activity 

bonds are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), airport bond issuers are 

usually charged higher interest rates on their borrowing. Depending on market conditions, AMT requires issuers to pay investors anywhere from 10 to 30 basis points 

(0.10 percent to 0.30 percent) higher interest costs on long-term fixed rate bonds. 

This can significantly increase overall project costs. 

In addition to being subject to the AMT, private activity bonds that airports use 

to finance critical capital development projects cannot be advance refunded. Unlike 

homeowners who have the opportunity to refinance their home mortgages, airports 

typically are unable to refinance their debt and take advantage of lower interest 

rates for at least 10 years after issuing their bonds. By contrast, most governmental 

bonds can be advance refunded one time. 

In general, airports are owned and operated by state and local governments, and 

airports serve a vital public purpose. We encourage Congress to include a provision 

in the next FAA reauthorization bill that would reclassify those private activity 

bonds that airports use to finance AIP- and PFC-eligible projects as public purpose. 

This would save airports in financing costs by allowing them to take advantage of 

lower interest rates and advance refund the bonds they use for AIP- and PFC-eligible projects. It would also free resources for additional projects. 

AIP and PFC Modifications 

The Administration is proposing major reforms for the AIP and PFC programs. 

It is clear from the Administration’s reauthorization proposal that FAA staff dedicated a lot of time and energy toward coming up with a plan to simplify and improve both of these programs. We support many of the concepts outlined in the Administration’s plan such as increasing the cap on PFCs. We may disagree with some 

of the Administration’s specific proposals, and we may recommend modifying a few 

others. But we share the same goal of empowering local airports and truly appreciate FAA’s efforts. 

PFC Pilot Program for Large Airports: The Administration’s FAA reauthorization 

proposal would create a new pilot program that would allow up to 10 medium or 

large hub airports to charge a $7.00 PFC if they agree to operate and maintain terminal area navigational equipment, such as instrument landing systems and approach lighting systems. Again, airports strongly believe that the PFC cap should 

be raised to at least $7.50. Some large and medium hub airports might be willing 

to participate in such a pilot program if it allowed them to increase their PFC by 

an additional dollar above the $7.50 level and if they received adequate liability protection. 

PFC Streamlining: Airports support the Administration’s proposal to streamline 

the PFC application process. The FAA points out in its section-by-section analysis 

of the bill that ‘‘current law requires an application and approval of each PFC 

project (or amendment to a project) that sometimes involves prolonged reviews and 

delays.’’ We agree with the FAA’s assessment and strongly support its proposal to 

streamline the PFC process, which currently takes several months to complete. 

Airports work closely with our airline partners to reach consensus on PFC-funded 

projects and will continue to do so if Congress endorses the Administration’s streamlining proposal. For instance, airports would continue to provide a reasonable notice 

and comment period for carriers operating at their facilities. However, airports 

would be allowed to impose a new PFC earlier in the process and avoid months in 

unnecessary delays. Should a carrier file an objection, DOT would have the authority to terminate the airport’s authority to collect PFCs for the new project if the 

agency concurred with the objection. 

AIP/PFC Flexibility: The Administration’s proposal would also allow small airports to use AIP funds for more purposes. For instance, it would allow nonprimary 

airports to use AIP funds for mobile fuel truck containment systems and allow them 

to use entitlements for revenue-producing aeronautical support facilities such as 

new fuel farms and hanger buildings. Small airports welcome the increased AIP 

flexibility, and airport executives are interested in learning more about how the Administration’s proposal to expand PFC flexibility would impact their facilities. 

The Federal Match for AIP Projects: A number of airport executives have expressed opposition to the Administration’s proposal to reduce the Federal share for 

certain airport projects. For instance, the Administration is calling for reducing the 

government’s maximum share for airfield pavement and rehabilitation projects for 

runways and taxiways at large and medium hub airports from 75 percent to 50 percent. Decreasing the Federal share would significantly increase the local cost of runway and taxiway projects at busy airports at a time when we should be trying to 

30 

provide airports with more money to pay for critical infrastructure projects—not 

less. 

As many members of this subcommittee know, Vision 100 included a helpful provision that increased the Federal share for small hub and smaller airports from 90 

percent to 95 percent through FY07. The Administration’s FAA reauthorization proposal would allow that provision to expire and return the Federal share to a maximum of 90 percent for many small airports. Small communities around the country 

often find it difficult to come up with a 5 percent percent local matching share. Increasing their required contribution to 10 percent might prevent certain small airports from moving forward with planned construction projects. 

Airport executives oppose both proposals to reduce the Federal share for airport 

projects. We would also argue that neither reduction is necessary if Congress rejects 

the Administration’s proposal to cut AIP funding by almost $1 billion from the current authorized level. 

AIP Funding for Small Airports: The Administration is also proposing to eliminate the Small Airport Fund, which is supported by turnbacks from large and medium hubs, and replace it with a new Small Airport Set-Aside. This new Small Airport Set-Aside would provide funds for projects at small hub, nonhub, nonprimary 

commercial service, reliever and general aviation airports. The proposal calls for 20 

percent of discretionary funds to be used for this new set-aside. We question the 

wisdom of replacing the Small Airport Fund, which links small and large airports 

together on AIP and PFC issues, with a new Small Airport Set-Aside. Moreover, it 

appears that affected airports would receive less money under the Administration’s 

plan and consequently would not be ‘‘held harmless’’ by the proposed change. 

Nonprimary Apportionment: The Administration’s proposal also calls eliminating 

the maximum $150,000 apportionment for nonprimary commercial service, general 

aviation and reliever airports and replacing it with ‘‘tiered funding levels based on 

airport size and aviation activity.’’ The new entitlements would allow some of the 

larger nonprimary airports to receive up $400,000. On the surface, this approach 

seems to make sense, and a number of general aviation airports have expressed support for tiered funding levels. However, we would reserve judgment until we learn 

more about how this proposal would impact all nonprimary airports. 

Land Acquired for Noise Compatibility Purposes: The Administration’s proposal 

would make a grant assurance change regarding the sale of land that an airport 

initially acquired for a noise compatibility purpose but not longer needs. Current 

law requires that the proceeds proportional to the Federal Government’s share of 

the land acquisition be returned to the Aviation Trust Fund. The reauthorization 

proposal would allow DOT to reinvest the government’s share of the proceeds in another project at that airport or another airport. However, airport executives are concerned that the Administration’s proposal does not resolve the question about what 

happens if an airport leases land initially acquired for a noise compatibility purpose. 

We would like to work with this subcommittee to address that omission. 

Funding of FAA Programs 

Provide A Stable Funding Stream for AIP: It is critical that enough money goes 

into the Aviation Trust Fund to pay airport construction projects. The Administration’s FAA reauthorization proposal would dramatically change how the AIP program is funded. Funding for airport improvements would still come from the Airport 

and Airway Trust Fund. However, money going into the Trust Fund would come 

from an increase in commercial and general aviation fuel taxes and revenue generated from international departure and arrival taxes. 

The Administration is proposing to increase the general aviation taxes from about 

20 cents per gallon to 70 cents per gallon. Of that amount, 13.6 cents per gallon 

would be used to fund AIP, RE&D and the Essential Air Service (EAS) Program. 

The remaining amount would be used to finance general aviation’s share of the air 

traffic control system. The proposal also calls for raising the commercial fuel tax 

from 4.3 cents per gallon to 13.6 cents per gallon and reducing the international arrival and departure tax from $14.50 to $6.39. All the revenue from these two taxes 

would be used for AIP, RE&D and the EAS. 

Airport executives understand the need for a rational and stable financing system 

for the FAA. However, airport executives would strongly oppose changing the current financing system in such a way that resulted in less money for airports to 

maintain safe and secure facilities and prepare for increasing demand. Airport executives want a stable and predictable funding stream for AIP, too. Frankly, they 

are not convinced that relying on a tripling of general aviation taxes to help pay 

for airport improvements would provide enough revenue or a stable source of funds. 

Under the Administration’s proposal, the 7.5 percent domestic passenger ticket 

tax and the domestic flight segment fee, which currently fund about 70 percent of 

31 

the Aviation Trust Fund, would be eliminated. Asking domestic passengers to help 

pay for capital development projects at airports through the AIP program has been 

a key component of the Aviation Trust Fund since this committee helped to create 

it more than 30 years ago. Many airport executives would strongly oppose eliminating that funding source because they argue that domestic passengers should continue to directly contribute to the Aviation Trust Fund just like international passengers, commercial aviation and general aviation. 

The Administration is recommending that commercial and general aviation fuel 

tax increases go into effect in 2008 and be adjusted for inflation beginning in 2010. 

However, it is unclear whether the FAA has determined the price elasticity of its 

fuel tax proposal or precisely how the agency would make up any potential shortfall 

if the fuel taxes generated less revenue than expected. Moreover, it is uncertain 

whether Congress would be willing to increase AIP funding or even reject the Administration’s proposal to cut AIP funding if doing so translated into even higher 

gas taxes on general aviation. 

Strengthen Budget Protections: Whether Congress decides to keep the current excise tax system in place or call for some new user fees, it is critical that the next 

FAA reauthorization bill include budget points of order to protect AIP funding. AIR– 

21 included an airport executive-supported provision that requires all receipts and 

interest credited to the Aviation Trust Fund to be spent on aviation. It also makes 

it difficult for Congress to appropriate less than the full amount authorized for AIP. 

Those budget points of order have worked reasonably well over the past several 

years, and we encourage you to strengthen or maintain them in the next FAA reauthorization bill. Absent these protections, we are concerned that we would return 

to the days before 2000 when the gap between the amount authorized for AIP and 

the amount appropriated was routinely quite large. 

General Fund Contribution: The Administration’s FAA reauthorization proposal 

calls for not more than $2.6 billion in taxpayer revenue to pay for aviation in 

FY08—or about 18.6 percent. That funding level would decline to $2.5 billion in 

FY09 and FY10. During the past 20 years, the General Fund contribution has been 

as high as 48 percent and has averaged about 27 percent. In recent years, however, 

the General Fund contribution has steadily declined. We strongly believe that Congress should increase the General Fund contribution to 25 percent. 

Improve Service to Small Communities 

Although overall passenger levels are continuing to rise, many small communities 

around country are struggling to retain and attract new commercial air service. In 

2005, the Government Accountability Office reported that service to large- mediumand small-hubs has largely rebounded since 9/11. However, non-hub airports had 17 

percent less service in July 2005 than they did in July 2000. 

In May 2006, the DOT Inspector General also reported that scheduled flights at 

small communities for the first 3 months of 2006 were 17 percent lower than the 

number of flights scheduled in the same period in 2000. At non-hubs, the number 

of flights was down 29 percent from the first 3 months of 2006 when compared to 

the same period of 2000. 

Members of this subcommittee have repeatedly pointed out that many small communities have suffered since the airline industry was deregulated almost 30 years 

ago. Congress, the Administration and all of us in the aviation industry should work 

together to find ways to address this problem and to ensure that people who live 

in rural areas have access to the aviation system. 

Increase Funding for the Small Community Air Service Development Program: It 

is disappointing that the Administration’s FAA reauthorization proposal does not include any funds for the Small Community Air Service Development Program. Small 

airports around the country are grateful that this subcommittee helped to create 

what is now known as the Small Community Air Service Development Program in 

AIR–21. Since its inception this program has helped small communities that suffer 

from insufficient air service or unreasonably high fares. 

Over the past 4 years DOT has awarded 150 grants, which have typically ranged 

from $20,000 to nearly $1.6 million. Last year, the department received 75 proposals 

from communities in 37 states requesting more than $32 million ‘‘to support new 

and ongoing air service development projects.’’ However, the demand for Federal assistance far exceeded the approximately $10 million that Congress approved for the 

program in the FY06. In August, DOT announced that it had awarded grants that 

will benefit 28 communities in 22 states. 

Considering the number of communities that apply for funds from this program 

and the continuing pressures on small communities, we urge this subcommittee to 

consider making a greater investment in the Small Community Air Service Development Program. Specifically, we urge you to authorize $50 million for the Small ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:26 Mar 19, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79905.TXT JACKIE
32 

munity Air Service Development Program per year—$15 million more than Congress authorized for the program per year in Vision 100. Maintain the Essential Air Service Program: We also encourage Congress to maintain adequate funding for the EAS program and to take steps to improve the program as this subcommittee tried to do in Vision 100. Unfortunately, the Administra- tion’s FAA reauthorization would limit funding for the EAS Program to just $50 million per year—$60 million less than the amount Congress approved for FY07. 

The plan would also cut communities out of the program by limiting service to 

those: (1) that currently participate in the EAS program; (2) that are more than 70 

miles from a large- or medium-hub airport; and (3) where the per passenger subsidy 

does not exceed $200 if the community is less than 210 miles from a large- or medium-hub airport. 

Invest in the FAA’s Contract Tower Cost Share Program: Another program that 

has improved service and safety at airports in small communities is the FAA’s Contract Tower Program. This program has been in place since 1982 and currently provides for the cost-effective operation of air traffic control towers at 233 smaller airports in 46 states. Without the Contract Tower Program many simply would not 

have any air traffic control services at their facilities. 

With help from this subcommittee, AIR–21 included a provision that created the 

Contract Tower Cost Share Program, which currently allows 26 airports in 22 states 

that fall slightly below the eligibility criteria to participate in the program if they 

provide local funds. We recommend that this subcommittee authorize $8.5 million 

for the Contract Tower Cost Share Program in FY08 and increase the amount by 

$500,000 per year. Doing so would keep the existing towers operating and allow additional airports to participate in the program. 

Other Recommendations 

Require FAA to Continue to Pay for Space the Agency Uses at Airports: Airport 

executives strongly believe that the FAA should continue to pay for the space that 

the agency uses at their facilities just like other airport tenants. Airports do not object to providing land to the FAA for Air Traffic Control facilities without cost. However, they believe that the FAA should continue to pay reasonable rates for space 

that the agency occupies in airport-owned facilities. For smaller airports, the potential loss of rental revenue—even at below market rates—could have a significant impact on their financial situation. We encourage Congress to include a provision in 

the next FAA reauthorization bill that would require the FAA to continue to pay 

for the space that the agency uses at airports. This would provide a permanent fix 

on this issue, which has been addressed annually in the DOT appropriations bill. 

Conclusion 

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Lott and members of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security, thank you for inviting me to appear before your committee to discuss the Administration’s FAA reauthorization proposal. This subcommittee has a strong track record of increasing 

funding for airport capital development projects. We urge you to continue to help 

airports keep pace with increasing passenger demand and skyrocketing construction 

costs by raising the cap on PFCs and increasing funding for AIP. These actions 

would help to improve safety, increase capacity and reduce delays at airports 

around the country. 

2007 Airport Legislative Alliance Members 

Large Hubs 

Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport 

Chicago Department of Aviation 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport 

Denver International Airport 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Int’l Airport 

Massachusetts Port Authority 

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority 

Miami International Airport 

Philadelphia International Airport 

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport 

Salt Lake City International Airport 

San Diego International Airport 

San Francisco International Airport 

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

33 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

Medium Hubs 

Albuquerque International Sunport 

General Mitchell International Airport 

John Wayne Airport 

Kansas City International Airport 

Lambert St. Louis International Airport 

Louisville International Airport 

Manchester—Boston Regional Airport 

Memphis International Airport 

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport 

Pittsburgh International Airport 

Port Columbus International Airport 

Portland International Airport 

Reno-Tahoe International Airport 

Rhode Island Airport Corp. 

Tucson International Airport 

Small Hubs 

Atlantic City International Airport 

Bangor International Airport 

Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport 

Billings Logan International Airport 

Birmingham International Airport 

Dayton International Airport 

Des Moines International Airport 

Fresno Yosemite International Airport 

Gerald R. Ford International Airport 

Greenville Spartanburg International Airport 

Harrisburg International Airport 

Huntsville International Airport 

Jackson-Evers International Airport 

Lexington Blue-Grass Airport 

Long Beach/Daugherty Field Airport 

Metropolitan Knoxville Airport Authority 

N.W. Arkansas Regional Airport Authority 

Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport 

Quad City International Airport 

Santa Barbara Municipal Airport 

Sarasota Bradenton International Airport 

South Bend Regional Airport 

Springfield/Branson National Airport 

Tallahassee Regional Airport 

Tulsa International Airport 

Will Rogers World Airport 

Non-Hubs/General Aviation 

Abilene Regional Airport 

Addison Airport 

Asheville Regional Airport Authority 

Aspen/Pitkin County Airport 

Bert Mooney Airport 

Bismarck Municipal Airport 

Capital City Airport (MI) 

Centennial Airport 

Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority 

Chattanooga Metro Airport 

Cherry Capital Airport 

Delaware County Airport Authority 

Dothan Regional Airport 

Durango LaPlata County Airport 

Elmira-Corning Regional Airport 

Evansville Regional Airport 

Fernandina Beach Municipal Airport 

Fort Wayne International Airport 

Friedman Memorial Airport Authority 

Gallatin Field Airport 

Glacier Park International Airport 

34 

Glynco Jetport 

Greater Peoria Regional Airport 

Greenbrier Valley Airport 

Hector International Airport 

Inyokern Airport 

Kalamazoo Battle Creek International Airport 

Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport 

Kissimmee Gateway Airport 

Klamath Falls Airport 

Laredo International Airport 

Laughlin/Bullhead Int’l Airport 

Mahlon Sweet Field 

Marana Regional Airport 

McAllen-Miller International Airport 

Melbourne International Airport 

MidAmerica St. Louis Airport 

Monterey Peninsula Airport District 

Morristown Municipal Airport 

Nantucket Memorial Airport 

Napa County Airport 

Nut Tree Airport 

Provo Municipal Airport 

Redding Municipal Airport 

Roanoke Regional Airport 

Salina Municipal Airport 

San Bernardino County/Needles Airport 

San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport 

Santa Maria Public Airport 

Snohomish County Airport/Paine Field 

Southern Illinois Airport Authority 

Southwest Oregon Regional Airport 

Springfield Airport Authority 

Toledo Express Airport 

Tri-Cities Airport 

Tri-Cities Regional Airport, TN/VA 

Valdosta Regional Airport 

W.K. Kellogg Airport 

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport 

Williams Gateway Airport 

Wilmington International Airport 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you very much, ‘‘Chip’’ Barclay, for 

that excellent presentation. 

And we now, Ed, you’re next on my list, but you’re at the end 

of the table, so you’re going to have to wait one, is that all right? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Mr. Jim May, who is President and Chief 

Executive Officer, Air Transport Association of America, we welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES C. MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. 

I’m pleased to be here today on behalf of more than a half million 

passenger and cargo airline employees, three-quarters of a billion 

airline passengers who fly every year, and the millions who ship 

goods daily to all parts of the world. 

I’ll talk about two main topics, one, the need to modernize the 

air traffic control system, and implement that much-talked about 

next generation air traffic control system. And second, the need— 

in our view—to modernize FAA’s funding structure, and return— 

35 

return—to the core principles Congress included when it enacted 

the Airport and Airway Trust Fund in 1970, which are user-pay 

and cost-based financing. 

This Committee can restore the balance and fairness to FAA 

funding so airline passengers will no longer have to subsidize other 

system users, who clearly pay less than the costs they impose on 

the system. 

The current system is based on a 1950s architecture, and it’s 

really short-changing our future. It’s using outdated, ground-based 

systems, finite point-to-point routings, vast inefficiencies, and it 

really can’t be scaled to meet the kind of growth that we see in the 

future. 

When the Trust Fund was created in 1970, there were about 

2,500 commercial aircraft in the system, and about 1,800 corporate 

aircraft using that system. Today there are 8,000 commercial aircraft, and 17,000 corporate aircraft, and I’m not talking about the 

little GA guys. 

The demand projections for the future are truly startling. Chip 

just mentioned, the FAA projects that a billion passengers will be 

in planes by 2015. The instrument flight rule ops, the most significant source of demand on the ATC system, are projected to move 

from 45,000 a day right now, to 61,000 a day in another 10 years. 

There are going to be an additional 10,000 corporate planes, and 

very light jets that come into the system. 

Three weeks ago, Secretary Peters said, ‘‘The current aviation 

system simply can’t handle future increases without major delays, 

making system transformation necessary.’’ Russ Chew, the former 

COO of the Air Traffic Organization, said, ‘‘We project that if traffic grows as expected, by 2014, delays in the United States will increase 62 percent over 2004 levels.’’ Both are right. And quite 

frankly, we’re disappointed that the Administration’s bill failed to 

include a complete NextGen roadmap for what needs to be done. 

We’re disappointed, because satellite-based air traffic control systems will provide the means to reduce delays and congestion. Air 

traffic control modernization is neither novel, or revolutionary. 

Technology does exist, it’s in use by the military, it’s being accomplished elsewhere in the world, from Fiji to Canada, the United 

Kingdom and India, next-generation systems are being put in place 

today. 

The United States—Alaska’s Capstone Program, ADS–B trials in 

the Gulf of Mexico, Required Navigation Performance, RNP, procedures in Atlanta, Dallas-Ft. Worth, give us a wonderful preview of 

what those technologies can deliver. And all of us will benefit from 

increased safety, capacity, and even improved environmental performance. And every one of these benefits can be achieved, they are 

being achieved elsewhere in the world, but I think to help us do 

that, we need a modern funding system, we need to return to our 

roots. 

In the seventies, Congress based the funding structure on two 

bedrock principles—one, user-based financing, and two, cost-based 

financing. These same principles, have been endorsed by multiple 

bipartisan commissions, the GAO and are in place supporting ATC 

systems throughout the world. 

36 

* Charts are located in Mr. Mays Prepared Statement. 

Unfortunately, here, the principle of equitable funding, I think, 

has been forsaken. It isn’t deliberate, but a reflection on the changing dynamics of the aviation marketplace, and the extraordinary 

growth of a very successful segment, corporate aviation. There’s no 

correlation today between the revenue collected and services consumed. Airlines pay for 94 percent of Trust Fund revenues, but 

only use 68 percent of system services. The result is that our passengers are subsidizing other users of the system. 

Secretary Peters said it this way, ‘‘There is a fundamental disconnect between the existing tax structure, and the FAA’s workload.’’ On the theory that a picture is worth 1,000 words, the first 

snapshot is the traffic in the system, just yesterday. These corporate aircraft are the white on there, and they’re anything but incidental users.*

The second graph is the FAA’s just-released cost allocation study. 

It shows that fractionals, charters, air taxi and corporate jets account for roughly 16 percent of ATO costs, although they only pay 

in 6 percent. 

Here’s a specific example. A Cessna Citation 10 corporate jet, flying from New York to Los Angeles would contribute an estimated 

$306 to the Trust Fund. Same route, same air space, comparable 

demands on ATP, a Boeing 757 would pay an estimated $2,600. 

Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, you have the opportunity to correct this breathtaking disparity, establish an equitable funding mechanism which halts the blatant subsidization of 

corporate aircraft by commercial passengers, and restores a stable 

funding stream to the FAA for its modernization efforts. 

Let me close with three or four thoughts—we don’t advocate 

charging piston-power GA, the community that Senator Inhofe was 

referring to this morning—any more than they’re currently paying 

into the system, I think they ought to be exempt. We must accommodate small and rural communities, I’m actually old enough to remember the Farm Team on this Committee, and I know the Committee has a very distinct interest in smaller, rural communities. 

We are not calling for privatization of ATC, this is not that kind 

of a user-fee, it is a usage tax that is going to be enacted, at the 

end of the day, by the Senate Finance, and House Ways and Means 

Committees. 

And, finally, Congress must establish meaningful cost controls, 

and ensure that the FAA is not given a blank check. We have some 

very serious issues with the Administration bill, as proposed. 

Thanks for your time, I’ll be happy to answer questions when the 

time comes. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. May follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES C. MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 

Congress, in the coming months, has the singular opportunity to lay the foundation for a truly 21st century air traffic control (ATC) system that will safely, efficiently and equitably meet the growing needs of system users; and thereby benefit 

those who rely on air transportation, the communities that airlines serve, the innumerable industries that depend on air service and our Nation’s economy. 

37 

All who are interested in the future of civil aviation in our Nation are witnessing 

a historic convergence of factors that will shape aviation for decades to come—the 

closely approaching deadline to enact reauthorization legislation for the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), the undisputed imperative to modernize the ATC 

system, and the well-recognized need to return to an ATC funding mechanism that 

matches the costs that users impose on the system with the fees that they pay for 

ATC services. The inescapable reality is that the ever-growing demand of passengers and shippers for air transportation cannot continue to be met by an ATC 

system that was introduced in the mid-20th century and that relies on a decadesold funding scheme that has strayed far from its original intent. 

The stakes are enormous; the public-interest considerations are clear; and the 

need for prompt, decisive action is undeniable. 

I. Overview 

The benefits of a modernized and equitably funded ATC system will be considerable and will be widely distributed throughout our society: 

• Safety: Will provide more precise information about aircraft locations, both in 

the air and on the ground, and will enable aircraft to constantly know one another’s locations. 

• Passengers and shippers: Will ensure needed growth in capacity to satisfy customers’ expanding demands for air service. 

• ATC system users: Will enable the ATC system to continue to accommodate all 

users—general aviation, corporate aviation, airlines and the military—and to do 

so more efficiently than today; careful project justification will assure stakeholders that modernization projects are necessary and their costs are contained. 

• FAA: Will assure a stable, predictable revenue stream, thereby enabling the orderly and efficient transformation of the ATC system. 

• Equity: Will assure that each user pays its fair share but no more, unlike today 

where airlines pay for 94 percent of Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) revenues but only use 68 percent of ATC system services. 

• Environment: Will reduce aircraft emissions through fuel conservation that 

more efficient flight paths and separation standards will achieve. 

• Communities: Will promote air service to communities, large and small, and the 

economic benefits that flow from being linked to the air transportation system. 

• U.S. economy: Will assure that our economy continues to benefit from air transportation’s ability to move people and goods quickly and economically. 

II. What We’re Not Saying 

Rhetoric sometimes does not coincide with reality in the ongoing debate about 

FAA reauthorization legislation. We want to make a few preliminary points to set 

the record straight: 

• We are not saying that piston-powered general aviation aircraft should pay the 

same as turbine-powered aircraft. Piston-powered general aviation aircraft generally fly at different altitudes than turbine-powered aircraft and therefore 

often impose no or few demands on ATC system resources. Any funding mechanism should reflect that difference, just as it can reflect the difference between 

daytime and nighttime operations. 

• We are not saying that small communities should be left to fend for themselves. 

Small communities have unique air service needs. Reauthorization legislation 

should recognize those needs in its funding and Essential Air Service Program 

provisions. 

• We are not saying that Congress should end its role of guiding the direction of 

the air traffic control system. We are not trying to strip Congress of its role of 

overseeing ATC funding decisions. On the contrary, we are upholding Congress’ 

historic view that funding should be cost based. 

• We are not saying that the air traffic control system should be privatized. The 

ATC system must be modernized and its funding mechanism reformed but the 

FAA should continue to be the supplier of air traffic control services. Modernization and reform should not be equated with privatization. 

• We are not saying that airlines should control who has access to the Nation’s 

airspace. Instead, we are saying that unless the system is modernized and a 

sound funding mechanism for it is created, capacity constraints will increasingly 

limit the access of all users—general aviation, corporate aviation, airlines and 

the military. 

38 

III. The Indispensable Role of the Airline Industry in the U.S. Economy 

The U.S. airline industry is not simply an important sector of the national economy; its services fuel our entire economy. Air transportation is an indispensable element of America’s infrastructure and our Nation’s economic well-being. Individuals, 

businesses and communities depend on the national air transportation system. U.S. 

airlines transport over two million passengers on a typical day and directly employ 

550,000 persons to do so; they provide just-in-time cargo services; they are the backbone of the travel and tourism industry, which annually generates $1.3 trillion in 

economic activity in the United States; and airlines link communities throughout our 

Nation and to the world. 

Moreover, the airline industry is the foundation of the commercial aviation sector, 

which is comprised of airlines, airports, manufacturers and associated vendors. U.S. 

commercial aviation ultimately drives $1.2 trillion in U.S. economic activity and 11.4 

million U.S. jobs. By any measure, the U.S. airline industry is a valuable national 

asset and its continued economic health should be a matter of national concern. 

We also recognize how critical air service is to the small communities of our Nation. For that reason, we firmly support the continuation of a strong Essential Air 

Service Program. Any reauthorization needs to include such a continuation. 

This key element of our Nation’s infrastructure cannot sustain its vital role of 

transporting people and goods if the government infrastructure that it depends 

upon, the ATC system, becomes an impediment. Air transportation risks becoming 

a wasting national asset if three of its most distinguishing characteristics—speed, 

dependability and efficiency—are encumbered by an increasingly obsolescent ATC 

system. 

IV. Today’s Air Traffic Control System Is Shortchanging Our Future 

The current system is based on 1950s architecture. It was cutting edge during the 

era of Ozzie and Harriet but not today. Although the ATC system in the past has 

served users well, this outdated infrastructure cannot meet the operational needs 

of 21st century civil aviation. It will not be able to serve the needs of passengers 

and shippers, private pilots, and corporate aircraft, or accommodate the ongoing introduction of unmanned aerial vehicles. 

The current ATC system relies on a series of ground-based platforms. Navigational aids, radar and controllers are all terrestrial. They are linked to form a very 

complex network system that supports airways, through which aircraft fly. The system was designed to create point-to-point routings, which by their very nature are 

finite. Its components reflect that paradigm. 

Airways, unfortunately, increasingly resemble many highways: they have become 

saturated. What we have come to realize is that the ground-based system that supports point-to-point airways cannot produce substantial new capacity. We have no 

choice but to introduce new technology to generate needed capacity. 

Obsolescent ATC technology and the operating procedures that are tied to them 

mean that many aircraft routings—for airline, corporate and general aviation aircraft—are inefficient and will become increasingly so as we move further into the 

new century. Because of these inherent technological limitations, today’s ATC system cannot—and never will be able to—take full advantage of available technology 

or integrate and fully exploit emerging technology. Potential capacity enhancements 

and efficiency improvements, so critical to meeting growing air traffic demand and 

responding to environmental concerns, will remain unrealized unless the ATC system is promptly and thoroughly transformed. 

39 

1Feb. 14, 2007, letter of Secretary Peters transmitting the proposed Next Generation Air 

Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007 to the Senate at p. 3. 

Imperiling needed improvements is the fact that the ATC system’s funding mechanism is a relic of 1970. Such an artifact has no place in the 21st century. It was 

created when corporate and general aviation aircraft were insignificant users of the 

system. This is no longer so. Today corporate and general aviation consumes 26 percent of the system’s services but contributes only 6 percent of Trust Fund revenues. 

As Secretary of Transportation Peters said recently, ‘‘Under the current tax structure, it is clear that taxes paid by different user categories do not generally reflect 

the costs those users impose on the system.’’ 1 Corporate aircraft will use an even 

greater proportion in the future as thousands more business aircraft and very light 

jets (VLJs) are introduced. Funding for a modernized ATC system must reflect that 

changed—and changing—reality. 


308may.eps 308may1.eps
40 

2Feb. 14, 2007, letter transmitting the proposed Next Generation Air Transportation System 

Financing Reform Act of 2007 to the Senate at p. 1. 

V. What Delays Cost Today 

Airlines schedule their flights based on demand; i.e., when people want to fly and 

when cargo needs to be delivered. Airlines don’t create that demand, customers do. 

Aviation infrastructure must respond to what consumers want. 

The Department of Transportation has estimated that in 2005 the cost of delays 

to U.S. airline passengers was $9.4 billion. The cost to airlines is also tremendous. 

Every minute of flight delay experienced in 2005 imposed an estimated $62 in direct 

costs on airlines. The 94.1 million cumulative delay minutes in 2005 therefore generated $5.9 billion in costs to the airline industry and a total projected cost to the 

U.S. economy of $15.3 billion. Expressed differently, 2005 delays cost $484 per second. 

ATC system capacity must be dramatically expanded—and soon. Flight delays, as 

noted above, are bad today and they will get worse. The current system cannot handle what is coming. ATC system users, and the ultimate beneficiaries of aviation 

services—travelers, shippers, businesses and communities—need an air traffic control system that can make the most of contemporary and new technology. 

VI. The Need for Immediate Action 

Secretary of Transportation Peters only 3 weeks ago said, ‘‘The current aviation 

system simply cannot handle future traffic increases without major delays, making 

system transformation necessary.’’ 2 The Secretary’s assessment is indisputable. The 

nation’s airways will become more and more congested as increasing demand, particularly from rapidly rising numbers of corporate and VLJ aircraft, overwhelms existing capacity. 

The best estimates inform us that, without prompt and thorough modernization, 

the ATC system will progressively asphyxiate. More and more airports and more 

and more airspace will become congested, increasingly choking civil aviation in our 

country. Gridlock will become a common word in aviation parlance. 

Numbers starkly tell the story. The FAA projects that one billion passengers will 

be enplaned in 2015, up from nearly 750 million enplanements in 2006. That projection reflects an unabated demand for air transportation—no ‘‘breathing spell’’ is 

forecast. The FAA also predicts that 10,000 corporate aircraft, including traditional 

business jets, turboprops and VLJs, will be added to the fleet between 2007 and 

2017. This will significantly shift the proportion of air carrier to business aircraft 

using ATC services. It will also generate extraordinary new demands for those services. Instrument flight rule operations—the most significant source of demand on the 

ATC system—are projected to rise by 36 percent, from roughly 45,000 per day to over 

61,000 per day, in the next decade. That new burden will be on top of an ATC system 

that today is displaying unmistakable evidence of strain. To place this in some perspective, that strain is evident on days when at any given time, on average, only 

6,000 aircraft are flying in the ATC system. 

41 

3GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System at p. 16 (GAO Report No. 07–25, Nov. 13, 

2006). 

The existing ATC system cannot absorb that anticipated demand. It suffers from 

fundamental structural limitations, principally attributable to the system’s reliance 

on ground-based navigation, radar and communications facilities. The result is that 

the current system is not scalable; the system cannot be expanded to meet upcoming 

demand. It is not the system to meet the future growth of civil aviation—airline, 

corporate or general aviation. 

The ominous consequence of all of this is that delays are forecast in 2014 to increase by 62 percent over 2004 levels. That level of delays will be intolerable. Such 

an increase will have profound repercussions on airlines, ATC operations and airline 

customers, and will ripple across our economy. The effect on the total U.S. economy 

is likely to be immense. The Joint Planning and Development Office has estimated 

that the cost of failing to meet future airspace demand could approach $40 billion 

annually by 2020.3


308may2.eps
42 

The nature and extent of these anticipated delays need to be understood. An increase in delays of that magnitude will mean that airspace and airports that have 

not experienced chronic delays will routinely experience them in the future. It will 

not simply be that afflicted airports will get worse, the affliction will spread. 

Schedule reliability will be the immediate casualty of such a surge in delays. Not 

only will flights be delayed, connections will be missed and chronically delayed 

flights will be canceled. Service unpredictability at a level not previously experienced could materialize. Passengers and shippers and those who rely on the transportation of those people and products will suffer, and their suffering will worsen 

month by month, year by year. Industries and communities dependent on civil aviation, whether for scheduled airline service or general aviation operations, will be 

similarly affected. 

While customers will not accept such a result, neither will airlines or the FAA. 

Both airlines and the FAA will reconfigure their operations to respond to worsening 

ATC system performance. It will certainly not be business as usual if gridlock begins to cascade through the system. Sooner or later, access to airline services and 

ATC services will be limited in some way or ways. If flight schedule reliability deteriorates, airlines will stretch out their schedules and flight connection times. That, 

of course, will make airline operations less efficient and more costly. It also will diminish the attractiveness of air transportation and some customers will look for 

substitute means of transportation, thereby exposing airlines to further financial 

distress. Were ATC operational performance to worsen, the FAA would predictably 

explore measures to ration demand on the system. We have experienced that before 

with the High Density Airport Rule and its progeny, and in the aftermath of the 

PATCO strike during the first half of the 1980s. We do not want to repeat that experience. 

If the government does not embark on the necessary transformation of the ATC system, it risks becoming the regulator of inconvenience. That is not the role that any 

of us wants it to assume. 

VII. The Solution—Technology and Fair Funding Will Prevent Gridlock 

A satellite-based air traffic control system will provide the means to reduce delays 

and congestion that otherwise will occur. The benefits of a technologically up-to-date 

ATC system that is equitably funded will be extensive and will be widely distributed 

throughout the user community. 

A. A Modern Air Traffic Control System: We Can Do It 

Air traffic control system modernization is neither novel nor revolutionary. It is 

being accomplished elsewhere in the world. We can do the same. 

ATC service providers in other nations have recognized the need to replace antiquated ground-based systems. They have taken steps to transform those systems to 

satellite-based, digital air traffic management systems that ensure safety, generate 

added efficiency and produce additional airspace and airport capacity. Large and 

small countries have done so. For example, Fiji introduced a GPS-based air navigation system over a decade ago. Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, 


308may3.eps
43 

Switzerland and the United Kingdom are implementing next-generation ATC systems. 

The Alaska Capstone Program, Required Navigation Performance (RNP) terminal 

arrival and departure routings at Atlanta and Dallas/Ft. Worth, and RNP instrument approach procedures at airports that have challenging approaches, such as Juneau, Palm Springs and Reagan National in Washington, have given us a preview 

of what more extensive application of new technologies can deliver for system users 

in this country. A broadly modernized air traffic control system will enable all types 

of aircraft to take full advantage of Area Navigation Procedures (RNAV), RNP and 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B). This will make flying safer 

and far more efficient. 

1. The Safety Benefits 

Increases in system capacity are understandably cited in discussions about the 

benefits of ATC system modernization. Improvements in safety, however, are what 

should first and foremost command our attention. Some of those improvements have 

already been accomplished; others are plainly attainable. A sharp drop in aircraft 

accidents in Alaska has occurred since the Capstone Program, which relies on ADS– 

B, was introduced earlier in this decade. Widespread use of ADS–B in the future 

will enable aircraft locations to be more precisely identified. This will be very helpful while aircraft are airborne but will also be useful in ongoing efforts to reduce 

runway incursions while on the ground. 

2. The Capacity Benefits 

Capacity improvement is another core reason for ATC system modernization. New 

technology will enable aircraft to be unshackled from the ground-based, point-topoint navigation systems and associated analog communications systems under 

which they have operated for over three-quarters of a century. New technology will 

also enable the more precise spacing of aircraft. The ability to fly outside of existing 

point-to-point airways and improved precision will enable aircraft to operate more 

efficiently in airspace, whether it is en route or terminal area. That new-found efficiency will translate into added capacity. It also means, as noted above, the ability 

to use satellite-based instrument approach procedures at some runways that today 

have limited or no availability in instrument meteorological conditions—another important capacity enhancement. 

The wider use of digital communications, which will be an integral element of the 

modernization effort, will relieve congested voice communications channels, increasing the capacity to transmit quickly and accurately air traffic control information. 

This will mean a more orderly transmission of critical information, which will benefit both pilots and controllers, especially during peak workload periods. Furthermore, wider use of digital communications will diminish the possible blocking of 

voice communications between pilots and controllers in high-volume situations that 

can occur today, which is an increasing safety concern. 

3. The Environmental Benefits 

In addition, routing efficiency improvements will yield significant environmental 

benefits. Experts estimate that modernization of U.S. airspace management could result in 12–15 percent improved environmental performance. We have already seen 

such benefits. For example, the introduction of more precise RNP arrival and departure procedures in the Atlanta terminal area is projected to eliminate 483 million 

tons of CO2 annually. 

All of these benefits can be achieved; they are being achieved elsewhere in the 

world. To build a modernized ATC system, however, we need a modern funding system. 

B. Funding—The Need to Return to Our Roots 

Much of the funding predicament that we face today is because the user-pay principle that Congress embraced decades ago has been abandoned. When it comes to 

funding the ATC system, therefore, we need to return to our roots. 

When Congress in 1970 enacted the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the funding 

structure was based on two bedrock principles: user-pays financing and cost-based 

financing. Back then, airlines were the principal users of the system. They, as a result, were responsible for much of the ATC system costs. Funding of the Trust Fund 

was consequently mostly through the ticket tax. That made sense nearly four decades ago. It reflected a relationship between use and payments. That relationship 

is what Congress intended when it enacted the 1970 legislation. 

44 

1. Corporate aviation has grown dramatically 

Congress in 1970 created a cost-based funding mechanism that mirrored the composition of air transportation. Times have changed. When the Trust Fund was created, there were 2,500 commercial aircraft and only 1,800 corporate aircraft using 

the system. Today there are 8,000 commercial aircraft and 17,000 corporate planes. 

But airline passengers still pay 94 percent of all aviation taxes/fees while corporate 

fliers pay just 6 percent. The Trust Fund has not evolved to reflect this change in 

who is using the ATC system. As a result, travelers who fly on commercial airlines 

subsidize those who fly on corporate planes. The chart below shows this dramatic 

shift in the makeup of system users. 

Furthermore, business aircraft frequently fly during peak travel hours and often 

use the same airspace as the Nation’s airlines; many times they are consuming the 

premium services of the ATC system. The magnitude of that demand is substantial. 

For example, on an average day there are 238 IFR operations at Teterboro Airport. 

This compares with an average of 301 IFR operations by Continental Airlines at 

nearby Newark Airport. These corporate users are not merely putting incidental demands on the system, as the depiction below graphically demonstrates. 

The business aviation industry is projected to grow even larger over the next decade with the introduction of next-generation aircraft called very light jets (VLJs) 

that in many instances will be able to fly at the same altitudes as airline aircraft. 

Not surprisingly, according to FAA data, business aviation is the fastest growing 


308may4.eps 308may5.eps
45 

4 Report of Committee on Ways and Means, reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3084. 5Feb. 14, 2007, letter of Secretary Peters transmitting the proposed Next Generation Air 

Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007 to the Senate at p. 3. 

segment of the aviation industry. Indeed, there have been well-publicized reports of 

investors’ plans to order vast numbers of VLJs to create new air-taxi services. This 

will be pure commercial usage of the ATC system. In no way will it resemble the 

recreational pilot flying from a general aviation airport on a Saturday afternoon. 

As the depiction below clearly indicates, VLJ operations are forecast to be more 

concentrated than is commonly understood. They will not simply be operating between low-activity airports, or in low-activity terminal airspace or underutilized en 

route airspace. VLJs and their brethren, corporate aircraft, will consume increasingly scarce ATC system resources. 

2. The principle of equitable funding has been forsaken 

When the Trust Fund was established in 1970, the airline industry was regulated 

and ticket prices were set by the government. In general, those government-set ticket prices reflected the cost of operation. As a result, generating revenue through a 

tax on ticket prices made sense—it ensured that Trust Fund revenues were linked 

to the cost of operating the air transportation system. Congress recognized at that 

time that this cost-based financing principle was equitable because 

‘‘a ticket tax is geared to charge an equitable tax related to the distance traveled and the cost per mile of air operation, since ticket prices for short flights 

are more per mile than long-line flights and the tax is proportional to the price 

of the ticket.’’ 4

Today, ticket prices are based on market competition and have absolutely no correlation to the cost of services. As a result, the largest source of Trust Fund revenue 

has absolutely no link to the cost of maintaining and upgrading the aviation system. 

The symmetry on which the Trust Fund was based has evaporated. 

3. A ‘‘fundamental disconnect between the existing tax structure and the FAA’s 

workload’’ 

There is no correlation today between revenue collected and services consumed. 

Airlines pay for 94 percent of Trust Fund revenues but only use 68 percent of ATC 

system services. The result of this inequity is that airlines, and ultimately their customers, are heavily subsidizing other users of the system. As Secretary of Transportation Peters has very forthrightly said, a ‘‘fundamental disconnect between the existing tax structure and the FAA’s workload. . . .’’ 5

By way of illustration, a Cessna Citation X corporate jet aircraft would contribute 

an estimated $306 to the Trust Fund when it flies from New York to Los Angeles. 


308may6.eps
46 

6GAO, Aviation Finance—Observations on Potential FAA Funding Options at p. 11 (GAO Report No. 06–973, Sept. 2006). 

An airline’s Boeing 757–200 aircraft flying the same route would contribute an estimated $2,660 to the Trust Fund. Both are high-performance aircraft; both fly at the 

same altitude, in the same airspace; and both place comparable demands on the air 

traffic control system. Yet, there is an eight-to-one difference in payment for ATC 

services. 

This breathtaking disparity does not tell the whole story. Over time, the foundation of the Trust Fund has badly eroded. Today’s funding structure does not assure 

sufficient future revenues, even for the current ATC system. The worrying trend 

this decade has been the continuing draw down of the Trust Fund. That, obviously, 

is unsustainable. In fact, the Government Accountability Office has pointed out that 

past trends and future projections indicate that the ‘‘revenue collected under the 

current funding system has fallen and will continue to fall relative to FAA workload 

and costs. . . .’’ 6

Moreover, today’s funding structure does not assure a stable revenue stream. That 

is because the average ticket price is lower today than it was at the beginning of 

this decade or, adjusted for inflation, than it was in 1970 at the outset of the Trust 

Fund. Revenue stability and, therefore, predictability will be essential to the sucVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:26 Mar 19, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79905.TXT JACKIE

308may7.eps 308may8.eps
47 

7 National Civil Aviation Review Commission Report at p. I–2 (1997). 8 Change, Challenge and Competition at p. 8 (1993). 9GAO, National Airspace System—Transformation Will Require Cultural Change, Balanced 

Funding Priorities and Use of All Available Management Tools at p. 16 (GAO Report No. 06– 

154, Oct. 14, 2005). 10GAO, Aviation Finance—Observations on Potential FAA Funding Options at p. 1 (GAO Report No. 06–973, Sept. 2006). 

cessful modernization of the ATC system. The Trust Fund as presently constituted 

simply does not assure the wherewithal to sustain the system in the future. 

Again, ATC system service providers elsewhere have confronted this issue and 

satisfactorily responded to it. They have found this to be a straightforward issue. 

ATC systems throughout the world have implemented cost-based funding arrangements to ensure an adequate, stable revenue stream to fund their modernization efforts. This has occurred in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, New Zealand and 

the United Kingdom. 

In the United States, several independent commissions and studies have examined how best to meet FAA financing needs. Their common and long-standing conclusion has been that reform is urgently necessary. For example, before the last 

Trust Fund reauthorization in 1997, Congress established the 21-member National 

Civil Aviation Review Commission that former Transportation Secretary Norman 

Mineta chaired. The Mineta Commission unanimously recommended that FAA revenues be more closely linked to the cost of providing services. As it stated: 

‘‘The Commission recommends that the FAA adopt a cost-based revenue stream 

to support its air traffic system activities including capital investments. At the 

same time, funding for aviation security, safety, and government use of the air 

traffic system should be provided by the Federal Government’s General Fund.’’ 7

Four years before that report, the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry, which former Virginia Governor Gerald L. Baliles chaired, 

concluded that the existing Federal budget process ‘‘provides neither a stable, predictable source of revenue nor the ability to leverage that revenue. . . .’’ 8

More recently, the Government Accountability Office has said that ‘‘[a]viation experts and stakeholders agree that the incomplete implementation of these recommendations and additional factors could limit FAA’s ability to fully address longstanding NAS [National Airspace System] modernization problems.’’ 9

For well over a decade, independent authorities have told us that the funding of 

FAA air traffic services must be changed to reflect contemporary reality. The necessary path has been described to us, many times. We need to follow it. 

C. Funding—The Financial Benefits of Returning to Our Roots 

A user-pay/cost-based funding arrangement would produce three principal benefits: 

• Lower costs; increased efficiency: A recent Government Accountability Office report noted that the current financing system does not create any incentive to 

control costs and improve efficiency because use and cost are unrelated. Right 

now, consumers of FAA ATC services have little or no motivation to rationalize 

their consumption of those services. User consumption of services and user payment for services are no longer linked. Reestablishing that link will rationalize 

decision-making about use of the system and, in turn, economize the way the 

government provides services. The result will be more efficient use and provision of FAA services. 

• Revenue stability: The Trust Fund’s uncommitted balances have fallen by more 

than 70 percent over the past 5 years.10 That is a disturbing development and 

calls into question the ability of the Fund to support ATC modernization. A return to cost-based financing would generate a stable revenue stream to fund 

modernization. 

• Equity: Under the current funding system, two aircraft operators can pay very 

different amounts even if they use the same services and impose the same costs 

on the FAA. This is unjustifiable. Charging aircraft operators based on their use 

of the system would create a more equitable funding system and ensure that 

all users are paying their fair share. 

D. Funding—The Need for Effective Oversight 

The principle of equitable funding is not synonymous with writing a blank check. 

Any change in the financing of the ATC system should only occur if basic oversight 

issues are addressed. Some of these are knotty but they can and must be resolved. 

48 

Congress’ role in policy decisions about funding should not be supplanted. We regard that as a given. Indeed, we look forward to Congress exercising that role. 

Stakeholders, however, must have a central role in decisions affecting the funding 

and deployment of ATC system improvements. Their decisionmaking role must reflect their contribution to that funding. We recognize the sensitivity of this issue. 

But we firmly believe that a usage-fee funding arrangement cannot be allowed to 

become an open spigot. Cost containment will be vital to successful system modernization. Modernization projects must be carefully justified, user vetted, and held 

to a budget. 

VIII. Administration’s Proposed FAA Reauthorization Legislation 

The Administration’s legislative package contains a usage-fee proposal that is a 

welcome first step in reforming the funding of the FAA. Nonetheless, as noted 

below, more needs to be done. 

The proposed user fee/tax system is based on the FAA Air Traffic Organization 

cost allocation study. That study clearly recognized that airlines and their passengers grossly overpay today. It concluded that ‘‘high performance commercial’’ 

users (i.e., turbine aircraft operated in scheduled service, as on-demand charters or 

under fractional ownership) generated only 73 percent of system costs, although 

these same users today contribute 94 percent of the revenue that goes to the Trust 

Fund. The graph and table on page [46] summarize the FAA’s cost allocation. This 

is a very important recognition of the actual costs that users impose on the system. 

Unfortunately, one matter that the administration’s legislation falls short on is the 

key issue of airport funding. Airlines pay over $14 billion annually in airport charges 

and fees—through landing fees, rates and charges, Passenger Facility Charges, and 

the Airport Improvement Program. We therefore are vitally interested in how in the 

future airports will be funded and how capacity improvement projects will be approved, especially those funded through the PFC program. The administration’s airport-related proposals, however, would not provide airlines a meaningful role in 

these critical decisions and would virtually eliminate FAA oversight. Airlines and 

airports need to have a close, collaborative relationship in determining what capacity 

projects are initiated, project scope and cost, ongoing operations and maintenance 

costs, and how these various costs are paid for. Disappointingly, the administration’s 

legislation does not recognize these necessary principles. 

Our reactions to several of the propositions in the administration’s proposed legislation are described below. 

• User fee authority (§ 201): We support a cost-based approach to funding FAA 

services and the creation of associated borrowing authority but more needs to 

be done to make the administration’s proposal conform to such an approach. 

» On the positive side, the administration’s proposal moves to correct the unfairness of the current funding system through the introduction of a costbased funding system. Permissible fee factors are identified, although a formula is not specified and thus remains up to the FAA to establish. The bonding authority included in the proposal will facilitate the needed modernization 

of the air traffic control system, although the short repayment period could 

put substantial upward pressure on user fees. 

» On the negative side, the proposal is silent about how to assure that costs are 

appropriately contained. This is a very basic issue that needs to be resolved. 

Furthermore, no judicial review of FAA user-fee determinations would be permitted. This is a significant shortcoming. In addition, recognizing weight as 

a permissible factor in determining some user fees, which the proposal would, 

is unjustified. Weight is not a legitimate proxy for the costs that an aircraft 

imposes on the system. The authority to impose fees for operations in terminal airspace for large hub airports ignores the significant costs that corporate aircraft that do not operate at those airports impose in that airspace. 

• Air Transport System Advisory Board (§ 401): The industry supports the creation of a board that can have meaningful decisionmaking authority about key 

ATO issues, particularly those involving user fees and bonding. Unfortunately, 

the administration’s proposal does not give stakeholders a meaningful voice; the 

Board would merely be advisory and have no real authority. We realize that 

this is a contentious issue but it must be directly confronted and resolved. If 

you pay, you must have a real voice in how your money is spent. 

• Passenger Facility Charges (§ 301): Although described as a reform of PFC authority, the administration’s proposal could impose an additional $2 billion in 

taxes on passengers while reducing airlines’ voice in and the role of the FAA 

in the approval of PFC projects. Such changes are unjustified. 

49 

• Airport Improvement Program (§ 302 et seq.): Although the administration’s proposal would modernize parts of the AIP and would recognize the greater financial ability of large and medium hub airports to fund airport improvements, the 

proposal includes $1 billion in subsidies for noncommercial airports, most of 

which would come from airlines and their passengers. Given that the proposal 

makes no attempt to apply the ‘‘pay for what you use’’ principle to this program, 

the more than tripling increase of our jet fuel tax from 4.3 cents to 13.0 cents 

a gallon would be unacceptable. 

• Airport Privatization Program (§ 806): This proposal would increase to 15 the 

number of airports that could be included in the privatization program but 

would eliminate the requirement of carrier approval of such privatizations. We 

oppose that provision because of the possibility that the elimination of approval 

authority could result in transactions that financially disadvantage airport 

users, including airlines. 

• Facilities and Services Realignment and Consolidation Commission—‘‘FAA 

BRAC’’ (§ 409): Under this proposal, a BRAC-like process for the realignment 

and consolidation of FAA facilities and services would be implemented. Effective 

containment of FAA Air Traffic Organization costs will depend in part on such 

consolidations. Given the controversy that facility consolidations can create, the 

administration’s proposal is a sensible approach. 

• LaGuardia Airport Operating Authorization Allocations (§ 503): The airline industry has opposed the imposition of new costs at LaGuardia. The preponderant 

view in the industry is that the operational cap coupled with a reinstatement 

of the secondary market allowed under the previous buy-sell rule, although perhaps needing some improvement, is sufficient to manage congestion and provide 

for equitable allocation of access to the airport. The industry opposes any 

scheme under which the airport operator would be allowed to generate excess 

revenue and divert that revenue to projects that do nothing to address congestion or expand capacity at the airport. 

• Market-Based Mechanism Pilot Program at Congested Airports (§ 504): We oppose this proposal because the focus should be on improving capacity at highvolume airports rather than saddling passengers and shippers with far costlier 

service at the airports that they want to use. 

• FAA War-Risk Insurance Program Extension (§§ 701, 702): The industry supports the unchanged extension of both the FAA war-risk insurance program, 

and the third-party liability cap and punitive damage prohibition. We oppose 

the administration’s proposal to eliminate FAA ‘‘first dollar’’ coverage for such 

insurance. 

We look forward to working with the Committee on these and other issues concerning FAA reauthorization legislation. 

IX. Conclusion 

We need a truly 21st century air traffic control system that will safely, efficiently 

and equitably meet the growing needs of civil aviation and our national economy. 

And it needs to be funded the right way so that the revenue that is needed to keep 

our Nation’s air commerce vibrant and responsive to consumer needs can be provided fairly and predictably. We cannot permit inertia or parochial considerations 

to delay achieving that important transformation. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you very much, Jim May, for that 

excellent testimony. 

And now we turn to Mr. Ed Bolen, who is President and Chief 

Executive Officer of the National Business Aviation Association. 

Good morning. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD M. BOLEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BOLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The National Business Aviation Association represents about 

8,000 companies in the United States that are involved in business 

aviation. And, as the members of this Committee know, ‘‘business 

aviation’’ is a FAA-defined term. It is ‘‘the use of any general aviation aircraft, piston or turbine, for a business purpose.’’ 

50 

According to the Aircraft Owners and Pilot’s Association, over 50 

percent of all single-engine piston aircraft in the United States are 

used for a business purpose. By the time you go to a piston twin, 

that percentage of business usage goes up over 80 percent. 

I have a chart that shows what the business aviation community 

looks like—it’s made up primarily of piston twins. The next largest 

category is turboprops, then the entry-level business jets. Those 

three categories, represent 85 percent of the business aviation community represented. 

The types of companies and organizations that operate business 

aircraft in the United States are primarily, 85 percent, small and 

mid-size companies, and non-profit organizations. And of course, as 

you know, a lot of State organizations also operate business aircraft. 

A typical example of an NBAA member, is Richard Shine, the 

head of a family owned recycling company in upstate New York 

that uses a turboprop to expand their business, but also to allow 

them to stay headquartered in a community that does not have 

strong commercial service. 

Another example would be a family-owned company called AeroCharter in Chesterfield, Missouri, which has a fleet of aircraft— 

piston, turbo-prop, and jet—to help it as the sole transportation 

provider to a nationwide organ transplant company. These are typical members of NBAA, and reflective of the business aviation community. 

Now, I know the purpose of this hearing today is to talk about 

what people have called the ‘‘next-generation’’ air traffic bill. But 

for anyone who was around 10 years ago, this does not have as 

much of a forward feel to it, as it does a sense of de ́ja` vu. You’ll 

recall that in 1997, the Nation’s big airlines came forward with a 

proposal that was designed to shift $600 million worth of their 

taxes onto whom they viewed as their competitors. It also had what 

was—according to a senior airline executive—as a goal of control 

of the FAA for the airlines’ exclusive benefit. 

Today, their proposal to shift costs has gone up, with inflation, 

to $2 billion. Their goal of control—according to public statements 

by the Air Transportation Association—remains in place. 

Were we here to talk about a modernization bill, we in the business aviation community and, in fact, the entire general aviation 

community, would be very excited about it. We feel that we have 

been at the forefront of every modernization effort that has taken 

place, and that’s not just because we view ourselves as good citizens, it’s a matter of national survival for us. 

You see, everywhere in the community, everywhere in the country, when airports and airspace become congested, it’s general aviation that has been pushed out. Some of you may recall when Midway Airport in Chicago was a thriving general aviation airport. 

Then commercial service came, and we were pushed out to secondary and tertiary markets. 

We see that happening today in Ft. Lauderdale, with JetBlue’s 

arrival. It’s been repeated in San Jose, and numerous other airports. When there is a squeeze in the system, general aviation 

loses. Therefore, we’re profoundly interested in anything that can 

expand system capacity. It’s one of the reasons we’ve worked so 

51 

closely with Senator Stevens on the Capstone Program up in Alaska, which has led us to the development of ADS–B technology, 

which I think everyone would agree is the very foundation of our 

modernization effort. 

Capacity enhancement is the reason the general aviation community replaced all of our altimetry, so that we could double the 

amount of capacity of our en route airspace, by reducing vertical 

separation. 

General aviation was at the lead in calling for the creation of the 

Joint Planning and Development Office. We are deeply involved in 

the modernization process, because if it doesn’t work, we’re the 

ones that will lose. 

Now, knowing that modernization is important, we were hopeful 

the Administration would come forward with a modernization bill. 

Unfortunately, what they came forward with is not modernization. 

Their bill cuts FAA spending on the FAA by $600 million. It caps 

the General Fund contribution below what it is today, and has it 

reduced further in out-years. It diverts money that could be used 

for modernization to the creation of an assessment and collection 

bureaucracy. It allows the FAA to go into debt, and most of all, it 

fails to have a clear modernization plan attached. 

What we are talking about with modernization, according to everyone who has looked at it, and that includes the groups at the 

table today, is an addition to current spending of somewhere between $200 million and a billion dollars. So, to put that in perspective, you can see on the chart up there, we’re talking about an increase in FAA spending of somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent. 

We would argue that there are five options to get to that. One, 

we can look for efficiencies in the FAA—we can look for non-essential programs that do not relate to safety and efficiency, and we 

can make cuts. Two, we can increase by a couple of percentage 

points the General Fund contribution. Three, we can raise industry 

taxes. Four, we could do some combination of any or all of those. 

Or, five, we can throw out a funding system that has worked for 

40 years, that is well-understood, that every person in the aviation 

community has based their long-term projections on, and replace it 

with a radical funding scheme that is going to give unelected officials tax and spend authority, and it’s going to reduce Congressional oversight. 

We would urge this Committee to take option number five off the 

table, and get down to the serious work of defining a modernization 

process, and figuring out how we pay for it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bolen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD M. BOLEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Ed Bolen, and I 

am the President and CEO of the National Business Aviation Association. I am 

grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today. NBAA commends the Subcommittee for holding this important hearing to discuss the future of our national 

air transportation system. NBAA members have a vital interest in a strong and 

healthy aviation system. 

52 

NBAA was founded 60 years ago to represent companies that utilize General 

Aviation as a tool for meeting some of their transportation challenges. NBAA and 

our members are committed to working with Congress to transform and modernize 

the Nation’s aviation system. Likewise, we are committed to modernization policies 

that support the continued growth of each aviation segment, including General 

Aviation, which plays a critical role in driving economic growth, jobs and investment 

across the U.S. We strongly support the shared goal of keeping our national aviation 

system the safest and most efficient system in the world. General Aviation is an essential economic generator, contributing more than $150 

billion to annual U.S. economic output, and directly or indirectly employing more 

than one million people. Most General Aviation aircraft operating around the world 

are manufactured in the U.S., and our industry is continuing to build a strong 

American manufacturing and employment base that contributes positively to our 

national balance of trade. Congress recognized just how fundamental General Aviation is to our Nation’s transportation system, rural economies, manufacturing capability, and balance of trade when it passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act 

a little more than a decade ago. 

Facts about Business Aviation 

Business aviation, as the members of this Subcommittee know, is an FAA-defined 

term. According to the FAA, business aviation is the use of any General Aviation 

aircraft—piston or turbine—for a business purpose. 

Business aviation is a vital part of the American economy and our national transportation system. There are some facts about business aviation of which you might 

not be aware. 

Business aviation operators encompass a broad cross-section of interests, including businesses, governments, schools and universities, and not-for-profit organizations. Servicing and supporting these organizations are FBO’s, maintenance technicians, suppliers and service providers. 

Approximately 85 percent of the entities that rely on general aviation to meet a 

portion of their transportation challenges are small and mid-sized businesses that 

own and operate a single airplane. 

These include businesses like: 

• Manitoba—a small, family-owned metal recycling business in Lancaster, N.Y., 

which first used a piston-twin airplane and now uses a turboprop to help expand its business beyond its local area. 

• Aero Charter, a thirty-year-old, family-owned company in Chesterfield, Missouri. The owners, who are also the company’s pilots, use a mix of business aircraft types, including business jets, piston planes and a turboprop. They serve 

as the sole provider of air transportation for Mid-America transplant services, 

an organ-donation company. 

Business aviation also has a long history of philanthropic activity. 

Organizations like the Corporate Angel Network arrange free air transportation 

for cancer patients traveling to treatment using the empty seats aboard business 

aircraft. They have arranged more than 20,000 flights since their founding in 1981. 

Similarly, Angel Flight America’s seven member organizations and 7,200 volunteer pilots arranged more than 18,000 flights in 2005 alone to carry patients to medical facilities. 

The Veterans Airlift Command uses business aircraft and unused hours of fractional aircraft ownership programs to provide free flights for medical and other compassionate purposes for wounded service members, veterans, and their families. Veterans Airlift finds volunteers in the business aviation community to fly their missions on request and contribute the full cost of their aircraft and fuel for the missions flown. 

The community also reliably snaps into action to respond to national crises. In 

the days and weeks following Hurricane Katrina, our operators provided an outpouring of generosity and assistance. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of supplies 

were transported into the Gulf Coast region aboard business aircraft, which also 

were used to transport victims out of harm’s way. 

The aircraft involved in business aviation are diverse, like the industry itself. For 

instance, according to statistics by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Organization, a 

majority of the hours flown in piston-engine airplanes are for business purposes. 

Among the turbine-powered airplanes used for a business purpose the Beech King 

Air is the most common model. The King Air is a twin-engine turboprop that was 

first introduced in 1965 (see Chart 1). 

Business aviation tends to fly at altitudes above and below the commercial airline 

traffic that prefers to operate in the range between 29,000 feet and 39,000 feet. We 

53 

also tend to use different airports. In fact, General Aviation represents less than 5 

percent of the total operations at the Nation’s 20 busiest commercial airports. The 

ability to use smaller, less-congested facilities is key to the value and flexibility of 

business aviation aircraft. 

FAA Reauthorization 

Mr. Chairman, we in business aviation are united with the rest of the General 

Aviation community in our grave concern about legislation the FAA recently unveiled, which the Agency calls the Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007. 

The FAA and the Nation’s big airlines are promoting this user fee proposal as a 

forward-looking ‘‘modernization bill.’’ But to everyone who was around the last time 

the Nation’s big airlines pushed a user fee scheme in Congress, there is a strong 

sense of da ́ja` vu. Some of you may remember that, in 1997, the Nation’s seven largest airlines pushed for a user fee scheme that would shift $600 million in taxes onto what they 

viewed as their competitors—the low-cost airlines. But, according to one airline CEO 

at the time, the real goal was ‘‘control of the FAA by the Big Seven and for their 

exclusive benefit.’’ 

This time around, the airlines have picked a new target for their tax shift—Gen- eral Aviation, and they have increased the amount to $2 billion. The objective of 

reducing Congressional control of the FAA remains unchanged. 

The airlines have not been secretive about their goal of reducing Congressional 

control. One year ago today, the Air Transport Association (ATA) called a press conference where, according to The Wall Street Journal, their chief lobbyist was quoted 

as saying: ‘‘We need to get Congress out of this process.’’ 

Lest anyone think ATA was misquoted, the association said again in August at 

an Airports conference in Florida, ‘‘it is critical we have a governance structure that 

is, to the best of our ability, free of the pressures of Congress.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, the proposed bill is being promoted by the FAA 

and the big airlines as a modernization bill. Let me be clear, the General Aviation 

community, including business aviation, takes a backseat to no one in terms of 

pushing for modernization. Our motivation is simple—every time airports or airspace get congested, it’s General Aviation that is the first to get squeezed out. 

It wasn’t that long ago that Midway Airport in Chicago was a great General Aviation airport with flight schools, flying clubs, and so forth. Then, low-cost carriers 

began using the airport, forcing General Aviation flights to go elsewhere. This same 

scenario has been repeated in San Jose, California and Manchester, New Hampshire, and it is happening in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

In order to expand system capacity, General Aviation has been at the forefront 

of the modernization effort. We were early adopters of GPS navigation systems. We 

worked with Senator Stevens to develop the ADS–B test program in Alaska—a test 

program that is now the foundational technology of the modernization effort. Just 

2 years ago, General Aviation operators collectively spent millions of dollars equipping their airplanes with new altimetry so that we could double the capacity of our 

en route airspace. 

We are also working closely with the Joint Planning and Development Office to 

define and implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System. 

Because of its deep involvement in the modernization process, NBAA has as much 

knowledge and visibility into FAA modernization process as any industry organization in the country. It is with that knowledge and visibility that I can tell you without hesitation that this FAA/airline bill is NOT a modernization bill. 

2Let’s look at the facts: 

• This proposal cuts FAA funding by $600 million in 2008 alone. 

• It caps the use of general taxpayer revenues—the General Fund contribution— 

below what it is today and further reduces the General Fund contribution in 

out-years. 

• It takes money that could be used for air traffic control transformation and diverts it to assess and collect user fees. Whether the bureaucracy is built inside 

the government, or outside through contractors, money must be used to create 

and maintain this new assessment and collection bureaucracy. 

• It also authorizes the FAA to go up to $5 billion in debt starting in 2013. 

• This FAA proposal does not outline the technologies, the time lines or the costs 

of the next phase of modernization. 

So, rather than modernizing, this bill cuts FAA funding by $600 million, reduces 

the General Fund contribution by hundreds of millions, and diverts money that 

54 

could and should be spent on runways, towers and modernization technologies and 

wastes it on a new bureaucracy. After all that, it allows the FAA to go into debt. 

Mr. Chairman, this is not a modernization bill. 

Worse still is the fact that this bill is based on a flawed and unprecedented cost 

allocation study. By FAA’s own admission, they have abandoned all economic principles for how to allocate costs to different users in favor of a simple accounting approach. No other nation uses such an approach for allocating air traffic control costs 

or for setting user charges or taxes. 

In fact, the FAA’s new approach runs counter to international guidelines. The 

International Civil Aviation Organization states: 

‘‘. . . it is particularly important to recognize that the major part of the air navigation facilities and services infrastructure has been established to serve the requirements of commercial air traffic, and that some users receiving extensive service 

could not, by reason of the nature of their activity, have called for the provision of 

service on such a scale on an economic basis.’’ 

‘‘The primary beneficiaries among the users should therefore be carefully identified to ensure that realistic allocations of costs to the various user categories are 

made.’’ 

This is a very serious issue. As you know, the FAA has proposed in its legislation 

that all future fees and charges must be based on its own cost allocation study. Any 

errors in the study or its methodology will put at risk many segments of our Nation’s air transport industry and those communities around the country that are dependent on them. 

So, if this is not a modernization bill, what is it? 

This proposal is an effort by the FAA and the airlines to reduce Congressional authority and move toward commercialization. 

Mr. Chairman, I have already reminded this subcommittee what the big airlines’ 

goal was in 1997, and what they have said their goal is today: basically to shift their 

costs and reduce Congressional control. Their public comments suggest that Congress is an impediment to modernization and that the authorization/appropriation 

process is too unstable and unpredictable to allow for modernization. 

The facts tell a different story. 

FAA funding has steadily increased over the past decade, often in excess of the 

amount the FAA has requested (see Chart 3). Moreover, there has never been an 

FAA modernization program that has ever failed for a lack of Congressional support 

or funding. Even this year, Congress is funding the FAA’s two Next Generation Air 

Traffic programs—System Wide Information Management, or ‘‘SWIM,’’ and ADS– 

B—in excess of what the FAA requested. 

Mr. Chairman, in our view, the battle over aviation user fees is a battle over 

whether Congress will retain control of the air traffic system or whether that control 

will shift to unelected bureaucrats or even industry. 

Aviation user fees would reduce Congressional authority and put us on the slippery slope toward commercialization. 

In fact, last August, the Reason Foundation published an article in support of 

aviation user fees that said ‘‘user fees are the essential precondition to commercialization.’’ The General Aviation community urges you not to establish that precondition. 

Instead, we urge this subcommittee to produce a real modernization bill that retains Congressional authority over air transportation in the United States. The continued transformation of the system is a primary focus of the General Aviation community. In our view, this debate should not be about winners and losers, but about 

building a system that can meet all future demand. 

Mr. Chairman, modernization is not one ‘‘big bang’’—it’s not purchasing a big new 

piece of technology and plugging it in. It is a stable transformation of our communication, navigation and surveillance systems. 

It has been said that modernization could cost somewhere between $300 million 

per year and up to $1 billion per year in new spending (although the FAA itself 

is proposing a little less than $200 million in modernization spending in FY09). If 

those numbers are in the ballpark, we are talking about an annual increase in the 

FAA’s current budget of between 3 percent to 8 percent (see Chart 4). 

If that is what is needed, then it seems Congress has a least 5 options for getting 

there: 

1. Congress can direct the FAA to make modernization a priority and find 3 to 

8 percent of its budget that can be redirected to modernization without compromising system safety or efficiency. Most multi-billion-dollar budgets, whether in 

the government or the private sector, include some non-essential spending that 

55 

can be redirected. In fact, businesses are often faced with unexpected or new 

priorities and must meet these challenges within existing resources. A re-ordering of priorities in the range of 3–8 percent of a budget is not excessive. 

2. Congress can declare modernization a national priority and increase the general taxpayer revenues supporting modernization. Increasing the General Fund 

contribution from 19 percent of the FAA’s total budget to 25 percent would fully 

pay for even the high-end estimates of modernization. The last time that Congress fully debated an appropriate General Fund contribution, in 1990, it was 

determined that 25 percent was the correct amount to cover the public benefits 

of a strong national aviation system—including national defense, emergency response, postal service, medical emergencies, local commerce and interstate commerce. 

3. Congress can increase the existing aviation excise taxes across the board. 

4. It can do some combination of the above; or 

5. It can scrap a Congressional process that has allowed the United States to 

be the world’s leader in all aspects of aviation for decades, and has given the 

U.S. the largest, safest, and most efficient air transportation system in the 

world, and replace it with a radical scheme that will reduce Congressional authority, divert millions of dollars to establish a massive new bureaucracy (either 

inside or outside the government), dilute the FAA’s focus on safety by giving 

it the authority to assess and collect revenues, and put us squarely on the path 

toward commercialization. 

Mr. Chairman, expanding the capacity of our Nation’s air transportation system 

to accommodate demand can and must be a national priority. But no one should 

mistake aviation user fees with a modernization plan (see Chart 5). 

We urge this Subcommittee to immediately reject aviation user fees in any form 

and begin focusing on how we work within the established Congressional process 

to expand system capacity to enhance mobility for all Americans. NBAA looks forward to working with this Subcommittee to accomplish this critical national goal. 

56 


308bolen1.eps

#1 

j 

of 

~ 

; 

~ 

~ ¢:: <> 

-e C'IS :> ... .. ... 

(J ~ 0;; 

« .. 

~ 

tn 

tn 

G) ~ "'- ... c: , ,Ii; 

tn .. I ~ 

::l ~ 

m & 1 " i G) I ... 

G) 

-.!!! I C) Q 

G) e 

Q 

~ ~ co 

-e 

~ J ~ 

::l 

! 

~ c 

i 

;$ 'I- "$ #. "il- I- ~ 'I- '# lan 0 en 0 an 0 an 0 In 0 ~ ~ ".. t'I\ N N .-t ..-f 

308bolen2.eps

4000 

3500 

... 

(.) 

.: 3000 

« 

... 

2500 

1/1 

:; 2000 

0 

J: 

_ 1500 

0 

... 

1000 

E 

:::J 

Z 500 

0 

Average Annual Hours Per Aircraft 

.. uu'"' 

"'70 

I 

Commercial Airline GA Turbine (Part 91) 

Source: Aviation Daily 

I 

308bolen3.eps

$1$,000,000 $14,000,000 f $12,000,000 

I: $1(),OOO,ooo • -

-; $8,000,000 -I-- -

;- $$,000,000 

... l $4.000,000 I-- -

$2.000,000 r--- -

$0 

1997 1998 

SClume: FAA 

FAA Budget 1997-2007 

- - - I-

- - , - - r--- rrr-- I-- - - - - I-- l-

- r-- I-- - - - - I-- I-- I-- I-- - - - - I-- r-

- I-- r--- - - - - r--- r1999 2000 2001 2002 200S 2004 2005 2006 2007· 

.... ;eIV .. r 

......... dbylfl. H_ 

l it ... 

308bolen4.eps

Funding Requirements 

$20 

$1 0 +1-----; 

$5 +1-----; $0 +1----' 

(In Billions) Current 

System 

FAA FY 2007 CR Level 

Next 

Generation 

• Current Exci

Taxes 

• Current 

General FunContribution 

=It: 
60 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Ed Bolen, that was excellent 

testimony. 

This hearing, as I indicated, would be perhaps a little bit different, and I hope there will be a series of them, because we have 

the decisionmakers not just sitting here, but some are here as witnesses. And together, we’re going to have to work this out. 

Now, there are several models to this. We meet frequently with 

your representatives who come to see us and our staff. They are 

not empowered to be able to make decisions when we say—as I’m 

wont to—‘‘What do you suggest? What do you think are some potential compromises? What are those areas?’’ For example, Jim 


308bolen5.eps
61 

May in, on page [37], has a, is a very interesting thing, he says, 

‘‘What we’re not saying,’’ and then there’s a series of things after 

that. In other words, don’t attack others. I haven’t read them all. 

So, the question is, what is it? That you can look at it in two 

ways—we’ve got a short-term financing problem, we’ve got a longterm financing problem. My own predilection is that America is 

making a tremendous mistake right now by doing everything shortterm and incrementally. That we’re not looking at the big picture, 

that we have to virtually reconstruct America from every single 

point of view. From our education system, to our transportation 

system—and all of its forms—to a War on Terror, to Homeland Security—I mean, the list never ends. 

I think we have about a 10 to 15 year window in which to do 

this. The next question is, how can you afford that? I have absolutely no idea. But, I do know this. That, when President Clinton 

left office, he had a $5.6 trillion surplus. He may not—because of 

the Congress at the time—been able to get away with it, but he 

could have figured something out with his lawyers to take that $5.6 

trillion, not use it into paying down debt, but to use it to—for the 

one time in our recent life, in our generational life, to create a construction fund, you know, a ‘‘Build America F’’und—everything 

from education, to transportation, to everything else. 

We have enormous needs. We are not meeting them. At the rate 

that we are going, we will not meet them. We will become a Congress and a society of incrementalists, because we are forced to do 

that by our economic situations, by various things going on in the 

world, the rest of it, and we’re not going to make it, in my judgment. Just speaking as the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I don’t think we’re going to make it. I don’t think we have 

the time to make it. Unless we do these things in a fairly short period of time. 

And, I checked this with Senator Lott, and he didn’t hit me, I 

said, ‘‘Can we look at a short-term resolution of financing problems? And, can we look at a long-term?’’ And we can’t do the longterm today, because all of the answers aren’t in. But, I would just 

start with this question, and I’ll ask a couple. How much more capacity could we add to the system by adding more runways? 

That’d be you, Chip. 

Mr. BARCLAY. I’m not sure how to answer that specifically—— 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Then don’t. Then answer just in general 

terms. 

Mr. BARCLAY. Back in 2000, the calculation was what we needed 

was 50 miles of runways to meet the coming demand in the system. 

We’ve built about 20 miles, not the 50 miles that we needed. 

One of the reasons we talked about it that way it is because 

looks pretty modest compared to highway miles to say, ‘‘This is the 

amount you need.’’ On the other hand, a lot of the remaining runway capacity we’d like to get at is going to be very hard for reasons 

other than economics. We’ve been building new runways. The difficulty is not just getting the dollars, it’s getting permission, and 

going through all of the—— 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Will you say it’s possible that if we do not 

reconfigure the runway system at O’Hare Airport, that it would 

62 

have a—I’m not quite sure what the word is, but—almost a, the beginning of a closing effect on American aviation? 

Mr. BARCLAY. Yes. Back in the year 2000 we all felt what rolling 

gridlock feels like. One out of every four airplanes was delayed, and 

that was rippling from just one airport. Either it was O’Hare where 

a plane was delayed—a lot of planes were delayed at O’Hare—or 

La Guardia early in the morning and throughout the day it ripples 

delays. It’s like, one of the bridges coming into Washington at nine 

o’clock that’s working fine. But you get an accident on one, and everybody is scurrying, and everything winds up in gridlock. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Let me ask one more quick question. The 

FAA proposal has been assaulted and attacked by everybody. I get 

along very well with Marion Blakey, she called me several weeks 

ago, I thought I was in for a big conversation, and she said, ‘‘Well, 

are you for pilots flying at the age of 65?’’ and I said, ‘‘Yes, I always 

have been,’’ and then she hung up. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. I haven’t talked to her since. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. So, you know, it’s not just you that’s feeling frustration, it’s all of us sitting up here. 

But, the trend is that we attack each other’s advantages and disadvantages. And, that we attack plans that are either put before 

us, might be put before us, or we hope will be put before us, and 

often in the case of this bill, they don’t contain the necessary details. 

So, that’s where we are. Democrats and Republicans have, Administrations over the years have underfunded air transportation 

and the FAA, that’s not a recent problem, that’s gone on forever. 

It’s true in a lot of other areas, too. 

But, is there anything in any of this—and I, I don’t have to have 

you answer now, because it’s Trent’s turn to ask questions—nobody 

seems to support anything in any of this. Are there areas of support, do you believe, that you could reach accommodation with each 

other? 

What we used to do in West Virginia, in transportation—please 

forgive me—we used to have temporary restraining orders in the 

coal mines. This was 34 years ago. And, I’d wake up every morning, and there would be the headline in the newspapers saying, 

‘‘Temporary Restraining Orders, Union Brings Against Company,’’ 

and the mines would all shut down. Which was not, West Virginia 

is not a wealthy state, and this was not good news. 

Suddenly, what happened is that a couple of leaders within the 

Union and within the companies decided, ‘‘This is stupid, this is 

hurting all of us.’’ And they decided, from now on, when there is 

a problem, we’re going to fix it at the face of the mine, which is 

where the coal is mined. Which means, one, that the owner or operator of the mine has to be down under the mine. Those were the 

days when people who owned mines tended to have come up 

through working in them. Now, people on Wall Street own mines, 

and many of them haven’t been in mines. But, the principle is the 

same—you get people at the place of the problem, and you say, 

‘‘OK, now what are we going to do about this? What can we agree 

on, so that we don’t have to come to conflict?’’ In this case, to 

63 

strike. Is there any possibility, euphemistically, in terms of what 

I have suggested through that example with the industry? Please. 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Senator, I was somewhat struck by the testimony 

at what, actually, this whole panel agrees upon. And we seem to 

get stuck on the things we disagree upon, and we seem to argue 

with each other about the financing, and what we agree on gets 

lost in the equation. 

And what I’ve heard from everybody here, and I certainly agree 

with, is that we all agree that the system is going to break, and 

break fairly quickly, and we need to fix it, we need to modernize. 

That’s going to take money, it’s going to take programs. 

And, I’ve got to say, the criticism of the FAA bill that we’ve 

heard, has been on the financing side. On the programmatic side, 

there are actually some very good programs in there—ADS–B demonstration programs, the whole Section 600 environmental initiatives are very, very good—we all seem to agree on those things. 

The only thing we break down on is who pays what, and we’re all 

looking out for our own wallets. 

I was even struck by the fact that, in Mr. May’s testimony, he 

didn’t call it a user fee, he called it a usage tax, which means we’re 

back in the tax system, and we’re debating exactly what tax there 

will be, rather than whether it’s a user fee versus a tax. I think 

that’s a step forward, frankly. 

The problem we have, is that we all represent constituencies who 

obviously want somebody else to pay for the system, so I, you 

know, I would be tempted to say, ‘‘Why don’t we have 100 percent 

General Fund contribution?’’ And we probably wouldn’t argue with 

each other. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Having said that, there have to be ways to compromise. And, I think what we’d first do is agree on what we agree 

upon, take all of those things off the table, and just try to isolate 

and define what we disagree about. As I said we, in our perspective, we’re in sort of a unique situation, whatever way you look at 

the process, we pay approximately 100 percent of our system usage, 

a little more. So, from the cargo perspective we say, just, you know, 

just don’t hurt us, do no harm, but we understand there are arguments on the other side. 

The one point that I made that I’d like to reiterate, and I think 

everyone else did, is that I’m not sure we can afford to establish 

a new, multi-million dollar bureaucracy to figure out how to do 

this. I think there’s got to be a simpler way. And there are two 

ways to do that, as I look at it—one, we simply look at the present 

system, and see what inequities there are, and tweak it. And, number two—and we don’t support—I don’t want anyone to take this 

wrong, we are not advocating what I’m about to say, if I advocate 

it, I will probably not be employed tomorrow—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ALTERMAN.—but, and I’ll say it anyway—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Another possibility which might be explored is 

funding the whole system through a fuel tax. I don’t know how that 

comes out. I have no idea how my members come out. But, I’m 

looking for something that we might be able to agree upon. 

64 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Within that spirit—I have vastly exceeded my time, not giving the rest of you a chance to answer, and I 

call upon Senator Lott. I will come back. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator LOTT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly 

look forward to working with you and the Chairman of the full 

Committee, Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, and coming up 

with a really visionary, far-sighted reauthorization of FAA, and my 

other colleagues here on the Committee. 

Some people say, ‘‘Well, he’s dreaming.’’ Well, that’s how things 

happen. When you dream, and you have a vision, then you try to 

figure a way to go get it. 

I’ve enjoyed working in this area for several years now, worked 

on the FAA reauthorization in the 2000 bill with Bud Schuster, 

and of course, in 2004, Senator Rockefeller and Congressman 

Young and Oberstar—I don’t think we did incredible jobs, although 

each one of you would probably pick apart parts of it, I think it was 

incrementally OK, I hope we take the quantum leap this time, way 

beyond what we’ve been willing to do before. 

And as I listen to this panel, I must confess, I got to feeling pretty negative about how we’re going to get all of this done. But then 

I said, there’s no use, this is what you’re paid to do, to point out 

your problems, and I think Marion Blakey is an excellent leader, 

there at FAA, I think some of the problems you point out really 

were foisted on her and the bill, probably by OMB. They recommend spending less of AIP, they know that isn’t going to happen. 

We’re going to spend AIP, it’s a Trust Fund, and it’s for a purpose, and we’re going to make sure it’s spent for the purpose it is 

accumulated. 

So, then I said, well there’s no use of being negative about all 

of this, because I believe with this Committee, we’re going to do 

this, and we’d like to do it with your help. Maybe we need to have 

some meetings where we get you all to actually confess where 

you’re willing to do more, but I think we all agree we need to modernize the air traffic control system, do we all agree? Anybody disagree? No, OK. 

So, that’s kind of the bottom line. I think we can all agree we 

need more money. We can argue over programmatic changes, and 

we will. But, we’re going to take input from all of you. We’ve done 

that, I’ve worked with you in the past, and I worked with all segments of industry, I met with most of you already, I know Jay has, 

Chairman Inouye. 

But, I’m going to not ask any further questions, I’m just going 

to quote two of my favorite people, one of them is Russell Long, 

good Democrat who said, you know, ‘‘On tax policy, it’s don’t tax 

me, don’t tax you, tax the guy behind the tree.’’ Or something to 

that effect. And that’s what you’re all saying. You’re all saying, 

‘‘No, not me, go, get over here.’’ Some of you like the current system, some of you don’t like it, none of you want to pay more, and 

that’s just not the way it’s going to happen. 

65 

So, my second favorite quote of modern time, is one from Morgan 

Freeman, a great Mississippian in the movie ‘‘Glory’’ in which he 

said, ‘‘We’re all going to have to ante up and kick in.’’ Every one 

of you are going to have to pay more, do more, give more. Because 

we gotta go for the big league this time. We’ve got to finance this 

modernization. We have got to do what’s necessary to keep this industry competitive, not only so they can serve the American people, 

but be competitive in the world. 

And, I hope that Senator Rockefeller and I can approach it from 

that standpoint. It’s time we do something grand. And, I hope that 

Senator Rockefeller’s name will go up in history as having done 

what really needs to be done. So far, I don’t see it. You’re all saying, ‘‘Not me.’’ And, my attitude is, yes, all of you. You’re all going 

to pay more. So, let’s find out how we can make that happen. 

That’s my speech for the day, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. That was a hell of a speech. 

Senator LOTT. Thank you. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Senator Inouye, Chairman? 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

The CHAIRMAN. Is it my turn to give a speech? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. You’re a Chairman, you do whatever a 

Chairman wants to do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it’s no secret that I represent a small state, 

small in size, small in population. And I do hope that whatever decision we make here, we take into consideration the unique nature 

of my state. That would make me very happy. 

And I was listening to Mr. May, and your remarks pleased me. 

Certainly, I serve as Chairman of the Defense Appropriations 

Committee, and I’m constantly reminded of the word ‘‘change’’ and 

it comes about every 2 weeks. Something that is current today is 

obsolete in about a month. 

And I think it’s the same here in aviation. Now, we have aircraft 

that require just a small portion of a runway now. We have powerful engines that can fly you across the country in just 2 hours. And 

I suppose, someday, we will see such aircraft carrying passengers. 

We can’t stop that, because every study indicates that flying is the 

preferred method of traveling, it is no longer the rail, or the automobile—it is aircraft. 

And so we have a grave responsibility. When I became Chairman 

of the Commerce Committee, there was a brief moment when I 

said, ‘‘Wow,’’ you know, to be called Chairman, it’s ego-boosting. 

But when you realize the jurisdictional responsibilities of this Committee, and it’s not—the nature of this Committee is not like, say, 

Foreign Relations, where you try to maintain the status quo. You 

don’t want any ruffling of feathers. 

This Committee—take communications, 10 years ago, we adopted 

the 1996 Act on Telecommunications, and it is so obsolete today, 

that we are scrambling to write a new one. And we know very well 

that 10 years from now, that one will be obsolete. You have one little instrument now that does everything. 

66 

It’s the same thing with aviation. And so, I plead with you to 

help us come up with something. Yes, Senator Lott is—one thing 

I like about him, he’s always optimistic, and he’s usually correct. 

And my colleague here from West Virginia, he’s rather philosophical, I think that was his training in Japan. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. But, we’ve got to do something, and I hope that 

we do the right thing. And I don’t have the answers, I have a lot 

of questions, here, I’d like to submit to you. And Mr. Chairman, I’d 

like to have my statement made part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:] 

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

As the Senate Commerce Committee considers the reauthorization of the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), we must remain aware of the impact our policies 

may have on various segments of the aviation industry. The industry is a large part 

of the economy and increasingly the preferred method of travel for many Americans. 

The FAA currently estimates aviation contributes $690 billion annually to our Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP). The policy decisions we make this year, both in the area 

of modernization and funding, will have a profound affect on the U.S. national airspace system (NAS) and our aviation industry for decades to come. 

These issues are particularly important to my constituents, the people of Hawaii. 

We depend on aviation to connect us as a state, as well as to the rest of the country 

and the world. Our economy is uniquely dependent on aviation, and the ability of 

people to travel in a safe, efficient, and timely manner at reasonable prices. Any 

policies we adopt must recognize the relationship between aviation and the economy, as I cannot support any policy that will adversely affect Hawaii’s airlines or 

their customers. 

Today, we will hear from aviation stakeholders on the plan the FAA unveiled that 

would fundamentally change the current aviation system and how it is financed. We 

must ensure that the air system continues to serve the public well, and at the same 

time, the air traffic control system must be modernized and it must be done quickly 

so our social and economic growth are not stifled. 

Unfortunately, the FAA has not yet made a solid case supporting their proposed 

changes. Specifically, the Committee needs to know how this plan affects consumers, 

local communities and various aviation stakeholder groups. We must determine 

whether the FAA plan is equitable to all parties involved. The entire country, rural 

and urban, will feel the impact of the FAA reauthorization that we enact. Any aviation proposal that moves through Congress must deliver the promise of improving 

access and providing affordable, secure and quality air service to all Americans, regardless of geographic location. 

Today is another step in understanding this important issue. We must proceed in 

a dedicated, cooperative manner that ensures we enact the best legislation for the 

system and our Nation. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. All statements—and yours will be included—all statements, nobody has given a statement, they’re all 

parts of the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Pryor? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Mr. May, let me start with you. 

Arkansas has a healthy mix of commercial aviation and general 

aviation, and we have a lot of businesses there that use both, and 

a lot of people use both—can you give me a little detail about 

which general aviation operators would be defined as corporate opVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:26 Mar 19, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\79905.TXT JACKIE
67 

erators—did you use that term, corporate operators, in your testimony? Who, who was that? 

Mr. MAY. Senator Pryor, I’d be happy to do that. 

There are actually, if you were to look at the cost allocation 

study as presented by the FAA, there is a specific category called 

‘‘high performance GA,’’ if I recall correctly, and it is very specifically turbine, i.e., jet aircraft that are effectively corporate. 

There is a second category in that cost-allocation study that is 

more broadly defined as ‘‘high performance commercial,’’ that also 

includes in the definition, outfits like Net Jets, for example, the 

fractionals. Charter operations, for instance, et cetera. So, when I 

talk about restoring equity or balance, those are the two principle 

characters, categories I’m referring to. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Did you want to add something to that? 

Mr. BOLEN. The term ‘‘corporate aviation’’ is also an FAA-defined 

term. It is the use of any general aviation aircraft for a business 

purpose with two professional pilots. So, in the United States, we 

have corporate operations that include piston and turbine-powered. 

I would just say that the FAA’s cost allocation study defines 

‘‘high performance’’ as ‘‘any turbine airplane’’ so that includes single-engine turboprops, and twin engine turboprops. 

Probably the most common turbine-powered aircraft in the 

United States is the twin-engine turboprop, the Beech King Air. 

Senator PRYOR. Right. Thank you. 

Mr. Forrey, you paint a fairly dim picture in your testimony 

about the future for employment of air traffic controllers, and I’m 

concerned about that issue. And maybe you covered this in your 

testimony, but if you could tell the Committee where the air traffic 

controllers and the FAA are in their negotiations? And, you know, 

what the immediate future looks like for air traffic controllers? 

Mr. FORREY. Well, currently we’re not in negotiations with 11, 12 

bargaining units at this time. In fact, 12 bargaining units are 

working under imposed work rules and pay, and that includes air 

traffic controllers, engineers, safety engineers, system engineers, 

nurses, several others—that is causing quite a problem with retaining very experienced and valuable employees, that they’re basically 

retiring as soon as they’re eligible, because there’s no reason to 

stick around. 

We also believe that this is discouraging new, qualified employees to get hired by the FAA. We, at one point, had seen many of 

our controller new hires come from the military ranks, that had experience as controllers in the military, and they are no longer coming into the FAA in the numbers they used to, because they can 

find better employment with the military, with better pay, or with 

the Department of Defense as civilian air traffic controllers with 

them. 

So, it’s having a very negative impact on the ability for us to 

maintain a safe system, and of course, to keep up with the efficiencies that the system demands. 

You know, we’re all in favor of modernization, we think that’s 

something we need to do. But we don’t want to let the discussion 

get away from the fact that what’s going on right now, the shortterm—we need the system to maintain its safety and efficiency as 

68 

it is, and we need to prepare for the future of that modernized system, so that we can ensure that system is still safe. 

Senator PRYOR. So, if you were able to get your contract issues 

resolved, what should the FAA be doing to try to increase air traffic 

control retention, and to enhance their training? 

Mr. FORREY. Well, I think initially what we need to do is get us 

back to the table under a fair negotiations process, so that we can 

actually show the controllers that they have an opportunity, at 

least, to receive better pay and better working conditions than 

we’re getting right now. That will retain our experienced controllers, I believe, and I think that will start attracting more qualified 

individuals to come and enter into the occupation. So, that would 

be the initial thing we could do right away. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Bolen, I just have a couple of seconds left, 

and I just wanted to get your thoughts on the FAA financing reform proposal—have they reached out to your organization, and to 

other members of the panel—have they reached out to try to get 

your input on reforming financing through FAA? 

Mr. BOLEN. Well, I think we’ve been pretty clear in our comments regarding financing. We view the modernization hurdle— 

finding an additional 3 percent, or 8 percent above the current 

budget, as a little bit like finding the right diet. I mean, there are 

really two ways to lose weight—you exercise more, or you eat less. 

Maybe there are three ways, you could do a combination of those. 

What we see, in terms of the modernization, we either need to find 

savings within the current FAA budget, that does not affect essential programs, that does not affect system safety, does not affect 

system efficiency, or we’re going to have to find additional revenues. Those revenues can come from an increase in the General 

Fund, or they can come from an increase in the taxes. 

I think Senator Lott was right on target when he made it clear 

that no one should expect to get a tax break as we go through this 

process. We may need to pay more, and I think our goal ought to 

be a way to make sure that as we are looking at the funding options, we don’t harm any one segment of the industry, and destroy 

it, as we’re trying to move the system forward. 

We’ve tried to make that clear to the FAA, and to others. We’ve 

tried to work with them on their cost allocation study. We’ve been, 

frankly, a little frustrated that they’ve not provided us any data, 

despite a year’s worth of requests. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Lautenberg? 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for holding this series of hearings as we continue our work to improve air travel in 

our country. 

And, just as a preface to my questions, just a reminder, you may 

have discussed it, the number of people who will fly this year, and 

that it won’t be too many years away that we’ll have a billion people flying almost every year. And then we’re looking at the very 

69 

light jets—they’ll be carrying passengers, in my view, in the next 

10 years, and we’ve just got to improve our capacity to handle it. 

And, you know, suddenly to realize that the sky is a finite place 

to put things. And, it makes it very tough and before we go ahead 

and start spending taxpayer money, I’d like to know exactly what 

we’re, what is being planned. 

And, Mr. Forrey, you talked about the source for new controllers, 

and seeing that dry out. And right now, we’re not replacing those 

that will be retiring quickly. And there are 1,000 less controllers 

now than we had just a few years ago. I happen to come—as contrasted to Senator Inouye—I come from a very small state, but the 

largest population of any of the states that are represented here 

today, and we’ve got busy, busy airports as you all know. Whether, 

it’s not just Newark–Liberty, it’s Teterboro, it’s Morristown, and 

it’s other airports throughout the state. We like them. We like the 

commerce and the opportunity it presents, you know, when we 

think of aviation, we think almost exclusively of the passenger side, 

but the cargo side is really a big factor in the movement of goods, 

and the development and the functioning of our society. 

But, the user fee sounds like the last thing that we ought to be 

thinking about right now. To make it equitable to everybody is 

going to be a very tough thing to do, and I’m sure that we can come 

up with things that are more, that are fair, than going to a user 

fee. 

And, I ask—what do we do as we continue to stretch the population of aircraft in the sky, and to increase it? One of the things 

I’d like to see us do, because it creates problems for you, and for 

all of us, and that is airport noise, aviation noise. And I think it’s 

essential that we phase out some of the older, noisier Stage Two 

jets, and I’ve got a bill that does that. 

Now, this legislation, I understand, will bring some hardship for 

some of the members of your organization, that recently upgraded 

them with new altimeters to comply with the vertical separations 

now required, 1,000 feet—so there are investments that have to be 

made. But, nevertheless, I think these changes must be made to accommodate what we have now, and what we’re going to have over 

the next years. Any suggestions as to the legislation that I’ve proposed, that you’d recommend in order to get your support? 

Mr. BOLEN. Well, Senator, speaking from the business aviation 

community, I think you hit directly upon the issues at hand. I 

think everyone in aviation has to find a way to be a good neighbor, 

and to be welcome parts of every community. Noise is certainly a 

part of that equation that has to be addressed. You have introduced a Stage Two phase-out, and you’ve hit on the target—there 

are a number of people who have invested heavily in Stage Two 

aircraft so that they could be part of the altitudes between 29,000 

feet and 41,000 feet. I think we’d like an opportunity to sit down 

with you and figure out what the appropriate way to address that 

situation is. 

Your bill, I believe, talks about a 3-year phase-out. I think that 

would be very onerous on some of the people who have made the 

investment, but I think you’ve touched on all of the issues that 

need to be addressed, and we look forward to sitting down and 

working with you on that. 

70 

Senator LAUTENBERG. We want to help solve the problem, but 

understanding that people have been encouraged to make investments in these aircraft, that we don’t want it to be too heavy-handed, but we have to figure out ways to do it. The communities at 

large will not permit this to continue, we’re getting all kinds of 

complaints, and appropriately so. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my statement—you did say all of them 

would be included in the record, and to keep the record open for 

questions to be submitted in writing, and I thank you very much 

for doing it, and all of you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing as we continue our work to 

improve air travel in America. Seven hundred-sixty million people will fly this year. 

By 2015, that number will hit one billion. In addition, nearly five thousand very 

light jets will be carrying passengers over the next 10 years. 

To serve those future flyers and aircraft efficiently and safely, we need new equipment—in our towers and on our runways. But before we spend taxpayer money, I 

want to know what Congress is being asked to buy. 

Right now, the Bush Administration’s proposal is too vague to evaluate. As my 

colleagues point out, buying the equipment that will serve as the backbone of our 

future aviation system is one of the most important jobs the FAA will ever have. 

We also must be sure our air travel system is adequately staffed—and that means 

having enough air traffic controllers to get our passengers and planes safely to their 

destinations. Our air traffic controllers are retiring in large numbers, and the FAA 

is not replacing them fast enough. There are a thousand less controllers than we 

had a few years ago. 

At Newark Liberty International Airport alone, there are seven fewer controllers 

than even FAA Administrator Blakey has said is needed. It takes several years to 

train a new controller. And with operational errors and traffic levels on the rise at 

Newark—and staff levels on the decline there—we need a plan from the FAA to get 

more controllers in our Nation’s towers. 

Finally, we’ve got to address the funding imbalance in our aviation system. 

I came from the business world. And I am the first one to say that an airline passenger who is sitting in economy class on a delayed commercial flight should not 

be subsidizing the flight of a corporate executive who’s sitting on a business jet 

that’s been cleared for take-off. 

I look forward to hearing directly from our excellent panel of witnesses on the proposals before us to modernize our system and create more balance in maintaining 

the Aviation Trust Fund. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator, and that is the 

order. 

Senator Thune? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I too, have a statement that I would like to 

have included in the record. 

I would like to pose a couple of questions to our panel, and first 

off—the Administration’s plan includes aviation fuel tax increases 

on general aviation users, and I’ve seen an estimate that said it 

would go from about 21 cents a gallon to 70 cents a gallon. Do you 

all believe that the increase in fuel taxes for general aviation will 

have an impact on the number of general aviation flights, or number of general aviation pilots? 

71 

Mr. BOLEN. Well, Senator, I think the general aviation community and all of the associations that represent it, and NBAA is certainly proud to be one, are being inundated with letters from pilots 

and operators that are very concerned about the impact of this 360 

percent increase in the tax. 

They’re concerned about the proposed tax increase. But even 

more than what we are hearing on taxes, we’re hearing concern 

about user fees and the impact that that’s going to create, both financially and administratively—paying those taxes, and then trying to fund a bureaucracy that is ultimately going to have to assess 

and collect them. 

So, I would say the Administration’s proposal has certainly captured the attention of the general aviation community, they’ve been 

very vocal about their concerns about that, and I would also say 

that it has gone beyond the pilot and the operating community. 

We are hearing from small towns, we’re hearing from airport operators, we’re hearing from local civic groups that are very concerned about the impact that this proposal will have on small 

towns and rural communities. 

Senator THUNE. And one of the questions that is particularly, important in rural areas, has to do with Essential Air Service, and 

what is your understanding of how this change would affect the 

funding structure, to impact the future viability of the Essential 

Air Service Program? Most of the FAA charges and the funding for 

EAS, comes out of overflight fees, that those that fly in the United 

States in airspace, controlled airspace, but neither take off nor land 

in the United States—what’s your sense of how this would impact 

a program that’s important to a lot of the smaller communities that 

I represent, and others, I think, on this Committee represent as 

well? 

Mr. BARCLAY. Senator, on behalf of airports, our view is that the 

provisions in the bill for small community air service are not adequate, including the EAS provision. The Administration would cut 

the current funding for EAS. It’s about $110 million a year, and 

they’d cut that down to $50 million and they would take the money 

in the future from the Trust Fund rather than from the overflight 

fees. That’s something that is a fairly new idea, and we haven’t had 

much chance to evaluate the funding source issue. But our members don’t agree that we should be cutting back on the EAS program, as envisioned by the Administration. 

When you think about air transportation, you have this vibrant 

market-based system where 90 percent of the passengers fly between the top 70 markets. But you have 550 air carrier airports 

out there that need a connection into that system if you’re going 

to have a national air transportation system. Not all good ideas, 

and people, live in those very large markets that are market-driven. 

So, figuring out how do we properly connect rural America to 

that system that will operate by the market, is one of our great 

challenges. We shouldn’t be undermining the only program we 

have to do that currently, while we try to figure out better ways 

to do it. 

Senator THUNE. Let me just—— 

72 

Mr. MAY. Senator, I’d like to just quickly reinforce our concerns, 

that are quite similar to Mr. Barclay’s. That, we think rural and 

small communities must continue to be served, and I think this is 

one of the many flaws in the Administration’s bill, is to not only 

change that funding, but cut the funding for EAS. 

Senator THUNE. And I assume that none of you believe that a 

rancher from a remote community like Wall, South Dakota, that’s 

flying a piston-powered general aviation aircraft, flying around 

South Dakota puts the same strain on our air traffic system as a 

Gulf Stream business jet might, flying up and down the East 

Coast. 

And, I guess my question is, how does the current cost recovery 

system differentiate between those two types of flights, how would 

the FAA proposal differentiate the flights, and how would you 

make sure that each of the system users—the South Dakota rancher, and the East Coast businessman pay their fair share, and nothing more? That’s a complicated series of questions, but—— 

Mr. BOLEN. Senator, let me begin with that—currently both the 

rancher and the jet flying up and down the East Coast are currently paying through a fuel tax. The piston-powered fuel tax is at 

a lower rate than the jet fuel tax. So, we have a tax on aviation 

gasoline, which is used in piston-powered airplanes, at 19.5 cents 

a gallon, and we have a tax on jet fuel at 21.9 cents. So, we have 

separated the tax levels between piston and turbine. 

Using that fuel tax we are able to link system usage to costs 

paid. So, for both of those airplanes, the more they fly, the more 

they pay. Obviously that differential, or the progressivity, of the 

fuel tax is enhanced by the fact that there are two different fuel 

rates. But, I would also tell you that a turboprop going on, say, an 

hour-long flight, would pay something on the order of 500 percent 

less than that turbo jet, simply because the turbo jets are heavier, 

more sophisticated, so they burn more fuel. 

One of the reasons that the general aviation community has been 

such a strong advocate of continuing the fuel tax, is that we see 

it as a tremendous proxy for use of the system, and an enormously 

efficient way to pay for use. It captures aircraft weight, it captures 

distance flown, it captures the number of takeoffs, it provides a 

penalty if you fly into congested airspace because you’re held at 

less-than-optimal altitudes, and often put in holding patterns—so 

we think it is the perfect way for general aviation to pay. And we 

look forward to working with this Committee to discuss the appropriate levels of that. 

Mr. MAY. Senator, a couple of additional points, if I may, I don’t 

disagree with Mr. Bolen’s description of the current environment. 

Going forward, we feel very strongly and, I think, as does the 

FAA, that you need to tie system income to use. There needs to be 

a cost-based allocation. In the Administration proposal, the fundamentals of that, the principles of that are incorporated. There 

are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. I don’t think that 

rancher flying a piston-powered plane should be charged in the 

same way that the corporate aircraft is driven, or if you don’t like 

the term corporate-driven, it’s a jet aircraft using the same airspace, flying Derek Jeter around, or anyone else. And, I think the 

FAA has shown quite clearly in its cost allocation exercise that you 

73 

can distinguish between that class of folks that are in the aviation 

industry flying the piston-driven—especially those that are flying 

VFR flight rules—from those that are corporately owned and driven, that are flying at significant altitude, imposing on the system, 

if you will. As Mr. Forrey will probably tell you, I mean, it’s fairly 

easy to tell who is being actively controlled in the system, and who 

is not. 

So, I think, going forward, we need to find a way, this Committee 

needs to find a way to distinguish between those different classes 

of users in the system, and to tie their contributions to the system 

to the use that they place. And I think that will be one of the fundamental challenges that we have, going forward. 

Mr. FORREY. Senator, as a system provider, I think the major 

concern for us is that there’s enough money and funding to staff 

the system, to maintain the system, and to modernize the system. 

The question and problem with this Administration’s proposal at 

this point in time is that it calls for user fees that don’t provide 

the funding that the current system does right now, and so I don’t 

know how we’re going to modernize the system staff and maintain 

it, when you’re talking about less funds. 

I don’t know that it accurately excises the fees on the users in 

the proper manner, you know, it doesn’t really point to that very 

clearly in the proposals, second. 

And third, I think that with—we’re certainly open. I mean, we’re 

concerned about making sure that we have the right equipment, 

the right staffing and the system is safe. That’s what we’re concerned about, and I don’t know that it’s necessarily in this proposal, when you talk about privatizing and user fees, that’s what 

it looks like to us. So, that’s our big, major concern with the Administration’s proposal right now. 

Senator THUNE. I thank the panel. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is well expired. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Thune follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Lott—Thank you for you holding this 

hearing today. Thank you to the witnesses for providing us your reaction to the FAA 

Reauthorization proposal and the reaction of the aviation system users that your organizations represent. 

Both general aviation and the airline industry are important to a rural state like 

mine. We have over 75,000 square miles of breathtaking landscape with, as Senator 

Burns used to say, ‘‘a lot of dirt between light bulbs.’’ Getting from point to point 

quickly often means that business owners, farmers, and ranchers get their pilot’s 

license. 

Tourism is one of the largest industries in the western part of South Dakota. That 

means we obviously need a strong airline industry to get those visitors in and out 

of the Black Hills and other destinations in our state. 

Like each of the Senators on this committee we have a vested interest in both 

general aviation and commercial aviation. We need to make sure any changes we 

make to our system keep both of these segments strong. 

Thank you, again, for holding this hearing. I look forward to working with this 

committee along with the stakeholders represented here to produce a bill that 

strengthens our Nation’s air transportation system. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. No, thank you, Senator Thune. 

74 

Gentlemen, first of all, we need to have more of these hearings. 

Which is a vast inconvenience to all of you, and I appreciate that, 

but they’ve got to happen. 

Second, I want to say that, I think there’s no way to put into 

words the way the American public, the American political process 

has underestimated, failed to understand, the revolution in technology, and maybe most importantly, the revolution in size of what 

the aviation industry has become. I can remember, not that long 

ago, in West Virginia, about 16 percent of the people were flying. 

It’s a lot more than that now. You talk about a billion people, I 

agree. 

That fact hasn’t entered into the psychology of either the body 

politic, or the American body politic to cause movement. And, I just 

give a simple comparison—we’ve had a series of tragic events come 

to light at Walter Reed Hospital. Now, veterans have been around 

for a long time, and veterans have had difficulties, PTSD, and all 

kinds of things for a long, long time, going back to World War I 

and before, they just aren’t—we don’t have any people left from before. 

That, the newspaper writes some stories, and all of sudden the 

Nation is totally gripped, and they’re gripped in a way that they 

should be. Because what they want to do is to reform, in a very 

complicated way, what is, in fact, the Nation’s best healthcare system—particularly in terms of recordkeeping efficiency and the rest 

of it—which is the V.A. system, with vast inattention on the part 

of the military and the V.A., in fact, to our veterans. 

Now, it’s extraordinary to me to compare those two. Within 2 

weeks, 25 Congressional hearings. Not even waiting to get rooms 

in Congress, but going out to Walter Reed. And here is something 

called the aviation system, which is just going like this in every 

single way. We’re not keeping up with it. No Democratic Administration that I can think of, and no Republican Administration that 

I can think of has even begun to keep up with it. Because it does 

not engage the American psyche in an emotional or ‘‘I am at 

risk’’—it did, obviously, after 9/11, but recovered, ‘‘I am at risk,’’ 

‘‘This affects me directly and absolutely, therefore I’m going to be 

part of this solution, no matter what I have to do.’’ 

That takes me to the floor process. I’ve talked with people who’ve 

said, ‘‘All right, what you need to do, Senator Rockefeller, is to figure out what has to happen.’’ And in modernization, obviously Senator Lott and the two Committee Chairmen, ‘‘what has to happen, 

and what we have to do about it, and how it’s going to be allocated.’’ 

The problem with that, is twofold. One, I can’t go to the floor, 

to either Majority Leader Harry Reed, or Minority Leader Mitch 

McConnell, and say, ‘‘I need a week at the end of July, so that we 

can debate out the various issues,’’ I won’t get that time. I won’t 

get that time, even though we’re expiring. Because their question 

is going to be, ‘‘Is there a consensus? Is there the beginning of a 

consensus? Am I committing myself to a two and a half-week food 

fight?’’ And that factor of not being able to get time is, in fact, 

ought to scare all of us a lot. I may be wrong in my judgment, but 

that’s my reading of it. 

75 

Because, when you’ve got Iraq Resolutions, and you’ve got all 

kinds of things going on, in a basically, chaotic situation, things fitting in at the time that they ought to be fitted in for discussion, 

vote and resolution doesn’t turn out that way. And you all know 

the Senate. 

So, what I prize, enormously, is what I started out by saying. 

That there is, in fact, Senator Lott said he was disappointed, then 

he said he was optimistic. There was a lot of disagreement, but 

there was also, frankly, quite a lot of agreement on what I heard. 

I want to take the positive side, and lock it down with you, and 

others. And then we’ll isolate what is difficult, and then we’ll have 

our Quaker meeting. And, I think if we do that in a timely fashion, 

we’ll get floor time. I think that if I were to ask any of you, what 

do you think that a modern air traffic control system ought to be, 

I don’t think I’d get a whole lot of argument, would I? 

Mr. ALTERMAN. No. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. I think you’d all agree on it. Well, that’s 

called ‘‘the big item.’’ Not the only item, but the big item. 

How to pay for it, is a nasty item. But, it’s not an insoluble item. 

In no way is it an insoluble item, and that comes through in some 

of the testimony which you all gave. Yes, you’re going to hold onto 

what you got. Yes, there’s going to be the 94 percent, and we only 

get 70 percent return—that’s gotta be. That’s the way the system 

works, it has to. 

But, behind that, I thought that I read—and Senator Lott said 

this to me, just before he left. That he thought he read in your 

body language a desire for this to work out. And that, in fact, if 

we get a set of principles that we can agree on which are fundamental to the advancement of this massive 9 million employee industry, with—you know, as I often say, I love the interstate system, but I can’t convince anybody to bring any kind of a business 

to West Virginia on an interstate highway, it’s got to be through 

the air, commercial or general aviation. It’s the only way. 

And so, I just want to say that I conclude this hearing with, in 

fact, a very good feeling. You’re all people of good faith. You more 

than anybody, want this to work, because it’s your life. You know, 

it’s like, you think of people that have headed up various airlines, 

various associations, et cetera, I mean they’re—cargo, it’s what you 

do every day, all day. 

And so I want to be part of a solution on this, and I want to do 

it with you, and with others. And, I think that is entirely possible. 

I’m fully engaged in this. I have other things I have to do, sure, 

we all do. But this has to happen. And not just because of the timing of it, but because of the overwhelming magnitude of its force 

and power to do good, or if it doesn’t work, to do damage, to America as a Nation. 

So, with those, somewhat less than Churchillian words, I thank 

you, sincerely, and I very much look forward to continuing this. 

Mr. ALTERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. FORREY. Thank you. 

Mr. BARCLAY. Thank you. 

Mr. MAY. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(77) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

Good morning, I’d like to thank Senator Rockefeller and Senator Lott for holding 

this hearing today. 

I am pleased to see we are moving ahead on this bill. I encourage the Committee 

to act quickly and work steadily toward finishing a committee product. There is limited time before the current authorization expires, and it is my preference to see 

this bill finished on time and in a bipartisan manner. 

I also have a personal interest in a FAA bill moving forward given that my state 

of Alaska depends on aviation more than any other state. Alaska’s infrastructure 

and safety needs are significant. Over 70 percent of our communities can be reached 

only by air. Alaska alone represents 20 percent of our national airspace, and is 

home to over 20,000 pilots, nearly 10,000 registered aircraft, and over 250 airports. 

In addition, we have Anchorage International Airport, one of the top cargo airports 

in the world. For these reasons, and many others, I am greatly interested in the 

future of our aviation system. 

The Committee needs to look ahead and provide a solution to a system that will 

have to accommodate growth in airline passengers and cargo, the innovation of unmanned aerial systems, and increased business jet traffic. Congress is going to have 

to make some tough decisions in order to meet projected increases in air traffic volumes, enhancement of the system’s safety infrastructure, and increase the efficiency 

of the air traffic control system. 

We can no longer afford to simply maintain the status quo. While I am not convinced the entire system needs revamping, I do believe we need to provide a mechanism by which the air traffic control system can be modernized in a quick and efficient manner. The economic importance and safety improvements associated with 

a modern and efficient air transportation system are vast. 

It is important we concentrate our efforts on moving a bill forward, and in doing 

so, I will be focused on improving rural air service, cargo initiatives, and air traffic 

control modernization. I look forward to working with my colleagues on their priorities. 

Thank you, I look forward to the testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BILL CONNORS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND COO, 

NATIONAL BUSINESS TRAVEL ASSOCIATION

The National Business Travel Association (NBTA) applauds the Administration’s 

efforts to enhance funding for the Federal Aviation Administration as part of the 

FAA reauthorization bill. Additionally, NBTA calls on Congress to move quickly on 

this critical issue so that work can begin on building a much-needed next generation 

air traffic control system. 

Business travelers count on an effective and efficient aviation system. Taking 

steps now to modernize and implement new technology is absolutely critical to 

smooth aviation operations in the years ahead. The time for Congress to act is now, 

particularly considering the strong growth in air travel that we all project over the 

coming years. Without needed investment, this already strained infrastructure will 

become unbearably congested. 

The new funding model proposed by the Administration is a thoughtful approach 

that merits thorough Congressional consideration. Shifting the economic burden for 

paying for aviation infrastructure from passengers to airplanes, while dramatically 

different from the current approach, may well be a better approach. Whatever formula is used to fund the aviation system of the future, we urge that formula to be 

fair and equitable and reflect the interests of consumers and the broad traveling 

public. 

78 

AIR TRAVELERS ASSOCIATION

Potomac, MD, March 7, 2007 

Senator JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: HEARINGS ON THE ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSAL TO REAUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Dear Senator Rockefeller: 

I am President of the Air Travelers Association which advocates for airline passengers on airline safety, security, savings, and service. 

I support the Administration’s call for a cost-based, user-supported, air traffic 

management system. I believe that aviation taxes and fees must be adjusted so that 

airline passengers are no longer forced to subsidize the operation of corporate jets. 

Corporate executives, entertainers, real estate moguls, and other fat cats have been 

getting a free ride from airlines passengers for over 25 years and this must stop! 

According to the FAA’s most recent analysis, airlines and their passengers use 

about 70 percent of the air traffic control costs yet contribute almost 95 percent of 

the revenue into the Airport and Airways Trust Fund that funds the system. Who 

benefits from this inequity . . . the users of Learjets, Gulfstream jets, Falcon jets, 

and the like. If they can afford these planes, believe me, they can afford the fair 

and equitable taxes and fees that go with using them. 

As airline passengers, we have been taxed, charged, and ‘‘fee’d’’ to excess. We pay 

the passenger ticket tax, passenger facility charges, flight segment fees, international flight taxes, and airline security fees, all of which can add up to more than 

20 percent to 50 percent of an airline ticket. Without aviation tax reform this could 

get even higher and threaten the continued availability of low airfares. 

The ‘‘air-limo’’ crowd says that the airlines are just trying to shift the aviation 

tax burden to corporate jets. That’s right! Aviation taxes should properly be shifted 

from airline passengers who have been overpaying for years to the corporate jet 

crowd that has been underpaying for years. 

All that passengers are asking is that corporate jets pay their fair and equitable 

share of what they use of the aviation system . . . no more, no less. Airline passengers have been footing the bill for corporate jets for too long, and it must stop. 

Respectfully submitted 

DAVID S. STEMPLER, 

President. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGORY PRINCIPATO, PRESIDENT, 

AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL—NORTH AMERICA

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Airports Council International—North America (ACI– 

NA) and our United States airport members and associate member companies, I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record. The 

mission of Airports Council International—North America (ACI–NA) is to advocate 

policies and provide services that strengthen the ability of air carrier airports to 

serve their passengers, customers and communities. ACI–NA is the largest airportbased association, representing local, regional and state governing bodies that own 

and operate commercial airports in the United States and Canada. ACI–NA member 

airports enplane more than 95 percent of the domestic and virtually all the international airline passenger and cargo traffic in North America. Nearly 400 aviationrelated businesses are also members of ACI–NA. 

This year will be a critical year for aviation in the United States. On September 

30 of this year, both the authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration’s 

(FAA) programs and the taxes and fees that support those programs will expire. 

This provides an historic opportunity to make needed revisions to the way our national air transportation system is funded, developed, and operated. Many in the industry are calling this the most important reauthorization in decades, and we concur with this view. 

Air transportation has recovered from the tragic events of September 11, 2001 

with passenger traffic and cargo volumes now surpassing pre-9/11 levels. This places 

many airports at or near capacity. The FAA predicts that by 2017, only 10 years 

away, the United States air transportation system will have to expand to accommoVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:26 Mar 19, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79905.TXT JACKIE
79 

1Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2006–2017’’ <http:// 

www.faa.gov/datalstatistics/aviation/aerospacelforecasts/2006-2017/media/FAA%20Aerospa 

ce%20Forecasts%202006-17.pdf>. 2 Ibid. 

date 1.07 billion passengers annually.1 This is a 45 percent increase over today’s 

passenger levels. Cargo volume is also expected to grow at 5.2 percent annually, resulting in 71.7 billion Revenue Ton Miles by 2017,2 which represents a dramatic 83 

percent increase over today’s volume. 

Airports need to respond to the inevitable capacity strains associated with these 

higher traffic levels by building facilities that provide safe, secure, comfortable and 

environmentally compliant facilities for air travelers. With runway and other major 

capacity projects often taking upwards of 10 years to complete, it is clear that we 

need to take action now to be able to accommodate increasing demand. 

An assessment of airport capital needs is being completed by ACI–NA based on 

a 2006/2007 survey of U.S. airport operators. The preliminary results of this survey 

indicate that total capital development costs for all airports are approximately $17.5 

billion per year from 2007 through 2011, in current year dollars. This represents 

a 19.5 percent increase in annual capital needs from a similar survey conducted in 

2005 for the period 2005–2009. 

Last month, FAA released the Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Act of 2007, proposing significant and challenging concepts to change the funding and investment policies of the airport and airways system and would affect our 

member airports throughout the United States. While the proposal provides an innovative framework to begin discussions, more work is necessary to ensure that 

funding for airports is properly conceived so that it meets growing demands for passenger and cargo service. ACI–NA and the airport community firmly believe that 

the five provisions below are critical for the future of U.S. airports and, therefore, 

must be included in any final FAA reauthorization bill enacted by Congress. 

• The FAA and its programs should be funded by a stable and predictable revenue stream that provides sufficient resources for capital investments in the air 

traffic system. Additionally, fees and/or taxes targeted to capital investment accounts should be protected for their intended investment use. 

• The FAA should be bolstered by a strong, guaranteed General Fund contribution. 

• The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) ceiling must be increased to $7.50. 

• The PFC application process must be streamlined and eligibility rules aligned 

with airport needs. 

• The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) needs to be simplified and funded at 

or above today’s level. 

Stable, Predictable Funding Stream 

FAA proposed changes to the current system of taxes and fees to a structure 

largely based on user fees that will require thorough explanation and justification. 

While ACI–NA has not taken a position on whether to retain the current system 

or to implement a user fee based system, we believe this discussion is appropriate 

as we must ensure that adequate funding is in place to pay for its capital programs, 

including AIP and an overdue program for air traffic modernization through the Facilities and Equipment, or F&E, budget account. As can be seen in the Figure 1, 

in recent years the strains on the Airport and Airways Trust Fund (AATF) combined with increases in FAA operational costs have put downward pressure on both 

AIP and the F&E capital accounts. 

80 

The Administration’s reauthorization proposal also includes a complete overhaul 

of the FAA’s funding structure as follows: 

• By FY 2009, most of the current excise taxes on passengers and cargo would 

be eliminated, in favor of a system largely based on new user fees. 

• Along with this change, the proposal also includes a restructuring of how the 

FAA classifies its obligations or accounts. 

• Rather than having a single large, multipurpose AATF, the FAA would have 

separate accounts for the Air Traffic Organization, Safety and Operations, and 

a smaller AATF for traditional AIP and RE&D accounts. 

The table below describes the current account structure, the new account structure, and the revenue sources that would support each after transition is completed: 

Old account New account Revenue source 

Operations Air Traffic Organization (ATO) User Fees, Gasoline Taxes 

and General Fund. 

Facilities & Equipment Air Traffic Organization (ATO) User Fees, Gasoline Taxes 

and General Fund. 

N/A Safety and Operations Inspection, Registration and 

Certification Fees, Gasoline Taxes and General 

Fund. 

AIP Revised AATF International Arrival and 

Departure Taxes, Gasoline 

Taxes and General Fund. 

Research, Engineering & 

Development (RE&D) 

Revised AATF International Arrival and 

Departure Taxes, Gasoline 

Taxes and General Fund. 

User fees collected from commercial airlines would be deposited into the new ATO 

account which would pay for most of the operating and capital costs of the ATC system. However, operating and capital expenditures appear to be interchangeable uses 

of the accounts and this may raise concerns, given that the growth of Operations 

has already been crowding-out funding for the capital equipment required for modernization. 

A 70.0 cents/gallon fuel tax to be paid by general aviation, 13.6 cents/gallon commercial fuel tax, a variable General Fund contribution and $6.39 per person international arrival/departure tax are proposed as the revenue sources for the revised 

AATF, which would fund AIP and a host of other FAA needs. ACI–NA is very concerned about the ability of this system to fund a robust AIP, as well as FAA’s other 

programs proposed to be financed from this account. We are currently evaluating 

the financial viability of this proposal using an AATF simulation and forecasting 

model ACI–NA has developed in preparation for the reauthorization debate. 


308ACINA1.eps
81 

Strong, Guaranteed General Fund Contribution 

Over the past 25 years, the General Fund contribution to the FAA has been unpredictable year-to-year, and steadily declining in the long term (Figure 2). ACI–NA 

is concerned that the proposed General Fund contribution contained in the Administration’s proposal does not adequately reflect these benefits to the general public 

and should be significantly increased. 

PFC Ceiling Must Be Raised to $7.50 

The current PFC ceiling of $4.50 has not been raised since 2000. In that time, 

construction cost inflation has stripped the PFC of much of its value. While the Administration recommends that the PFC ceiling be adjusted to $6.00, that level is not 

sufficient to offset the combined effects of (1) the deflated value of the current PFC, 

(2) the proposed elimination of AIP passenger entitlements at large-hub and medium-hub airports, and (3) increased capital needs faced by airports. 

Analysis conducted by ACI–NA shows that the $4.50 PFC is worth only $2.86 in 

2007 when the effects of construction cost inflation are applied. In order to recapture the lost value of the PFC, the ceiling must be raised to $7.50 and indexed to 

prevent future erosion. Figure 3 shows the effects of construction cost inflation when 

applied to the PFC. 


308ACINA2.eps
82 

Streamline the PFC Process and Clarify Eligibility Rules 

PFCs were enacted by Congress in 1990 and over the last 16 years, they have 

become a cornerstone of airport capital programs. Many of the administrative procedures governing the original program are now obsolete and burdensome given that 

the PFC program has fully matured and is an essential element of airport financial 

planning. The current application process takes at least 6 months and countless 

FAA and airport staff hours to complete (Figure 4). 

Similar to ACI–NA’s ‘‘Impose, Report and Review’’ recommendation for streamlining the PFC application process, the Administration proposes to allow airports to 

notify carriers and their local community of initiatives under their PFC program 

and then begin collecting a PFC. An annual report on both ongoing and new projects 

would be required, laying out costs, intended uses, and estimated PFC collections. 

This proposed system would also ensure that FAA could stop a collection if such action is warranted under Federal regulations. 

PFC eligibility rules must also be clarified and simplified. Today’s eligibility rules 

leave much to the discretion of the various FAA offices leading to a patchwork set 

of rules leading to differential treatment in FAA’s regions. This has resulted in 

added costs and confusion as to how PFC eligibility is determined. A project or 

project element in one region may be deemed eligible, while a similar project in a 

neighboring region may be deemed ineligible. Such a discretionary system does not 

serve the traveling public. 

The Administration proposes to treat PFC revenues more like airport capital, expanding eligibility considerably and simplifying what can be a lengthy and tedious 

process to determine eligible from non-eligible uses (especially in a passenger terminal) and ACI–NA supports these proposed changes. To clarify the new process, 


308ACINA3.eps 308ACINA4.eps
83 

the FAA is proposing a reasonable system that if the project is an eligible use of 

airport capital and it is not anti-competitive, then the project would be eligible to 

be funded by PFCs. This promotes local decision-making and allows airports to meet 

local needs. The new eligibility rules would also eliminate the different eligibility 

criteria for PFC levels above $3.00, which is widely supported by the airport community. 

Strengthen and Increase AIP 

A balanced capital investment strategy for a system of airports requires a strong 

AIP program. Therefore, the Administration’s recommended funding levels for the 

next 3 years of $2.75B (FY 2008), $2.90B (FY 2009) and $3.05B (FY 2010) are not 

adequate. AIP must be reauthorized at current or higher levels to ensure that adequate funding is available, especially for smaller airports that depend on this program to fund important infrastructure improvements. 

ACI–NA is pleased that the proposed new AIP structure will provide a more direct approach to providing additional funding to the smaller airports that need it 

most (Figure 5), with more predictability of funding. The new structure also is designed to ensure that as AIP funding grows, more funds would be available in the 

discretionary fund for FAA’s Letter of Intent program, which ACI–NA believes 

should grow significantly, as well as for other important projects that expand capacity and improve safety in the national airport system. 

FAA proposes to eliminate the Small Airport Fund, which has been funded by 

PFC ‘‘turnbacks’’ from large and medium hubs, replacing it with a Small Airport 

Discretionary Fund. This Fund, providing a 20 percent small airport discretionary 

fund set-aside for all airports below the level of medium-hub, would be smaller than 

the old Small Airport Fund under the funding levels proposed in the Administration’s bill. However, the approach would provide a more predictable funding source 

since the only variable affecting the funding amount is the size of the annual AIP 

appropriation, rather than the choices of larger airports and their PFC programs. 

Small airports would also still be able to compete for the project funding in the 

other, now increased, discretionary fund. 

While large and medium airports are willing to forego AIP entitlements in Fiscal 

Year 2010 if an increased PFC ceiling is approved, there is concern that a small 

increase in passenger traffic—as little as one flight a day—would result in a small 

hub airport being re-designated as a medium hub and losing AIP entitlements. 

Therefore, Congress should amend this provision to require that the designation of 

medium hub airport be effective for 3 years prior to the airport being required to 

forego AIP entitlements. 

FAA also proposes to repeal the ‘‘$3.2 billion trigger,’’ the program currently in 

place to provide airports below the level of medium hubs a fixed, formula-based entitlement each year. ACI–NA supports this change as primary airports would no 

longer annually face the risk of a 50 percent reduction in entitlements and non-primary airports would not lose all entitlements should the appropriated level of AIP 


308ACINA5.eps
84 

fall below $3.2 billion in any particular year. This provides more predictability when 

airports are planning their capital programs. 

ACI–NA strongly supports the proposed increase in the minimum amount in the 

Discretionary Fund. Under the Administration proposal, that amount would be 

raised to $520 million. The previous minimum was $148 million plus an amount calculated based on Letter of Intent (LOI) payments prior to 1996. ACI–NA believes 

that the proposed elimination of passenger entitlement funds at large-hub and medium-hub airports should be balanced with a corresponding increase in discretionary 

funds thereby allowing these funds to facilitate those projects that make the greatest contribution to improving system capacity for the benefit of all stakeholders. 

In conclusion, airport capital needs are growing and we must act now to meet 

these demands. Increased airport capacity is critical for a safe, efficient and successful aviation system. Congress in reauthorizing FAA has an excellent opportunity to 

improve and modernize the public-private system for funding airport infrastructure. 

In order for that to be a success, the FAA reauthorization bill must include the five 

critical elements discussed above. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

STEPHEN A. ALTERMAN

Question. Can you give the Committee your thoughts on the new governance 

board in the FAA proposal? Do you think the board would represent your interests 

well? Do you think that the board would take away too much authority from Congress? 

Answer. Assuming that a revamped Advisory Board is deemed necessary under 

a reauthorized Federal Aviation Administration, the Cargo Airline Association submits that the Air Transportation System Advisory Board proposed in section 401 of 

the FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007 

does not adequately represent the interests of individual members of the aviation 

community. 

In support of this position, the following comments are offered: 

• Board Membership—The proposed Board would consist of 13 members drawn 

from a diverse group of interests. From a purely ‘‘cargo airline’’ perspective, 

having one seat on a 13-member Board provides little opportunity for influence. 

In addition, there would be three members with a ‘‘fiduciary responsibility to 

represent the public interest.’’ While fairness to all segments of the aviation 

community probably dictates this broad membership, it appears unlikely that 

any real consensus could possibly be forthcoming from this sizable and diverse 

group. 

• In addition, the proposed Board has no real power to influence decisions and 

is purely advisory, leaving the Administrator with complete power to set fees 

at will, with virtually no oversight from Congress. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

PATRICK FORREY

Question 1. There has been concern raised over the level of controllers at the FAA. 

Do you believe the FAA has enough controllers right now? 

Answer. Mr. Chairman, no we do not have enough controllers in the system right 

now. We are down over a thousand controllers since 1998. At the conclusion of the 

1998 contract, the FAA and NATCA agreed on 15,606 air traffic controllers. Today 

we have onboard 14,500 of which only 11,450 are certified professional controllers. 

Question 1a. Has the FAA acted quickly enough to address the pending retirement wave? 

Answer. No, the FAA is not hiring enough to address the current controller retirement wave. Here are just a couple of examples. Dallas-Fort Worth TRACON has 68 

fully certified controllers on staff, along with 14 in training, including three with 

military controller experience. Combined with two controllers currently out on extended medical leave, there are 84 on staff. Controllers believe there should be 117, 

the number the FAA agreed was needed to safely and efficiently run the facility before the agency arbitrarily replaced in March with a new ‘‘range’’ of 83 to 101 that 

was not backed up by any study or proof that it met traffic demands. 

At Atlanta Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) the facility is so shortstaffed that the FAA management officials were forced to spend approximately 

$865,000 in overtime from January to March of this year to cover for staffing shortVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:26 Mar 19, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79905.TXT JACKIE
85 

ages, nearly seven times the amount of overtime spent in the same three-month period in 2006. 

Question 1b. Is the FAA now hiring enough controllers to meet its future needs? 

Answer. The FAA employs more than 14,500 air traffic controllers. They safely 

guide about 50,000 aircraft through the system each day. These employees provide 

air navigation services to aircraft in the U.S. domestic airspace, and in the 24.6 million square miles of international oceanic airspace delegated to the U.S. by the 

International Civil Aviation Organization. 

In FY 2006, there were 583 controller retirements, which were 116 more than the 

FAA anticipated. The FAA has underestimated retirements by 25 percent over the 

last 3 years. 

Despite numerous public statements that the FAA is having no trouble attracting 

qualified candidates to enter the air traffic control profession, the FAA is now offering $20,000 ‘‘recruitment incentive’’ for applicants that have previous air traffic control experience, indicating the agency’s apparent inability to overcome a staffing 

shortage by simply hiring candidates off the street using MySpace and Facebook solicitations. 

Question 1c. What have the controller levels been over the past 10 years? Relative 

to workload? Relative to safety levels? 

Answer. During FY00 bargaining unit employees (air traffic controllers) numbered 

14,904. The number rose to 15,386 by FY 2003. During the next 4 years the number 

of controllers dropped to 14,500. During that time we have had the safest system 

without a major accident. The National Transportation Safety Board in their recent 

report stated that controller fatigue is becoming a serious issue. Current FAA regulations and policies place limits on controller work schedules, but they do not adequately consider the potential impact of work scheduling on fatigue and performance. 

Question 2. During the year, we have heard a number of concerns regarding the 

Administration’s implementation of the new work and pay rules. What are the main 

concerns/issues that are raised regarding the new pay/work rules? 

Answer. What has happened on pay is that the FAA has created a two tier pay 

system. Current controllers will not receive another pay raise and the new hires will 

be paid 30 percent less than the current workforce. The current workforce by the 

new pay rules will not be adding money to their base pay thus not adding to their 

Federal retirement. That is why we have seen a 25 percent increase in air traffic 

controller retirement according to Administrator Blakey. 

Question 2a. Have there been efforts by the FAA and/or NATCA to resolve these 

issues short of reopening contract negotiations? 

Answer. When Pat Forrey became President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) he went to the Administrator to see if both sides could 

resume contract negotiations. The Administrator, after a number of meetings, both 

by phone and in person, did not want to open the imposed work and pay rules. This 

is after the union offered $1.6 billion in cost saving. Chairman Costello and Chairman Oberstar worked for 3 weeks to bring both sides to the table. They were not 

successful. The FAA did not want to move away for lowering the pay bands. That 

was their bottom line. 

Since the FAA is unwilling to go back to the table we cannot address the outstanding issues such as the dress code, leave scheduling and the other 21 articles 

NATCA and the FAA did not come to an agreement on. 

Question 3. Obviously air traffic controllers are the key component to our air traffic management system, and a continued record of safety excellence. Modernization 

of the air traffic management has progressed, to what extent have air traffic controllers been involved? 

Answer. In the early 1990s during the development of the standard terminal automation replacement system (STARS) the FAA severely limited controller input, 

which resulted in significant cost overruns and schedule delays. Because of what 

happened to the STARS program. The Clinton Administration under FAA Administrator Jane Garvey brought in 35 air traffic controllers to aid the FAA on the deployment of new technology. This was a very successful program. 

Administrator Blakey disbanded this collaboration effort and sent all of the air 

traffic controller’s home. 

86 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

CHARLES ‘‘CHIP’’ M. BARCLAY, A.A.E. 

Question 1. Funding for the AIP program is proposed to be cut significantly. However the FAA states this will be offset by PFC increases. How is this likely to affect 

capital projects at airports? Answer. The Administration is proposing $2.75 billion for AIP in FY08—approxi- mately $1 billion less than the amount Congress authorized in FY07 and $765 million less than the appropriated level. The Administration argues that raising the 

cap to $6.00 would generate approximately $1.2 billion and offset the proposed cut 

in AIP funding. 

In other words, the Administration’s proposal to raise the cap on PFCs would 

merely generate enough money to offset the proposed AIP cut. When it comes to airport capital development projects, maintaining the status quo is simply not enough. 

As you know, passenger enplanements are expected to increase from about 740 million to 1 billion by 2015, and flight delays are back to pre-9/11 levels. With increasing passenger levels, increasing delays and increasing constructing costs, it is critical that Congress increase AIP funding and raise the cap on PFCs. 

We are urging Congress to reject the Administration’s proposal to drastically cut 

AIP funding and roll back the progress made in AIR–21 and Vision 100. Instead, 

we recommend that Congress increase AIP funding to at least $3.8 billion for AIP 

in FY08, $4 billion in FY09, $4.1 billion in FY10, and $4.3 billion in FY11. This 

would be enough to allow AIP funding to keep up with increasing construction costs. 

We also recommend that Congress raise the PFC cap to $7.50 and index it for increasing construction costs. Both actions would help provide airports with the resources they need to meet increasing demand and help reduce delays. 

Question 2. The FAA’s reauthorization proposal includes a provision to expand the 

types of projects eligible for AIP/PFC funding—specifically navigational aids 

(NavAids) that have traditionally been covered by other funding sources. What’s 

your position on expanding AIP/PFC eligibility to include NavAids? 

Answer. We are concerned about the Administration’s proposal to have airports 

take over navigational aid systems (NavAids). The Administration’s proposal would 

authorize ‘‘a new pilot program permitting the FAA to transfer to up to 10 medium 

or large hub airports terminal area navigational equipment, such as instrument 

landing systems and approach lighting systems.’’ Airports that participate in the 

program would be able to charge a $7.00 PFC. In return, airports would agree to 

‘‘operate and maintain all of the covered equipment at the airport in accordance 

with FAA standards, allow periodic inspections, and replace the equipment when 

needed.’’ 

Many airports are concerned that the Administration’s proposal is simply an effort to shift their operating costs onto airports at a time when airports need more 

money for their own capital development needs. Even those airports that may be 

willing to participate in such a pilot program in exchange for being able to collect 

a higher PFC would much prefer that Congress raise the cap to $7.50 without the 

NavAid requirement instead. Doing so would help airports prepare for increasing 

demand and to help offset increasing construction costs. 

Separately, we oppose the Administration’s proposal to allow airports and other 

sponsors to use AIP funding to acquire Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B) equipment. We support the ADS–B program. However, the FAA 

should use money from the Facilities and Equipment account to pay for ADS–B— 

not AIP—especially at time when the Administration is proposing to cut AIP funding by almost $1 billion. 

Question 3. The Administration proposes to increase the PFC limits. How much 

additional funding is this likely to bring to airports? 

Question 3a. Which airports are likely to benefit from this? 

Question 3b. If AIP is cut, but PFCs increased, are there guarantees to ensure 

the smaller amount of AIP funding is directed to smaller airports? 

Answer to Questions 3–3b. According to the FAA, raising the PFC cap from $4.50 

to $6.00 would generate approximately $1.2 billion. Although this is a welcome step 

in the right direction, AAAE recommends that Congress increase the cap to $7.50 

to help commercial service airports of all sizes keep up with increased construction 

costs to prepare for increasing demand. 

Airports of all sizes would benefit from increasing the cap on PFCs. For instance, 

many small airports use PFC revenue to pay for capital development projects at 

their facilities and to help pay their local match for AIP projects. According to the 

FAA, there are about 300 small airports collecting PFCs (including 3 airports in Hawaii), and about 218 of those small airports collect PFCs at the $4.50 level. 

87 

Large airports traditionally rely more on PFCs and airport bonds to finance capital development projects than their counterparts at smaller airports. According to 

the FAA, 68 large and medium hub airports collect PFCs (including 2 airports in 

Hawaii), and 50 of those airports are approved to collect PFCs at the $4.50 level. 

In addition to increasing the cap on PFCs to $6.00, the Administration is proposing to cut AIP by almost $1 billion from the authorized level. Although the Administration is proposing to phase out AIP entitlements to large and medium hub 

airports, we are concerned that the Administration’s proposal would actually make 

less money available to small airports. The Administration’s suggested formula 

change coupled with its proposal to cut the AIP funding to $2.75 billion would cost 

small airports approximately $430 million in FY08. Rather than cutting funds for 

those airports that rely on AIP the most, we strongly believe that Congress should 

increase AIP funding and that small airports should be ‘‘held harmless’’ by any proposed formula changes. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. THOMAS R. CARPER TO

CHARLES ‘‘CHIP’’ M. BARCLAY, A.A.E. 

Question 1. Noise impacts are becoming a big problem for many communities. As 

a result, airport expansions are meeting with greater and greater opposition. This 

is at a time when most of the witnesses today are talking about the necessity of 

expanding airports to address congestion. How does the FAA plan help airports and 

the airlines reduce noise impacts on surrounding neighborhoods? What can Congress do to help decrease noise and support quieter aircraft to prevent this from 

being a road block to needed capacity expansions? 

Answer. Airport operators have long been concerned about aircraft noise and continue to work hard to reduce noise around their facilities. Congress could help airports mitigate aircraft noise by increasing the cap on Passenger Facility Charges 

(PFCs) from $4.50 to $7.50. When Congress created the PFC program in 1990, one 

of the primary purposes of the program was to help reduce aircraft nose. Since then, 

the FAA has approved about $2.8 billion in PFCs for noise projects. Increasing the 

PFC cap to $7.50 would make more money available for airports to spend on noise 

mitigation projects such as soundproofing nearby schools and homes. Increasing the 

cap on PFCs would also help airports accommodate skyrocketing construction costs 

and increasing demand. 

Congress could also reduce aircraft noise by phasing out noisy Stage 1 and Stage 

2 aircraft. Some airport representatives are recommending that lawmakers include 

a provision in the next FAA reauthorization that would require all Stage 1 and 

Stage 2 aircraft to cease operations in the 48 states 3 years after the bill is enacted 

into law. We support that proposal. 

Question 2. One factor that impacts the cost of air travel for many people is the 

cost of transportation to the airport. Here in D.C., there is a stark difference in the 

cost of travel to Reagan National, BWI and Dulles based on the availability of transit or intercity passenger rail. In Delaware, people use both Philadelphia and BWI 

because they are both accessible by either transit, Amtrak or both. How should airports work with local surface transportation authorities to address this? What could 

be done to better connect airports to population centers by rail? 

Answer. Raising the PFC cap and increasing Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

funding would improve access to airports since airports are allowed to use both 

sources of revenue on rail service to their facilities. There are numerous restrictions. 

For instance, the rail line must be on airport property or within a right-of-way acquired by the airport. To date, the FAA has approved about $3 billion in PFCs for 

access to airports, and approximately $2 billion of that amount has been approved 

for rail projects. Raising the cap on PFCs to $7.50 and indexing it to increased construction costs would make more funding available for rail projects. Increasing AIP 

funding to $3.8 billion in FY08 and increasing that amount incrementally would 

also make more money available for airport access projects. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

CHARLES ‘‘CHIP’’ M. BARCLAY, A.A.E. 

Question 1. As you know there is a Passenger Facility Charge increase in this administration’s proposal from $4.50 up to $7.00 per enplanement in some cases. I like 

the idea of giving local airports greater flexibility in making capital improvements 

the local communities deem as necessary. But will this increase in the PFC fee per 

segment have a larger impact on passengers who often fly in and out of smaller desVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:26 Mar 19, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\79905.TXT JACKIE
88 

tinations that nearly always require two or more legs on the trip? Are there any 

alternative options that don’t have a magnified impact on rural destinations? 

Answer. Under current law, a PFC may not be collected from a passenger for 

more than two boardings on a one-way trip. In other words, passengers may be 

charged a maximum of $9.00 for each one-way trip or $18.00 for each round-trip. 

The Administration is proposing to raise the cap on PFCs to $6.00 in most cases 

and keep the current two-fee limit in place. So, passengers may be charged a maximum of $12.00 for a one-way trip or $24.00 for a round-trip unless one of the airports happens to participate in a PFC pilot program. 

It is also important to point out that small airports in South Dakota and throughout the country would benefit from a higher PFC. For instance, Rapid City, Pierre 

and Aberdeen currently collect $4.50 PFCs. If the cap on PFCs is raised to $6.00 

or to higher amount airports would be able to generate more revenue for important 

safety and security projects at their facilities. 

Even small airports in South Dakota that don’t collect PFCs at their own facilities 

benefit from the PFC program. That’s because large and medium hub airports that 

collect PFCs have a portion of their Airport Improvement Program entitlements 

withheld. (Large and medium hubs that collect $4.50 PFCs have 75 percent of their 

entitlements withheld.) Current law requires that 87.5 percent of those withheld 

funds be distributed to small airports through the Small Airport Fund. Small airports are expected to receive about $427 million from the Small Airport Fund this 

year. Finally, the Administration’s proposal to raise the cap on PFCs to $6.00 is a welcome step in the right direction. But the American Association of Airport Executives 

and the Airport Legislative Alliance are recommending that Congress increase the 

cap on PFCs to $7.50 in order to offset the impacts of inflation and skyrocketing 

construction costs. By 2010—the final year in the Administration’s FAA reauthorization proposal—a $4.50 PFC would need to be raised to $7.14 to keep up with inflation and to $8.03 to keep up with increased construction costs. Moreover, it is critical that airports be able to build the infrastructure they need to accommodate increasing demand and to help prevent delays. 

Question 2. Can you give the Committee your thoughts on the new governance 

board in the FAA proposal? Do you think the board would represent your interests 

well? Do you think that the board would take away too much authority from Congress? 

Answer. The FAA is proposing an Air Transportation System Advisory Board. The 

Board would be comprised of 13 members: 

• FAA Administrator; 

• Department of Defense representative; 

• 3 members ‘‘who shall have a fiduciary responsibility to represent the public interest;’’ and 

» 8 members representing aviation interests: 

» 1 airport representative; 

» 1 major air carrier representative; 

» 1 national air carrier representative; 

» 1 regional air carrier representative; 

» 1 cargo representative; 

» 1 general aviation representative; 

» 1 business aviation representative; and 

» 1 aviation manufacturing representative. 

It is my understanding that the board is dominated by airline and general aviation representatives, in part, because the panel would make recommendations on 

the type and level of user fees that aircraft owners and operators would be required 

to pay for air traffic control services. Nonetheless, some have questioned whether 

one airport representative is enough and that it may be more appropriate to have 

one airport representative from each hub size instead. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

JAMES C. MAY

Question 1. I am concerned about how the FAA proposal will affect air carriers 

in my home state, Hawaii. Aloha and Hawaiian have served our people for many 

years. Given the unique air traffic conditions and needs in Hawaii, can you give me 

89 

some assurance that these carriers will not be left at a competitive disadvantage 

with other carriers under a user fee system. 

Answer. I want to preface my answer with a general comment about the administration’s reauthorization bill, which was submitted to the President of the Senate 

on February 14, 2007, by the Honorable Mary E. Peters, U.S. Secretary of Transportation. The Air Transport Association (ATA) has stated that the administration’s bill 

was a good start on a number of very important issues. However, ATA expressed 

significant reservations right from the beginning regarding some of its provisions. 

For example, I testified on March 8 before your Committee noting that small communities have unique air service needs and that reauthorization legislation should 

recognize those needs in its funding and Essential Air Service Program provisions. 

The FAA bill, unfortunately, did not support strong funding for Essential Air Service provisions. 

I further noted at that hearing that, ‘‘Air transportation is an indispensable element of America’s infrastructure and our Nation’s economic well-being. Individuals, 

businesses and communities depend on the national air transportation system.’’ The 

ATA is seeking a reauthorization that assures the continuation and expansion of 

that system, so that all areas of the country enjoy the benefits of air service. We 

do not want any area of our Nation disadvantaged in such legislation. 

Question 2. FAA proposes dividing airports into 3 categories, and levying different 

terminal fees on flights using the 2 busiest categories of airports to cover the costs 

of air traffic control services associated with those airports. What’s your position on 

the proposal? How about congestion fees? How are these market measures likely to 

affect access for small communities to large hubs? 

Answer. The ATA appreciates the manner in which you, Chairman Rockefeller, 

Co-Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Lott have handled these issues. Under 

the current funding system, airline passengers subsidize corporate aircraft using the 

same ATC services, so any proposal that calls for business aviation to pay more of 

its fair share is a step in the right direction. 

The commercial hub-and-spoke system has been critical to small community air 

service. The reason for this is that as flights from smaller cities arrive at hubs, passengers can be combined into flights back to smaller cities or on to other final destinations—both domestic and international. Congestion fees that do not apply equally to corporate aircraft simply add to the problem instead of reducing congestion. 

It is important to recognize that congestion at hubs takes place in the airspace as 

well as on the runways. Corporate jets contribute to the congestion at hubs by using 

the same airspace, even when they are not using the hub airport. For example, corporate aircraft flying into Teterboro Airport, just six miles from Newark International Airport, compete with Newark departures since the two airports share common airspace. Therefore, even aircraft that are not using the hub-and-spoke system 

help to drive the cost of providing ATC services to hub airports. If all system 

users—commercial and corporate aircraft—pay for the ATC services they use, that 

system will be strengthened. 

In addition to funding for the Essential Air Service program mentioned above, 

ATA believes that an important way to improve service to and from small communities is to provide stable funding for the next-generation ATC system. 

Question 3. Is it accurate to say that the Administration’s proposal is designed 

to have smaller airlines that connect thru hubs pay the most proportionately? 

Answer. I believe that my answers to your second and fourth question address 

the matters you raise in this question. 

Question 4. It would be unfair to have the one-quarter of passengers who currently fly on regional airlines pay more because they live in rural communities 

where the smaller airline might be the only option. How would any plan that you 

support address that? 

Answer. The issue is not whether regional airlines should pay more or less relative to their mainline airline partners, but whether their passengers should continue to subsidize corporate and private jets. Under the current system, a regional 

jet may pay many times more than a similarly-sized private jet through passenger 

ticket taxes and segment fees, even though it imposes the same costs on the ATC 

system. A more equitable funding scheme will benefit all airline passengers by shifting some of that burden to other users of the system who can well afford to pay 

for it. 

In addition, I have indicated to this Committee that the significant increase in 

the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) proposed in the administration’s bill would disproportionately affect small communities. Thus, the ATA is very pleased with the 

manner in which you have handled that issue in your reauthorization bill with Senators Stevens, Rockefeller and Lott. 

90 

The ATA opposed that aspect of the administration’s bill because most travel to 

or from small communities involves a connecting flight; those passengers frequently 

would have to pay the administration’s proposed higher PFC twice for each direction 

of a round-trip flight. For example, urban passengers flying between major cities 

would have more nonstop options and more likely would have to pay the PFC only 

once for each direction. Thus, on a round-trip basis, passengers from smaller communities would pay $14.00 more than nonstop passengers if the PFC increases from 

$4.50 to $7.00 per segment. Passengers from smaller communities would be disproportionately affected by this proposed increase because, in most cases, they will 

be on connecting flights. 

As you know, PFCs are a tax on both passengers and airlines; while they are imposed on passengers, the airlines collect them as part of the price of a ticket. It is 

well accepted that PFCs affect the revenue airlines earn. Moreover, you should understand that the local community has virtually no say in PFCs and the projects 

they fund since that is an airport decision. If PFCs were collected separately at the 

airport and not included in the price of an airline ticket, local accountability and 

transparency for PFC projects would occur and should achieve the goals of local 

community involvement that you noted in your question. 

As I have said to this Committee, our concerns about these increases in costs to 

our customers apply not only to PFCs. The total fees and taxes paid by passengers 

flying out of rural communities is proportionally more than would be the case for 

passengers flying out of middle-sized or larger cities. A family of four flying from 

a rural airport, then connecting through a hub, and then getting to their destination, and back, would face multiple PFCs, segment fees and security fees. For that 

family of four, there could be as much as $150 to $160 in fees and taxes. 

Your bill has addressed the ATA concerns because you have not called for increases in PFCs except for permitting increases that the airlines would not collect 

regarding six pilot studies. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

JAMES C. MAY

Question. Current law caps the number of aviation security screeners that the 

Transportation Security Administration may hire at 45,000, regardless of the agency’s budget. I’ve suggested the first thing we need to do in order to fully staff the 

TSA and keep airline passenger security lines to a minimum is to remove this arbitrary cap of 45 thousand security screeners. Do you agree Congress should remove 

the cap and fund the agency’s staffing needs to an appropriate level? 

Answer. The simple answer is that the Transportation Security Administration 

should be given all the resources it needs to implement, in the most efficient and 

effective way, the Congressional mandates in the Aviation Transportation and Security Act (ATSA). In ATSA, Congress very clearly required the Federal Government 

to provide for the screening of all passengers and property, including cargo, carried 

on passenger aircraft. In fact, Congress specifically required that the screening 

‘‘shall be carried out by a Federal Government Employee.’’ 

The security issues facing America and the Department of Homeland Security are 

very significant. Indeed, the Comptroller General of the United States submitted 

testimony on February 7, 2007, to the Congress on the security challenges facing 

this country and the DHS. With respects to all modes of travel, GAO complemented 

DHS by saying that progress has been made ‘‘particularly in aviation’’ and that 

‘‘DHS and TSA have taken numerous actions to strengthen commercial aviation security, including strengthening passenger and baggage screening, improving aspects 

of air cargo security, and strengthening the security of international flights and passengers bound for the United States.’’ 

That GAO testimony praised TSA for using covert testing and other means to 

measure effectiveness of airport screening systems and for working to enhance passenger and baggage screener training. GAO also noted that TSA has modified airport screening procedures based on risk. On the negative side, GAO said that TSA 

continues to face challenges in implementing a program to match domestic airline 

passenger information against terrorist watch lists and in ‘‘fielding needed technologies to screen airline passengers for explosives.’’ 

The GAO did raise an across-the-board criticism of DHS for not basing program 

investments on risk analysis. I believe the more detailed answer to your question 

depends on a thorough risk-analysis of all facets of the security problems facing this 

Nation. Since the air transport industry represents only one segment of the full picture, I would propose that the Congress undertake to hold hearings on the matter 

91 

you raised so that all the security needs of the U.S. could properly be balanced before a decision is made as to whether to raise that cap, or not. 

TSA has come a long way in just a few years and is doing an effective job of ensuring the security of our air transport system within the budget provided by the 

Congress. TSA has been coordinating with the Air Transport Association. The ATA 

and our member airlines will continue to work with the TSA to address new security concerns and to look for additional ways to improve the experience of airline 

passengers. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. THOMAS R. CARPER TO

JAMES C. MAY

Question. Noise impacts are becoming a big problem for many communities. As 

a result, airport expansions are meeting with greater and greater opposition. This 

is at a time when most of the witnesses today are talking about the necessity of 

expanding airports to address congestion. How does the FAA plan help airports and 

the airlines reduce noise impacts on surrounding neighborhoods? What can Congress do to help decrease noise and support quieter aircraft to prevent this from 

being a roadblock to needed capacity expansions? 

Answer. The ATA is concerned about the noise impacts of airports on communities, and our member airlines have been working to address those issues. First 

of all, airlines have been investing in newer aircraft, which are designed to produce 

less noise, and our member airlines will continue to do so. Further investments of 

General Funds by Congress in additional noise-reduction research would be very 

helpful in this effort. 

Second, Congressional support for the Next Gneration Air Traffic Control System 

will provide noise-reduction benefits by permitting descent routes into airports and 

more precise routing in a manner that minimizes the impact of noise on neighboring 

communities. 

The FAA and the ATA, in addition, support reasonable noise-mitigation efforts for 

homeowners living near airports. The ATA and its member airlines are ready to 

work with you and this important matter. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

JAMES C. MAY

Question 1. As you know there is a Passenger Facility Charge increase in this ad- ministration’s proposal—from $4.50 to as much as $7.00 per enplanement in some 

cases. I like the idea of giving local airports greater flexibility in making capital improvements that the local communities deem as necessary. But will this increase in 

the PFC fee per segment have a larger impact on passengers who often fly in and 

out of smaller destinations that nearly always require two or more legs on the trip? 

Are there any alternative options that don’t have a magnified impact on rural destinations? 

Answer. A PFC is a tax imposed on passengers who may not live or vote in the 

jurisdiction that levies it. This is especially true in the case of connecting passengers, who are literally ‘‘passing through’’ and have no business or community ties 

to the governmental entity that operates the connecting airport. 

The significant increase in the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) proposed in the 

Administration’s bill would somewhat disproportionately affect small communities. 

Because most travel to or from small communities involves a connecting flight, those 

passengers frequently would have to pay the proposed higher PFC twice for each 

direction of a round-trip flight. For example, urban passengers flying between major 

cities would have more nonstop options and more likely would have to pay the PFC 

only once for each direction. Thus, on a round-trip basis, passengers from smaller 

communities would pay $14.00 more than non-stop passengers if the PFC increases 

from $4.50 to $7.00 per leg. Passengers from smaller communities would be disproportionately affected by this proposed increase because in most cases they will 

be on connecting flights. 

It should not be overlooked that PFCs are a tax on both passengers and airlines; 

while they are imposed on passengers, the airlines collect them as part of the price 

of a ticket. It is well accepted that PFCs affect the revenue airlines earn. Moreover, 

you should understand that the local community has virtually no say in PFCs and 

the projects they fund since that is an airport decision. If PFCs were collected separately at the airport and not included in the price of an airline ticket, local accountability and transparency for PFC projects would occur and should achieve the goals 

of local community involvement that you noted in your question. 

92 

Our concerns about these increases in costs to our customers apply not only to 

PFCs. The total fees and taxes paid by passengers flying out of rural communities 

is proportionally more than would be the case for passengers flying out of middlesized or larger cities. A family of four flying from a rural airport, then connecting 

through a hub, and then getting to their destination, and back, would face multiple 

PFCs, segment fees and security fees. For that family of four, there could be as 

much as $150 to $160 in fees and taxes. 

One means of reducing the impact on travelers to and from rural communities 

would be to place a limit on the total amount of PFCs that could be added to a single itinerary, regardless of the number of connections. This is currently done with 

the September 11 security fee, which is set at $2.50 per flight segment but capped 

at $10.00 total. 

Question 2. I served on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

during the last FAA reauthorization and I remember well the spirited debate that 

occurred over what Air Traffic Control activities drove FAA costs. During that debate, the Committee was given information that one of the major cost drivers in the 

system was the hub-and-spoke systems operated by the major airlines. I would be 

interested in having both Mr. May and Mr. Bolen’s views about the merits of this 

argument in light of the current debate on this FAA reauthorization? 

Answer. While an interesting question in 1997, the issue is a red-herring today 

because the FAA is now able to accurately capture and allocate its costs. In a costbased charging scheme where charges are based on the costs different users drive, 

the source of those costs is immaterial. By looking at each facility or service and 

asking whether it principally benefits a single user type and determining if other 

secondary users cause an incremental cost, FAA has been able to assign costs on 

a more sophisticated basis than simply looking at activity levels. Whatever the costs 

of providing ATC services for a hub airport are, they will be paid by the users of 

that airspace, whether a network carrier, point-to-point carrier, or corporate jet. The 

costs these users drive can be captured and allocated to them so each pays its fair 

share. 

It is also worth mentioning that the hub-and-spoke system is the most efficient 

method of connecting rural America to the rest of the world. Indeed, many more 

rural communities would not have commercial airline service without the hub-andspoke system. While most communities cannot support nonstop service to all of the 

destinations that people may want to reach, the hub-and-spoke system allows residents of those communities to get almost anywhere in the world, often with just one 

connection. 

Although we tend to think of the hub-and-spoke system in terms of airports, congestion at hubs take place in the airspace as well as on the runways. Corporate jets 

contribute to the congestion at hubs by using the same airspace, even when they 

are not using the hub airport. For example, corporate aircraft flying into Teterboro 

Airport, just six miles from Newark International Airport, compete with Newark departures since the two airports share common airspace. Therefore, even these aircraft that are not using the hub-and-spoke system help to drive the cost of providing 

ATC services to hub airports. 

Another example is right here in the Washington, D.C., area. Even though corporate aircraft might not fly into Washington Reagan National Airport as much as 

they did before 9/11, they have in fact just shifted to smaller nearby airports—Manassas, Frederick, Leesburg and Hagerstown. The Washington, D.C., terminal-area 

controllers are still handling that traffic and costs are still being imposed on the 

system. 

The large and growing volume of corporate aviation increasingly will drive ATC 

costs in the future. Corporations own approximately 17,000 jets today, with another 

10,000 corporate jets expected over the next 10 years. Indeed, corporate jets are selling at a record pace—a new world record was recently set in corporate jet shipments 

of $18.8 billion—a 24 percent increase over last year. 

Question 3. Can you give the Committee your thoughts on the new governance 

board in the FAA proposal? Do you think the board would represent your interests 

well? Do you think that the board would take away too much authority from Congress? 

Answer. We support the creation of a board that has decisional authority over Air 

Traffic Organization (ATO) issues, particularly those involving user fees, subject to 

appropriate Congressional oversight. However, the proposed composition of the 

board—only four airline representatives out of a total of 13 members—is inadequate 

because it does not reflect the proportion of funding that the airline community will 

contribute to the ATO. 

93 

The composition of the board should reflect the investment of airlines and their 

customers, and future investments in the ATC system should be focused on efficiently moving more than two million passengers per day to their destinations while 

meeting the needs of recreational piston-aircraft owners and the high-performance 

corporate jets. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

EDWARD M. BOLEN

Question 1. Do you support a funding system, whether comprised of taxes or fees, 

based on the principle that users should contribute in proportion to the costs they 

impose on the system? 

Answer. NBAA generally agrees that users should contribute to the trust fund 

based on the costs they ‘‘impose’’ on the system, through taxes set by Congress. 

NBAA disagrees with the assertion by the Nation’s big airlines that overall traffic 

levels reflect costs imposed on the system. If general aviation were grounded, the 

costs for running the Air Traffic Control system would decrease by less than 10 percent. When general aviation operators were barred from Reagan National Airport, 

costs did not go down at all. 

Congress should reject FAA’s recent cost allocation report which assigns costs to 

users based on a flawed methodology that deviates from international practice, from 

widely held economics principles and from the FAA’s own recommendations advocated from 1973 until 2007. 

As the Government Accountability Office (then the General Accounting Office) 

found during the last debate on FAA financing, ‘‘hubbing operations at the Nation’s 

largest airports increase the peak service demands on the airway system and increase FAA’s operating and staffing costs.’’ (GAO/RCED–97–23) General aviation is 

an incremental user of the aviation system, representing only a single-digit percentage of activity at the Nation’s top 20 hub airports. 

This is not to say that the airlines’ hub-and-spoke network is good or bad; rather, 

it is to say that this network is what drives the costs for the aviation system. The 

decision of one airline to put dozens of airplanes into one hub location in a 30 

minute period forces the FAA to make major investments in technology and staffing 

to meet peak hub demands. We at NBAA are unified with the rest of the general 

aviation community in our belief that, if the carriers are largely responsible for driving up the FAA’s costs, they should pay for a significantly larger portion of those 

costs. 

It is also important to look at what has changed in the last 10 years since Congress considered FAA financing legislation. During that time, general aviation operations have remained flat, while hubbing has increased. In light of that fact, it is 

unlikely that the costs general aviation imposes on the system have increased substantially enough that the general aviation community should be subjected to new 

user fees and a 300 percent increase in the fuel tax, while the commercial airlines 

get a $2 billion tax break. 

However, these elements are at the very foundation of the FAA’s user fee funding 

proposal. To justify its new funding setup, the FAA points to its unprecedented costallocation study, conducted by the Agency, that abandons all mainstream economic 

principles for allocating costs to different types of users in favor of a faulty approach 

that assumes all users are the same. No other nation uses such an approach for 

allocating air traffic control costs or for setting user charges or taxes. 

I encourage Congress to reject the FAA’s flawed assumptions and review GAO’s 

own figures, which indicate that the hub-and-spoke system drives FAA’s costs. General aviation remains an incremental user of the aviation system and we look forward to working with Congress to ensure that we pay in proportion to our use and 

the cost it imposes. 

Question 2. FAA has released a cost allocation report that it feels provides the 

necessary information to support the development of their proposed user fee system. 

Do you have any comments on the results and/or methods used in this report? 

Answer. I submit for the record the following independent, economic analysis of 

the FAA’s cost allocation report, prepared by Dr. Michael W. Tretheway, Executive 

Vice President & Chief Economist, InterVISTAS Consulting, Inc. 

94 

FAA’S COST ALLOCATION STUDY—A FLAWED APPROACH TO ASSIGNING COSTS THAT

DISCARDS MAINSTREAM ECONOMIC FUNDAMENTALS

Overview 

The tax mechanism that supports the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is 

set to expire in September 2007, setting the stage for the Federal reauthorization 

process that will determine FAA funding for the next several years. A debate is taking place about what changes, if any, are needed to FAA’s funding structure, including how costs should be allocated among users of FAA services, particularly commercial airlines and general aviation (GA). 

This summary will show that, thus far, the discussion on cost allocation has been 

incomplete, because the FAA’s recently issued cost-allocation study for air traffic 

control (ATC) services sets aside established economic principles and international 

practices recognized by economists, the International Civil Aviation Organization, 

other national air traffic systems, and, previously, the FAA. 

Summary 

The FAA’s cost-allocation methodology does not conform to basic economic principles or international practices. 

Mainstream economic principles are set aside. When allocating costs for services, 

the standard practice is to apply mainstream economic principles to determine incremental costs imposed by different services and/or users, and allocate costs accordingly. 

• Unfortunately, in its 2007 cost-allocation study, the FAA abandons an economics-based methodology, used in previous FAA cost-allocation studies, in favor of 

a simple, arithmetic approach to costs. While this has the characteristic of simplicity, it results in inappropriate cost allocations. Not only has the FAA rejected the ‘‘first best’’ principle widely accepted by economists, they also abandoned second best pricing principles. 

International practices are ignored. Government and commercial/privatized air 

traffic service providers in other nations recognize that different types of operations 

impose different costs on an air traffic system. 

• Unlike ATC cost allocations used in virtually all other nations, the FAA’s costallocation method fails to recognize that most Air Traffic Organization (ATO) 

costs are driven by the operational needs of the commercial airlines (i.e., the 

costs involved in operating airline hub-and-spoke systems). 

» This assumption is not supportable, in view of international guidelines recognizing that most ATO costs are driven by commercial airline operations 

through their hub networks. The International Civil Aviation Organization 

states: 

‘‘. . . It is particularly important to recognize that the major part of the air 

navigation facilities and services infrastructure has been established to 

serve the requirements of commercial air traffic, and that some users receiving extensive service could not, by reason of the nature of their activity, 

have called for the provision of service on such a scale on an economic 

basis. . . .The primary beneficiaries among the users should therefore be 

carefully identified to ensure that realistic allocations of costs to the various 

user categories are made.’’ 

• The study also departs from international practices in failing to recognize that 

aircraft weight and other factors are appropriate cost drivers when considering 

cost allocation. Instead, the FAA’s study assumes, without evidence, that all 

high performance aircraft (from 5-seat single-engine turboprops, to 350-seat 

747’s) drive the same costs. 

Conclusion 

The FAA’s cost-allocation methodology does not conform to economic principles or 

international practices. The Agency’s approach, based upon faulty economics, would 

produce a misguided direction for future funding decisions. The FAA’s methodology 

should be set aside, and a serious, economics-based methodology developed to replace it. Furthermore, the FAA’s new cost-accounting database should be made 

available to stakeholders and researchers to allow a transparent and collaborative 

approach to developing an appropriate cost allocation methodology. 

Question 3. What’s your position on the proposed Air Transportation System Advisory Board? 

95 

Answer. The FAA governance board is simply a thinly veiled attempt by the FAA 

and the big airlines to reduce the critical role Congress has in aviation system oversight. The ploy calls to mind the last time the Nation’s big airlines pushed a user 

fee scheme in Congress, in 1997. According to one airline CEO at the time, the real 

goal was ‘‘control of the FAA by the Big Seven and for their exclusive benefit.’’ This 

time around, the airlines’ objective of reducing Congressional control of the FAA remains unchanged. 

The carriers have not been secretive about their goal of reducing Congressional 

control. Last year, the Air Transport Association (ATA) called a press conference 

where, according to The Wall Street Journal, their chief lobbyist was quoted as saying: ‘‘We need to get Congress out of this process.’’ 

Lest anyone think ATA was misquoted, the association said again in August, at 

an Airports conference in Florida, ‘‘it is critical we have a governance structure that 

is, to the best of our ability, free of the pressures of Congress.’’ 

We disagree with ATA on this issue, especially considering that Congress has 

steadily increased FAA funding over the past decade, often in excess of the amount 

the FAA has requested. There has never been an FAA modernization program that 

failed for a lack of Congressional support or funding. Furthermore, Congress has 

done an effective job of ensuring that all aviation interests—including those for general aviation—are represented. This critical oversight role must be preserved. 

We believe Congress should reject the ill-conceived rate-setting entity, envisioned 

in the FAA’s user fee proposal, which would allow the FAA to set user fees and outline spending priorities without Congressional input. This is not a good government 

model, as it would provide no incentive for the FAA to control costs or focus on funding priorities outlined by Congress. The ability to set priorities, authorize programs, 

appropriate funds and determine costs for system users must remain with Congress. 

Question 4. What’s the GA community’s position on the changes to AIP, specifically changing the distribution formula for smaller airports? What are the implications for the GA community? Do you think this will be beneficial or problematic? 

Answer. Airports are critical transportation centers that collectively form a network that makes flying the fastest, most efficient way to travel. General Aviation 

relies heavily on smaller, less-congested airports, which are the key to the value and 

flexibility of business aviation aircraft. In fact, General Aviation represents less 

than 5 percent of the total operations at the Nation’s 20 busiest commercial airports. 

Through the current trust fund model, the FAA has received ever-increasing 

budgets for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which helps fund airport capital improvements at airports of all sizes. However, the FAA’s reauthorization bill 

radically changes how airports are funded and provides less money for AIP than 

under the current funding system. 

According to the American Association of Airport Executives, ‘‘the Administration’s suggested formula change coupled with its proposal to cut the AIP funding 

to $2.75 billion would cost small airports approximately $430 million in FY08.’’ 

Perhaps more concerning is that the FAA proposes a tripling of general aviation 

fuel taxes in order to help fund the AIP program. It appears that the FAA has failed 

to determine the price elasticity of its fuel tax proposal and the result it would have 

on trust fund revenues. 

Congress should reject the FAA’s user fee proposal that, among its many flaws, 

would provide less money for AIP. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

EDWARD M. BOLEN

Question 1. I served on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

during the last FAA reauthorization and I remember well the spirited debate that 

occurred over what Air Traffic Control activities drove FAA costs. During that debate, the Committee was given information that one of the major cost drivers in the 

system was the hub-and-spoke systems operated by the major airlines. I would be 

interested in having both Mr. May and Mr. Bolen’s views about the merits of this 

argument in light of the current debate on this FAA reauthorization bill. 

Answer. An important part of this debate is not only how much modernization 

will cost, but who will pay for it. As the Government Accountability Office (then the 

General Accounting Office) found during the last debate on FAA financing, ‘‘hubbing 

operations at the Nation’s largest airports increase the peak service demands on the 

airway system and increase FAA’s operating and staffing costs.’’ (GAO/RCED–97– 

23) General aviation is an incremental user of the aviation system, representing 

only a single-digit percentage of activity at the Nation’s top 20 hub airports. 

96 

This is not to say that the airlines’ hub-and-spoke network is good or bad; rather, 

it is to say that this network is what drives the costs for the aviation system. The 

decision of one airline to put dozens of airplanes into one hub location in a 30 

minute period forces the FAA to make major investments in technology and staffing 

to meet peak hub demands. We at NBAA are unified with the rest of the general 

aviation community in our belief that, if the carriers are largely responsible for driving up the FAA’s costs, they should pay for a significantly larger portion of those 

costs. 

It is also important to look at what has changed in the last 10 years since Congress considered FAA financing legislation. During that time, general aviation operations have remained flat, while hubbing has increased. In light of that fact, it is 

unlikely that the costs general aviation imposes on the system have increased substantially enough that the general aviation community should be subjected to new 

user fees and a 300 percent increase in the fuel tax, while the commercial airlines 

get a $2 billion tax break. 

However, these elements are at the very foundation of the FAA’s user fee funding 

proposal. To justify its new funding setup, the FAA points to a flawed and unprecedented cost-allocation study, conducted by the Agency, that abandons all mainstream economic principles for allocating costs to different types of users in favor 

of a faulty approach that assumes all users are the same. No other nation uses such 

an approach for allocating air traffic control costs or for setting user charges or 

taxes. 

I encourage Congress to reject the FAA’s flawed assumptions and review GAO’s 

own figures, which indicate that the hub-and-spoke system drives FAA’s costs. General aviation remains an incremental user of the aviation system and we look forward to working with Congress to ensure that we pay in proportion to our use and 

the cost it imposes. 

Question 2. Can you give the Committee your thoughts on the new governance 

board in the FAA proposal? Do you think the board would represent your interests 

well? Do you think that the board would take away too much authority from Congress? 

Answer. The FAA governance board is simply a thinly veiled attempt by the airlines to reduce the critical role Congress has in aviation system oversight. The ploy 

calls to mind the last time the Nation’s big airlines pushed a user fee scheme in 

Congress, in 1997. According to one airline CEO at the time, the real goal was ‘‘control of the FAA by the Big Seven and for their exclusive benefit.’’ This time around, 

the airlines’ objective of reducing Congressional control of the FAA remains unchanged. 

The carriers have not been secretive about their goal of reducing Congressional 

control. Last year, the Air Transport Association (ATA) called a press conference 

where, according to The Wall Street Journal, their chief lobbyist was quoted as saying: ‘‘We need to get Congress out of this process.’’ 

Lest anyone think ATA was misquoted, the association said again in August, at 

an Airports conference in Florida, ‘‘it is critical we have a governance structure that 

is, to the best of our ability, free of the pressures of Congress.’’ 

We disagree with ATA on this issue, especially considering that Congress has 

steadily increased FAA funding over the past decade, often in excess of the amount 

the FAA has requested. There has never been an FAA modernization program that 

failed for a lack of Congressional support or funding. Furthermore, Congress has 

done an effective job of ensuring that all aviation interests—including those for general aviation—are represented. This critical oversight role must be preserved. 

We believe Congress should reject the ill-conceived rate-setting entity, envisioned 

in the FAA’s user fee proposal, which would allow the FAA to set user fees and outline spending priorities without Congressional input. This is not a good government 

model, as it would provide no incentive for the FAA to control costs or focus on funding priorities outlined by Congress. The ability to set priorities, authorize programs, 

appropriate funds and determine costs for system users must remain with Congress. 

Æ