Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

1

Public Announcement

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

this Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) meeting to the public in a Federal Register notice 

published August 12, 2010 (75 FR 49015).

Committee Members in Attendance

Name Affiliation(s)

Susan Kurland

(Committee Chair)

Assistant Secretary for Aviation 

and International Affairs

DOT

Juan J. Alonso Associate professor, Department of 

Aeronautics and Astronautics 

Stanford University 

Susan M. Baer Director, Aviation Department Port Authority of New York & 

New Jersey (PANY/NJ)

David Barger President and 

Chief Executive Officer

JetBlue Airways Corporation

(JetBlue)

Severin Borenstein Professor, Haas School of 

Business

University of California, Berkeley 

(Haas School of Business)

Thella F. Bowens President and 

Chief Executive Officer

San Diego County Regional Airport 

Authority

John M. Conley International Administrative 

Vice President and Air Transport 

Division Director

Transport Workers Union of America

(TWU), American Federation of 

Labor and Congress of Industrial 

Organizations (AFL-CIO)

Cynthia M. Egnotovich Segment President, 

Nacelles and Interior Systems

Goodrich Corporation (Goodrich)

Patricia A. Friend International President Association of Flight Attendants

(AFA)–Communication Workers of 

America (CWA), AFL-CIO

Robert L. Lekites President United Parcel Service Airlines (UPS)

Ana McAhron-Schulz Director of Economic and 

Financial Analysis

Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA)

William J. McGee Travel and Aviation Consultant Consumers Union

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

Jack J. Pelton

(by phone)

Chairman, President, and 

Chief Executive Officer

Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna)

Nicole W. Piasecki Vice President, 

Business Development

Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

(Boeing)

Raul Regalado President and Chief Executive 

Officer

Metropolitan Nashville Airport 

Authority
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

2

Name Affiliation(s)

Christopher J. Williams Chairman and Chief Executive 

Officer

The Williams Capital Group

Committee Members Not in Attendance

Name Affiliation(s)

Bryan K. Bedford Chairman, President and 

Chief Executive Officer

Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. 

(Republic Airways)

Glenn F. Tilton Chairman United Continental Holdings, Inc.

Other Officials Present

Name Affiliation(s)

Pam Hamilton 

(Designated Federal 

Official (DFO))

Director of Rulemaking Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA)

William Withycombe FAA Regional Administrator FAA Western Pacific Region

Other Persons Present

Name Affiliation(s)

Dean Hubbard Senior Council for Strategic 

Resources

TWU

Background and Welcoming Remarks

This is the record of the fourth meeting of the FAAC, a Federal advisory committee formed pursuant to 

and subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

Mr. William Withycombe, FAA Regional Administrator for the Western Pacific Region, called the 

meeting to order at 8:49 a.m. and welcomed the committee members and public in attendance to the 

FAA Western-Pacific Region Headquarters. He provided an overview of the region, and noted the role 

of southern California in aviation. Mr. Withycombe acknowledged the importance of the FAAC and 

thanked the committee members for their hard work and dedication to improving the aviation industry. 

He introduced Ms. Susan Kurland, FAAC committee chair, and gave a brief overview of 

her credentials.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

3

Ms. Kurland thanked the FAA Western-Pacific team for their efforts in planning the meeting. She 

turned the meeting over to Ms. Pamela Hamilton, FAAC DFO, FAA. Ms. Hamilton outlined her 

responsibilities as DFO, including maintenance of information on cost and membership, ensuring 

efficient operations, and keeping publicly available records of FACA activities. She briefed the 

attendees on the purpose of FACA and noted some of its key requirements, including 

balanced representation, publicly accessible meetings, and committees functioning only in an 

advisory capacity.

Ms. Hamilton stated there will be one additional public meeting for the full committee on 

December 15, 2010. She added the meeting minutes will be available both in the regulatory docket 

established for this committee and on the FAAC Web site at http://www.dot.gov/faac. Ms. Hamilton 

read the formal statement required under FACA, and listed the safety and security guidelines for the 

members of the public in attendance.

Ms. Hamilton sought to ratify the meeting minutes from the August 25, 2010 FAAC meeting, and 

solicited any comments or corrections to the meeting minutes. There were no comments or corrections. 

On motion, duly seconded, Ms. Hamilton ratified the meeting minutes.

Ms. Kurland introduced the FAAC members and outlined the agenda for the meeting. She highlighted 

the five issues of interest, or “pillars,” identified as priority topics: (1) aviation safety, (2) labor and 

world-class workforce, (3) financing, (4) competitiveness and viability, and (5) environment. 

Ms. Kurland reiterated a request made by Mr. Raymond LaHood, Secretary of Transportation, for 

specific actionable recommendations regarding these five issues of interest. Ms. Kurland listed the 

five subcommittees and subcommittee chairs: (1) Ms. Nicole Piasecki, Boeing, Aviation Safety 

Subcommittee; (2) Ms. Patricia Friend, AFA–CWA, AFL–CIO, Labor and World-class Workforce

Subcommittee; (3) Mr. Jack Pelton, Cessna, Subcommittee on Financing; (4) Mr. Bryan K. Bedford, 

Republic Airways, Environment Subcommittee; and (5) Mr. Glenn Tilton, United Continental 

Holdings, Inc., Subcommittee on Competitiveness and Viability. She mentioned Ms. Susan Baer, 

PANY/NJ, would serve as chair of the Competiveness and Viability Subcommittee for this meeting in 

Mr. Tilton’s absence, and Dr. Juan Alonso, Stanford University, would serve as chair of the 

Environment Subcommittee for this meeting in Mr. Bedford’s absence.

Ms. Kurland explained the FAAC tasked each subcommittee with developing three to five focus areas. 

She stated at the August 25, 2010 FAAC meeting, each of the five subcommittees sponsored

presentations on specific focus areas relative to their topics.

Ms. Kurland reviewed the meeting agenda, which included a presentation from the chair of each 

subcommittee on its focus areas, public comment, and discussion by all FAAC members. She stated by 

the end of the meeting, the FAAC would have a clear sense of the recommendation package that the 

FAAC will send to the Secretary in December 2010. Ms. Kurland thanked the FAAC members and 

audience attendees for their participation in the meeting.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

4

Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee

Ms. Kurland introduced Ms. Friend, chair of the Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee. 

Ms. Friend stated the subcommittee is presenting four topics for discussion, some of which have 

unanimous support, some with partial support, and some with no consensus among 

subcommittee members.

Ms. Friend presented the first focus area of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) 

education. She stated there is general recognition for the need to improve STEM education. 

Ms. Friend stated there are three parts to this proposal:

1. Workforce development should be a centralized and focused top tier initiative of the DOT.

2. The Secretary of Transportation should take steps to increase outreach to educational 

institutions to raise the visibility of aerospace and aviation engineering programs, and initiate a 

program to provide a hands-on experience applicable to the aviation workplace.

3. The Secretary of Transportation should work with the Secretary of Labor as an integral part of 

the Interagency Aerospace Revitalization Task Force to implement a national strategy focused 

on recruiting, training, and cultivating the aerospace workforce. The Secretary of 

Transportation should work with the Department of Education to provide resources that would 

create state-of-the-art STEM elementary and secondary educational facilities.

Ms. Friend stated the goal of this proposal is to grow a STEM literate workforce where students are 

career ready and workers can engage in interdisciplinary interactive training.

Ms. Friend explained the next proposal is for an aviation industry workforce-management summit. She 

stated there are issues facing the aviation industry that cause emotional and contentious debates,

including foreign repair stations, job outsourcing, foreign ownership, code sharing, and joint ventures. 

Ms. Friend stated a fuller exploration of these issues may lead to a better understanding and may 

eventually lead to consensus. She noted the subcommittee proposes Secretary LaHood endorse and 

implement a bi-annual aviation industry workforce-management summit following the conclusion of 

the FAAC. Ms. Friend noted this summit should consist of workforce and management stakeholders 

from air carriers, airports, manufacturing, the consumer sector, and Government, to discuss the issues 

that affect the aviation industry. Mr. David Barger, JetBlue, added the Aviation Industry 

Workforce-Management Summit should also capture the spirit of dialogue and best practices for the 

entire aerospace industry. He stated there are examples of successful companies that could be modeled 

to help close gaps identified in the greater aviation industry.

Ms. Friend stated the next proposal is to incorporate core workers’ human rights conventions into 

international aviation agreements. She then introduced Mr. Dean Hubbard, Senior Council for 

Strategic Resources, TWU, to present this topic. Mr. Hubbard thanked the FAAC for the opportunity 

to present and stated his presentation is entitled “One set of rules for all players: International labor 

standards as a stabilizing force in a global competitive environment.”
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

5

Mr. Hubbard noted Ms. Kurland had posed the question at the first FAAC meeting of what the proper 

role of the U.S. Government is in a “Beyond Open Skies” environment. He stated the Government 

should incorporate core, internationally recognized workers’ human rights principles into international 

aviation agreements to ensure retention of the best and brightest workers; help stabilize the globally 

integrated industry; and foster respect for human rights (slides 2-4). Mr. Hubbard stated there is a 

dramatic change underway in the nature of competition in the aviation industry, and there is a 

paradigm shift with respect to global integration (slide 5).

Mr. Hubbard stated the International Labor Organization (ILO) core conventions are universally 

recognized principles for work with dignity in a rapidly globalizing industry (slide 6). He noted 

globalization could have positive effects by increasing prosperity and connectedness in our 

global community, or it could have negative effects if the aviation industry hires workers who are 

cheaper because they lack protection of basic human rights at work (slide 7). Mr. Hubbard stated this is 

a critical issue now, because unemployment rates are around 10 percent (slide 8).

Mr. Hubbard briefly summarized the history of the ILO (slide 9). He stated the ILO has a 

three-part structure with each member nation having two Government representatives and one worker 

and one employer representative so there is consensus among Governments, employers, and workers 

before the ILO can act (slide 10).

Mr. Hubbard explained there are four principles that are the cornerstones of workers’ human rights 

throughout the world (slide 11):

 Freedom of association and recognition of the right to collective bargaining,

 Elimination of all forms of forced labor,

 Effective abolition of child labor,

 Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation.

He stated the four principles come from eight core conventions (slide 12):

1. Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948

2. Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949

3. Forced Labor Convention, 1930

4. Abolition of Forced Labor Convention, 1957

5. Discrimination Convention, 1958

6. Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

6

7. Minimum Age Convention, 1973

8. Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, 1999

Mr. Hubbard stated the core conventions have been identified as being fundamental to the rights of 

human beings at work, all members have an obligation to respect the principles, and the rights are 

universal (slide 13). He explained the eight core conventions are a general framework to ensure respect 

for human rights in the workplace and establish the four core principles. Mr. Hubbard noted the eight 

core conventions are not controversial and do not impose specific terms and conditions of employment 

(slide 14).

Mr. Hubbard stated the FAAC can help the aviation industry attract and retain a top-flight workforce by 

recommending a commitment to honor ILO core conventions and accompanying jurisprudence as a 

standard provision of intergovernmental aviation agreements, and conditioning antitrust immunity for 

international joint ventures on adoption of framework agreements incorporating commitment to the

core conventions (slide 15). He noted the accompanying jurisprudence should be included to clarify 

the practical interpretation of the eight core conventions (slide 16). Mr. Hubbard noted the 

U.S. Government has a long history of committing itself and the aviation industry to abide by 

international agreements and standards (slide 17).

Mr. Hubbard explained an International Framework Agreement (IFA) is an instrument negotiated 

between a multinational enterprise and a Global Union Federation to ensure the company respects the 

same standards in all the countries where it operates (slide 18). He stated the typical content of an IFA 

includes the four fundamental principles and rights at work and specifically references ILO core 

conventions (slide 19). Mr. Hubbard stated IFAs do not substitute for direct negotiations at the 

workplace or national level; rather they provide a framework for those negotiations (slide 20). He 

stated IFAs will help assure that alliances’ “metal neutral” joint venture arrangements (which do not 

specify a minimum share of flying for each participant) do not disregard workers’ fundamental human 

rights (slide 21).

Mr. Hubbard stated the FAAC should propose the following: a commitment to ILO core conventions

and accompanying jurisprudence as a standard provision of Open Skies agreements and that 

alliance partners enter into IFAs committing them to the ILO core conventions (slide 22). He stated 

four rationales that back these recommendations (slide 23):

1. The rapidly globalizing nature of civil aviation could lead to either greater shared prosperity or 

a global race to the bottom.

2. U.S. Government has already incorporated other international standards into aviation 

agreements.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

7

3. ILO core conventions provide a broad set of principles agreed upon by the entire civilized 

world for decent treatment of workers.

4. IFAs provide a mechanism for international alliances seeking antitrust immunity to carry out 

their commitment to human rights principles in ILO core conventions.

Mr. Hubbard stated the aviation industry in turn will receive stability provided by the leveled playing 

field, assurance that rapid global integration will not contribute to the further erosion of 

labor standards, and an enhanced ability to attract and retain the best and brightest workforce (slide 24).

Ms. Friend reiterated the proposal is for the DOT to support the Administration by making a 

commitment to insist that adherence to the eight core conventions be a standard provision of any 

“Open Skies” agreement entered into by the United States. She noted there is no consensus within the 

subcommittee on this proposal, and only the representatives of labor organizations on the subcommittee 

have expressed unequivocal support for it.

Ms. Friend stated the final proposal addresses the current state of labor-management relations. She 

stated labor-management relations are at a very low point, creating a considerable sense of distrust 

between labor and management representatives. Ms. Friend explained the Dunlop Committee Reports 

Review Committee (Dunlop II), an independent joint labor-management committee, established in 

September 2009, issued its final report in April 2010. She stated part of its goal was to find ways to 

improve the mediation process and delivery of mediation services. Ms. Friend stated the 

subcommittee’s final proposal is for the DOT to urge the National Mediation Board (NMB) to 

implement Dunlop II’s recommendations.

Ms. Friend opened the floor to the public for comment. Ms. Laura Gladding, Association of 

Professional Flight Attendants, expressed concern that the issues raised by the subcommittee will not 

come to fruition in light of recent improvements in the financial performance of the industry. She

encouraged the FAAC members to work to make sure the proposals are followed. Ms. Gladding stated 

she believes the NMB would benefit greatly from the recommendations in Dunlop II and supports the

proposal to implement its recommendations.

Ms. Maxine Scheer, Scheer Intelligence, stated she has completed research in STEM education relating 

to aviation and aerospace. She encouraged the FAAC to make sure there are resources that are 

committed to interagency cooperation. Ms. Scheer stated industry efforts, with respect to education,

are extremely fragmented, and she encouraged the FAAC to use the resources of the DOT, 

Department of Labor, and Department of Energy, as well as STEM coalition committees, airports, and 

non-profit organizations mobilized at airports. Ms. Friend stated part of the proposal is to reactivate the 

Interagency Revitalization Task Force to accomplish the issues Ms. Scheer referred to.

Ms. Friend noted the public had no further questions, and she invited Mr. Hubbard to respond to 

questions from the FAAC members.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

8

Mr. Dan McKenzie, Hudson Securities, inquired which countries are violating the ILO core principles. 

Mr. Hubbard reiterated the four core principles are being violated throughout the world, including the 

United States. He stated there is little to no recognition of the right to the freedom of association in 

China. Mr. Hubbard added that very few locations simultaneously honor all four principles.

Mr. McKenzie asked if there is an example of how the core conventions are being violated in the 

United States. Mr. Hubbard stated the core conventions are binding, but are aspirational in nature. He 

stated the core conventions only provide the process to accomplish the core principles. Mr. Hubbard 

stated there are States in the United States that outlaw collective bargaining, which is a violation of 

the convention.

Mr. Raul Regalado, Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, inquired where the elimination of 

sexual harassment and hostile work environments is included in the core principles. Mr. Hubbard 

stated it is included in elimination of discrimination in the workplace. Mr. Regalado asked how these 

principles apply to the aviation workplace. Mr. Hubbard stated these conventions apply to all workers, 

regardless of industry or job title.

Mr. Regalado inquired about how the right to be represented could be seen as contrary to the right to 

work. Mr. Hubbard stated the right to work is a provision of law that prohibits closed shops as a 

condition of employment. He stated the core conventions refer to the right to freedom of association; 

the right of a worker to join a union, and the ability to exercise that right. Mr. Hubbard noted, often the 

right to work has been misinterpreted by the labor movement and the conventions do not outlaw 

union involvement.

Mr. William McGee, Consumers Union, stated the Consumers Union has been a longtime supporter of 

a just workplace. He stated the Aviation Safety Subcommittee will discuss issues with respect to 

outsourcing and maintenance later in the meeting. Mr. McGee stated with regard to labor, deficiencies 

in the aviation workplace might be caused by outsourcing. He stated there may be a need to include 

how service has deteriorated as more work is outsourced in the proposal. Ms. Friend stated this issue 

can be discussed further at the next Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee meeting.

Mr. Barger stated the four principles seem to be obvious, and inquired why these conventions are not 

already part of international discussions. Mr. Hubbard stated the United States has been pursuing 

liberalization in Open Skies agreements for the past several decades. He noted at the time of the 

earliest international aviation agreements, beginning with the Chicago Convention of 1947, the 

aviation industry was heavily regulated and air carriers were largely State-owned. Mr. Hubbard stated 

Government policy changed at the time of deregulation, to push toward liberalization and minimal 

Government intervention. He noted there is a need to find a balance between regulation and 

liberalization, which allows for the inclusion of core human rights issues.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

9

Dr. Severin Borenstein, University of California, Berkeley (Haas School of Business), inquired how 

adoption of the core conventions would influence agreements or prospective agreements with nations 

that are not protective of human rights (for example, China). Mr. Hubbard responded he could not 

offer a definitive answer, but expressed the opinion that China is not ready to liberalize or enter into 

Open Skies agreements at this time, but added there may be a tremendous change in China over the 

next 10 years. Ms. Kurland clarified the United States remains in ongoing discussions with China 

regarding an Open Skies agreement.

Mr. Christopher Williams, The Williams Capital Group, asked who is responsible for monitoring, 

measuring compliance, and taking corrective action when principles are not adhered to. Mr. Hubbard 

responded ILO does not have the power to issue financial sanctions against non-compliant entities. He 

stated non-compliant countries are expected to report back to the ILO. Mr. Hubbard stated the ILO 

currently receives a budget from the United Nations for its operations.

Mr. Robert Lekites, UPS, requested clarification on which conventions the United States has ratified. 

Mr. Hubbard stated the United States has ratified the conventions on forced labor and the 

Administration is looking at non-discrimination. Mr. Lekites asked if there was any possibility of 

conflict between the ILO core conventions and existing U.S. law. Mr. Hubbard stated he was not 

aware of any conflict with the Railway Labor Act of 1936 §§151–188 of Title 45 of the United States 

Code (45 U.S.C.). He noted there has been some discussion regarding possible conflicts with the 

National Labor Relations Act of 1935 §§ 151–169, 29 U.S.C., but that act is not applicable to the 

air carrier industry.

Dr. Alonso inquired why the United States would not apply these core principles across the board with 

all international agreements. Mr. Hubbard stated that would be a laudable goal. He stated that with 

respect to aviation, there has been increased interest in the inclusion of ILO principles in international 

agreements because of the open skies agreements the United States has entered into. Mr. Hubbard 

noted the Open Skies discussions with China have raised concerns among many stakeholders.

Ms. Thella Bowens, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, inquired if there are 

international agreements available to read so that a better understanding of the core principles can be 

gained. Mr. Hubbard stated there are 60 companies who have entered into framework agreements. He 

stated those agreements and other resources are on the ILO Web site.

Dr. Borenstein congratulated the subcommittee on the work completed with respect to 

STEM education. He expressed concern with the proposal for the DOT to promote aviation at the 

elementary level. He stated the need to balance getting students interested and having multiple 

programs for students at the elementary level.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

10

Dr. Alonso stated that existing initiatives by a number of organizations have not been effective at 

garnering student interest in aviation, and resolving that fragmentation is important. He also expanded 

upon Dr. Borenstein’s concerns regarding promotion at the elementary school level, and suggested 

focusing efforts where they will have the greatest impact. He noted, from his experience with the 

Young Astronaut Program, efforts directed toward children between the ages of 10 and 14 tended to be 

most effective. Ms. Baer urged the subcommittee to include best practices of programs that are already 

successful. Ms. Friend noted there are current high school programs available for reference in 

the proposal.

Mr. Barger noted the implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) will 

affect areas of interest to all of the subcommittees, including labor. Ms. Friend stated the other 

subcommittees are developing numerous proposals relating to NextGen and the Labor and World-class 

Workforce Subcommittee has decided not to pursue a specific NextGen proposal. She mentioned there 

are lines of communications in place already to improve the relationship between the FAA and workers 

affected by NextGen.

Dr. Alonso stated the other subcommittees have discussed NextGen and inquired how to address it 

because it is a fundamental issue. Ms. Kurland recognized NextGen is a significant topic of 

conversation and she expects to see proposals from other subcommittees that cover NextGen. 

Ms. Friend thanked the committee for their input and suggestions. She stated the proposal will include 

the comments. Ms. Friend noted the next Labor and World class Workforce Subcommittee will 

incorporate specific comments regarding STEM education and more discussion regarding the ILO core 

standards. Ms. Friend stated the next meeting of this subcommittee is November 15, 2010, in 

Washington, DC. She invited other FAAC members to attend the meeting.

Subcommittee on Financing

Ms. Kurland introduced Mr. Jack Pelton, Subcommittee on Financing chair, Cessna, who attended the 

meeting by telephone. She stated Mr. Pelton would present the subcommittee’s proposals, and 

Ms. Bowens would moderate discussion by the FAAC and questions from the public.

Mr. Pelton stated the subcommittee has four proposals to bring forward. He noted the first proposal is 

for permanent alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption for airport private activity bonds (PAB). 

Mr. Pelton stated growth at the airports is critical because airports are a part of both the overall aviation 

infrastructure and the infrastructure for ground-based activity related to NextGen. He noted the 

application of the AMT to PABs deters investment, and noted the current tax holiday on PABs is about 

to expire.

Mr. Pelton emphasized business cases make evident the benefit of not taxing the bonds. He stated the 

proposal documents circulated by the subcommittee describe a permanent exemption from the AMT,

but the subcommittee has since revised its proposal to provide for a 4-year extension of the current tax 

holiday. Mr. Pelton noted this proposal has the unanimous support of the subcommittee.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

11

Mr. Pelton stated the next proposal is to facilitate funding the accelerated equipage of aircraft for 

NextGen. He stated the most critical challenge associated with NextGen is the necessary infrastructure 

changes needed to increase capacity, efficiencies, environmental benefits, and safety. Mr. Pelton stated 

acceleration of these infrastructure changes is necessary, which poses two challenges:

1. There is a history of operators equipping and not receiving the benefits, which causes hesitation 

in equipping.

2. NextGen will require significant near-term infrastructure costs that will not produce 

near-term benefits, making for a weak business case.

Mr. Pelton stated the subcommittee has determined that early equipage will accelerate the benefits of 

NextGen. He noted the current Administration has made a proposal to use stimulus funds to facilitate 

aircraft equipage. Mr. Pelton stated realization of benefits of equipage will begin within 3 years 

through the creation of new jobs. He noted there is a fundamental long-term benefit of early equipage 

and the subcommittee will continue to develop information supporting the cost-benefit case for 

equipage.

Mr. Pelton stated the subcommittee envisions a public-private partnership providing a menu of 

financial options available for funding equipage. He stated there will not be one solution to take to the 

Secretary. Mr. Pelton added there will be a suggestion for the DOT and financial institutions to 

evaluate funding vehicles such as grants, loans, leases, and loan guarantees.

Mr. Pelton stated the third proposal addresses how to accelerate realization of the benefits associated 

with NextGen. He noted NextGen is a complex system, and it is crucial to demonstrate its benefits to 

all facets of the aviation industry. Mr. Pelton stated to allow the realization of benefits by operators 

already investing in equipment for performance-based navigation, implementation of the 

“best equipped, best served” program must take place. He stated prioritization of the operational 

aspects of NextGen will provide benefits to operators sooner. Mr. Pelton added the subcommittee’s 

proposal is to encourage the Secretary to require the FAA to develop a timeline for the implementation 

of NextGen, so that training, technology, and other elements can be coordinated and operators can 

realize benefits.

Mr. Pelton stated the fourth proposal is to review and update the criteria for Airport Improvement 

Programs (AIP) and Passenger Facility Charges (PFC). He stated AIPs and PFCs are critical to both 

provision of services and to airport growth and implementation of technology changes. Mr. Pelton 

noted there are significant legislative constraints on how airports can use this money. He stated the 

subcommittee has identified a need to review the criteria that dictates use of funds. Mr. Pelton stated 

this proposal does not touch upon the amount or allocation of the funds; rather it focuses on the criteria 

on how to spend it. He stated, within the subcommittee, there has been discussion about whether or not 

to apply the funding to NextGen implementation and the discussion will continue at the next 

subcommittee meeting.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

12

Mr. Pelton invited the public to comment on the subcommittee’s activities, and turned the discussion 

over to Ms. Bowens. Ms. Debby McElroy, Airports Council International, North America, stated 

airports have a critical role with NextGen and actively seek to advance at-airport NextGen technology. 

She noted required navigation performance routes at airports will provide noise and environmental 

benefits to the surrounding community, as well as add efficiency and capacity. Ms. McElroy stated 

airports would like to work with air carriers and use AIP finds for such initiatives, but current 

regulations make this impossible. She noted restrictions on comingling of FAA and other funds also 

limit airports. Ms. McElroy stated that because of the fixed funding of AIP, the effective level of 

AIP grants has gone down significantly as costs rise, hurting the ability of airports to work with the 

FAA and the air carriers on NextGen.

Mr. Bob Peterson, Boeing, stated the most important aspect of NextGen is its ability to relieve the 

choke points in the air traffic system. He stressed the need to stay focused on improving system

capacity and safety. Mr. Peterson stated if these goals are achieved, then the benefits of NextGen will 

be clear, and implementation will generate its own momentum. Mr. Peterson stated the DOT and the 

FAA should put policies and procedures in place so that the industry and its customers can realize 

the benefits.

Ms. Bowens noted there were no further public comments, and invited the FAAC members to join 

the discussion.

Ms. Cynthia Egnotovich, Goodrich, stated the August 20, 2010, meeting of the FAAC in 

Chicago, Illinois had included a presentation outlining the current plan for NextGen implementation. 

She inquired if one of the proposals is to accelerate that plan or if the proposal is to rewrite the plan to 

include clear metrics. Ms. Bowens stated the proposal is to accelerate the realization of benefits under 

the current plan by accelerating aircraft equipage to bring it in line with existing deadlines for 

ground equipage.

Mr. Pelton stated the implementation of several plan design elements of NextGen can happen now. He 

stated performance-based approaches can be developed to allow for tighter separation, but 

implementation procedures are necessary. Mr. Pelton noted the subcommittee is proposing to allow 

aircraft that have the right equipment to take advantage of the approaches. He stated there is a need for 

the FAA to prioritize these procedures so that parts of the system can offer benefits sooner than the 

mandate dates.

Mr. Regalado noted equipage is not limited to air carriers and general aviation (GA) will be affected. 

He stated the timeline for GA seems to be fuzzy, and the cost of equipping is very high. Mr. Regalado 

stated the sooner there is an established timeline, the easier it will be for other businesses to enter the 

technology market to allow for lower costs through competition.

Mr. Regalado stated, with regard to AMT, the rates and charges for the air carriers include debt service 

incurred by airports in selling bonds to fund capital requirements. He stated if charges are reduced, 

then the costs to the air carriers will be lower.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

13

Dr. Borenstein stated the AMT is inefficient because it costs considerably more for airports than it 

brings to the Government in return. He noted there is a need for the subcommittee to clarify this point 

to make the proposal stronger. Dr. Borenstein stated, with regard to AIP and PFC funding, flexibility 

may not be the answer. He noted originally, designation of the funds was for specific uses. He added 

the subcommittee has discussed expanding the usage of funding (for example, funding of aircraft 

equipage). Dr. Borenstein expressed his disagreement and stated the subcommittee needs to discuss 

this further.

Dr. Borenstein summarized the subcommittee’s consideration of NextGen into four areas: (1) basic

2020 implementation; (2) acceleration before 2020; (3) “best equipped, best served” standard to give 

priority access for those equipped; and (4) funding for equipage. He stated the fourth area of funding is 

the most controversial. Dr. Borenstein acknowledged the critical role of equipage in NextGen, but 

expressed concern with proposals for Government funding of equipage. He stated the one-time 

infusion of federal funding for equipage for existing air carriers will result in a dramatic increase in the 

barriers to entry by subsequent new entrant air carriers.

Ms. Baer stated the theory of creating more flexibility in AIP and PFC funding is good; however, 

unless the funding amount increases, there is little room for actual flexibility. She stated the AIP has 

been a good delivery system to balance infrastructure needs throughout the system and it has been 

successful and effective. Ms. Baer stated PFCs were created to increase competition at airports to 

allow access for new entrants. She stated this too has been very effective, but with shrinking funds, 

flexibility will not allow for significant changes.

Ms. Baer inquired if the subcommittee has talked about how to allocate funding through the various 

mechanisms of grants, loans, or loan guarantees. Dr. Borenstein noted the subcommittee has agreed to 

leave this area vague because they could not come to an agreement.

Mr. Lekites stated UPS has a particular interest in Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast

(ADS–B) technology because of the nature of its business, and has invested significant resources in 

ADS–B equipage. He explained in order for ADS–B to work, all aircraft in the vicinity must be 

equipped. Mr. Lekites stated this raises a question of who should be responsible for equipage, since air 

carriers use ADS–B technology, but it is an air traffic control tool. He noted there is a great benefit to 

the public in the reduction of delays, fuel use, and emissions. Mr. Lekites added the most significant 

benefit comes through an increase in safety standards.

As an example of use of existing technology for public benefit, Mr. Lekites referred to procedures 

implemented at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) to alleviate congestion issues during 

runway construction. Ms. Baer stated while circumstances drove the JFK example, procedures 

implemented at JFK represent NextGen technology. She stated NextGen will influence operations 

from gate to gate, not only during the flight phase. Ms. Baer noted that early adoption is the right 

mentality; however, the system is complex. She expressed a need to introduce elements in a systematic 

way. Ms. Baer added there is a need to promote and understand the benefits of NextGen so the support 

for NextGen can grow and benefit the global economy.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

14

Mr. Barger stated the proposals specific to NextGen will benefit the recently formed 

NextGen Advisory Committee. He stated there is a need to drive implementation and 

performance metrics and these proposals will be helpful moving forward.

Ms. Kurland stated the idea of promoting NextGen needs to be addressed and could be included with 

the overarching NextGen proposal. Ms. Baer stated NextGen offers particular benefits to the busiest 

metroplexes. She stated PANY/NJ is developing promotional briefing materials, including statistics to 

help spread the word about NextGen.

Mr. Barger noted many aircraft are already equipped for some NextGen elements and are ready to use 

the technology. He stated implementation of changes needs to occur holistically and collaboratively, so 

everyone receives the benefits. Ms. Baer stated the realization of benefits must take place

incrementally. She stated the implementation of NextGen cannot happen in its totality in 2020; rather 

equipage and implementation must be encouraged along the way. Ms. Ana McAhron-Schulz, ALPA, 

stated the topic of early equipage is dependent on the topic of funding; acceleration of early equipage 

cannot happen before the funding issue is resolved. She suggested creating a timeframe for choosing 

funding options.

Ms. Bowens noted the subcommittee realized that NextGen and the funding of the industry overall are 

critical components that drive issues the other subcommittees are discussing. She thanked the staff 

members who have helped the subcommittee along the way. Mr. Pelton stated the Subcommittee on 

Financing will meet again on November 17, 2010, to discuss the presented issues further and to finalize 

the proposals for the final FAAC meeting.

Subcommittee on Competitiveness and Viability

Ms. Baer led the competition discussion in Mr. Tilton’s absence. She stated the Subcommittee on 

Competitiveness and Viability has had four meetings, with the last being five days prior. She noted the 

next scheduled meeting is on November 18, 2010, in Washington, DC. Ms. Baer stated the 

subcommittee would further refine the draft proposals during that meeting.

Ms. Baer stated the five draft proposals focused on three broad topic areas: (1) competitiveness (global 

and domestic); (2) economic threats (aviation taxes and jet fuel volatility); and (3) air passenger and 

community access challenges (reform of essential air service programs and intermodalism). She noted 

the subcommittee discussed the issue of passenger protections in detail, but the subcommittee members 

could not agree if the issue fell under the purview of the FAAC charter. Ms. Baer expressed a desire to 

hear the full committee’s thoughts on this issue.

Ms. Baer thanked Mr. Tilton and his staff for pulling the focus area papers together so quickly. She

noted because the subcommittee meeting was only a few days before the FAAC meeting, the packets 

distributed to the FAAC did not contain some revisions and additions. Ms. Baer added those issues 

would be highlighted and clarified during her presentation.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

15

Ms. Baer declared the global competitiveness proposal outlined actions the DOT should take to carry 

out statutory mandates to promote a viable U.S. aviation industry, and strengthen the competitive 

position of U.S. air carriers in the global market. She noted the Open Skies agreements have vastly 

expanded international passenger and cargo flights to and from the United States, increased travel and 

U.S. exports, spurred economic growth, and complimented the Administration for negotiating 

99 Open Skies agreements. Ms. Baer stated, in light of the significant economic benefits of these 

agreements to the air carriers, passengers, and airports, the subcommittee recommends that DOT and 

the State Department focus their efforts to reach liberalized agreements with the largest growing 

countries that restrict access to U.S. air carriers, as well as on eliminating artificial barriers to 

competition abroad.

Ms. Baer emphasized the importance of U.S. air carriers expanding their global networks through 

alliances and joint ventures in order to optimize the opportunities made available by Open

Skies agreements to remain competitive with rapidly expanding foreign air carriers. She stated the 

draft proposal recommends the DOT foster air carrier alliances that will enhance competition and 

consumer travel options, and help create and maintain U.S. aviation industry jobs by reaffirming and 

building upon the DOT’s 1995 statement of U.S.-international air transportation policy. Ms. Baer 

added the subcommittee also recommended the DOT expand its role in promoting U.S. aviation exports 

and facilitating international tourism, noting the manufacturing side of the U.S. aviation industry has 

had the most positive impact on the balance of trade of any U.S. industry. She then solicited committee 

member comments on this issue.

Ms. Baer stated because of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 

21st Century (AIR-21) of 2000, 49 U.S.C., the Federal Government and airports have a responsibility to 

promote competition in airports. She stated the aviation system benefits from airports in which new 

entrants are not constrained from operating in the markets of their choice, and passengers benefit from 

the competition presented by the new entrants. Ms. Baer urged the FAAC to welcome this form of 

competition, and asked for input on what steps the Secretary could take to address this issue. She

admitted some subcommittee members had divergent views on this issue and encouraged them to 

articulate their viewpoints in the upcoming discussion.

Ms. Baer stated the second topic area focused on the rising aviation tax burden and jet fuel price 

volatility. She noted the first proposal calls for the Secretary to conduct an interagency analysis of the 

Federal aviation tax burden on passengers, air carriers, and GA. Ms. Baer stated the analysis would 

determine if existing levels of taxes and fees sufficiently balance the DOT’s statutory mission to 

promote and encourage a profitable air carrier industry and maintain a safe and efficient 

air transportation system. She added the second proposal addresses jet fuel price volatility.

Ms. Baer highlighted jet fuel constitutes the highest operating cost for the air carrier industry. The 

subcommittee proposed the Secretary advocate vigorously on behalf of the U.S. aviation and other 

transportation sectors in the context of the pending Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

investigation into the impact of investor and speculative activity on the price of oil. In addition, the 

subcommittee proposed the Secretary complete a study into the aviation fuel infrastructure because it is 

in dire need of additional Federal investment and oversight.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

16

Ms. Baer stated the third topic area addresses a broad range of Air Passenger Community Access 

Challenges, including enhancing air carrier and passenger access to small rural communities by 

reforming the DOT’s Essential Air Service (EAS) program. She acknowledged EAS has worked and 

accomplished its goals in some rural communities, most particularly in Alaska. Ms. Baer noted there

are airports receiving funding that are within driving distance of airports or other modes of 

transportation that may be more efficient. She stated the subcommittee discussed, but did not 

conclusively agree on a proposal to freeze the EAS program so no new communities could be added, 

pending a review of eligibility criteria. The subcommittee recommended basing EAS funding

decisions on frequency and breadth of service. Ms. Baer added the subcommittee welcomed 

suggestions to make EAS a more effective program.

Ms. Baer stated the subcommittee was unable to come to consensus on whether passenger protection 

issues fall within the scope of its mandate. She added some subcommittee members argued that 

holding discussions on the issue was inappropriate in light of the DOT’s pending rulemaking.

Ms. Baer stated the intermodal proposal was a complete work in progress; a draft had not been included 

for the committee. She noted the subcommittee wished to develop a comprehensive intermodal policy 

to facilitate movement of passengers and goods more economically and efficiently amongst the modes 

of travel. Ms. Baer recognized development of high-speed rail transportation is essential to 

intermodalism, and stated the aviation industry would have to embrace this development. She 

emphasized the aviation industry must participate in discussions with railway and roadway authorities 

about intermodalism. Ms. Baer shared a perception that high-speed rail transportation would replace 

short commuter flights, but noted the issue should be examined because such projects rarely get Federal 

Transit Administration funding. The subcommittee recommended the Secretary look at infrastructure 

connections of specific airports and rail systems serving multiple cities.

Ms. Baer solicited comments from the public in attendance, but none were forthcoming. She then 

opened the floor for discussion by the FAAC members. Ms. Kurland informed the FAAC any 

conversations that touch on the proposed rulemaking on consumer issues would be included in the 

docket for that rulemaking.

Mr. McGee noted that even though the subcommittees formed seven months earlier, the issue of 

whether passenger protections fell under the purview of competition only arose the previous week. He 

urged the committee not to dismiss this important issue at this late stage in the proceedings. 

Mr. McGee shared his assumption that the Secretary must have intended for passenger protections to be 

a topic of discussion for the Subcommittee on Competitiveness and Viability when he named a 

representative of the Consumers Union to it. He suggested that although passenger protections do not 

fit perfectly into the competition discussion, it is the best fit of the five categories. Mr. McGee stated 

with the level of consumer dissatisfaction with the air carrier industry, it would be unthinkable to 

convene a committee this large and influential and not address passenger issues because the topic does 

not fall explicitly within the committee’s mandate. He added all of his supporting information was 

available to all committee members in a presentation he had made to the subcommittee.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

17

Mr. Barger stated several air carriers have engaged in considerable dialogue about issues such as 

transparency and passenger protection language. He argued the committee did not need to focus on 

passenger protections because this dialogue was already taking place in other venues.

Mr. McGee stated if all air carriers embraced the level of transparency that JetBlue does, discussion

would not be necessary. He noted Secretary LaHood has been a passionate advocate for consumers, 

but stressed there are some areas that require further work. Mr. McGee stated the Consumers Union

had submitted several comments on the proposed rules to the docket, but noted there are some 

measures that should go further. He argued that discussing passenger issues for months and then 

dismissing them entirely would be unacceptable.

Ms. Baer asked Mr. McGee to list the top three issues Consumers Union believes the proposed rules do 

not address. Mr. McGee said the first issue was greater transparency in terms of air carrier pricing 

(including ancillary fees) and code-share agreements. He noted some air carriers did this well, but 

many did not.

Mr. McGee stated the second issue was seeking comprehensive codification of contracts of carriage, 

like the European Union’s (EU) requirement. He recognized faults in the EU model, but suggested 

replicating the clarity the EU model achieves. Mr. McGee noted the third issue is devising an 

appropriate model for consumer reports when ranking air carriers. He stated that even though the FAA 

has a ranking of 27 air carriers with respect to on-time departures, it does not address that 50 percent of 

air carrier departures are by commuter partners.

Mr. McGee stated confusion arises from the fact the DOT and FAA differentiate between air carriers

operating under the same brand, but under different operating certificates. He also pointed out the air 

carrier identification issue would also impact safety calculations, because current accident rate 

calculations for major air carriers do not take into account accidents that occurred during commuter 

carrier flights operating for the major air carrier.

Dr. Borenstein interjected he did not understand the resistance to passenger protections. He noted 

nearly every issue discussed by the subcommittees is being worked in other venues. Dr. Borenstein 

gave the example of jet fuel volatility, which was being addressed by the DOT and other agencies. He 

stated discussion of an issue elsewhere should not preclude discussion by the FAAC, adding it was the 

FAAC’s responsibility to advocate strong policy and inform DOT of bad policy. Dr. Borenstein

questioned how consumer protection could relate to anything but competition, arguing that an essential 

part of consumer protection involves pricing, and an essential part of competition is price.

Mr. McKenzie asked if Ms. Kurland could help clarify the committee’s mandate so that each 

subcommittee could narrow down the number of its recommendations (five to two or three). 

Mr. McKenzie stated his understanding is that the mandate was to recommend policy to make the 

industry more competitive. He noted there were two ways to define competition, either by lowering 

fares or by lowering costs.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

18

Ms. Kurland replied she had originally believed the FAAC would have five recommendations, but as 

the subcommittees proceeded with their discussions, it became evident there were several good 

recommendations in each subcommittee. She clarified the subcommittees were free to develop as 

many recommendations as they saw fit.

Ms. Kurland added the Secretary had specifically asked for comments on the rulemaking for the 

July 2010 FAAC meeting. She added she personally did not see why passenger protections would not 

fall under competition. Ms. Kurland noted the final report might need to include a few paragraphs on 

issues where the committee could not reach consensus.

Mr. McKenzie thanked Ms. Kurland for the clarification, and asked if there were other ways to advance 

the non-consensus issues in the context of the subcommittees. Ms. Kurland stated the FAAC would 

include all such issues in its report, because what is currently a minor issue today may become a 

significant issue in the future. She noted there would be other venues for discussion, such as the 

FAA’s NextGen committee.

Ms. Baer stated the Aviation Safety Subcommittee would determine an approach to passenger 

protections at the next subcommittee meeting.

Mr. McGee asked for clarification on what that approach would be. Ms. Kurland stated a discussion 

regarding specific approach was more appropriate for the subcommittee meeting.

Ms. Friend stated she had objected to the EAS draft proposal. She mentioned she had spoken to 

Mr. Dennis DeVany, FAA’s EAS Program Director, after the last subcommittee meeting. Ms. Friend 

stated Mr. DeVany informed her in order to qualify for EAS funding, a community must have had air 

service in October 1978. She noted the latest Government Accountability Office (GAO) report stated 

small or rural communities would benefit from multimodal means of transportation, and that generally 

other modes of transportation could be more responsive to the community’s transportation needs. 

Ms. Friend stated she could support the GAO report’s approach to EAS, but not the subcommittee’s 

recommendation to freeze EAS funding and enrollment.

Ms. Baer suggested cross-referencing with the GAO report and focusing on areas of heavy air traffic 

with areas that have limited access to a hub. Ms. Friend agreed with this approach, noting integration 

of intermodal transportation to give smaller communities access to hubs would be an option. She 

clarified she was not advocating that every small and rural area needed more or larger airports.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

19

Dr. Borenstein agreed more integration is necessary, but he also asked the FAAC to recognize the 

amount of waste in the system. He noted the term “small hub” is a misnomer in several situations 

because, although a hub may handle a small percentage of the air traffic system, the system itself is 

much larger than it was when the size categorizations were assigned. Dr. Borenstein took further issue 

with the eligibility requirements noting communities are eligible for EAS funding if they are more than 

70 miles from medium or large hubs; distance from small hubs is not even considered. He also noted 

rigid application of the criteria makes communities like Hagerstown, Maryland, which is 71 miles from 

Washington Dulles International Airport on a major interstate highway, eligible for EAS funding. 

Dr. Borenstein expressed the view that hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted under the 

current EAS program. Mr. McGee agreed and encouraged finding approaches that are more practical

to EAS.

Mr. McKenzie asked how the EAS program accounts for air carriers like Allegiant Air, which 

specializes in flying from small cities to major hubs, or the growth of Southwest Airlines into smaller 

centers. He speculated in a few years there will be great overlap with areas that receive EAS funding.

Ms. Piasecki asked for clarification on what the subcommittee meant when talking about 

intermodalism. Ms. Baer replied the subcommittee’s treatment of the issue was not yet prescriptive. 

She added that perhaps it would be necessary for the Secretary to convene a forum including 

representatives of various transportation modes. Ms. Baer noted legislative language states one of the 

Secretary’s duties is to “foster intermodalism”. She stated that with a possible $50 billion infusion of 

infrastructure money, there would be an opportunity for aviation to take on a greater role in discussions 

about intermodalism.

Ms. Baer suggested participating in those discussions would help determine where infrastructure 

investment would service consumers better, make the air system better, and pinpoint only markets well 

served by aviation. She hypothesized results of such discussions could include dedicated bus service 

from Hagerstown, Maryland, to Washington Dulles International Airport, or strengthening rail systems,

as independent means of travel or to improve access to airports. Ms. Baer admitted the details were 

still unclear because intermodalism is a work in progress.

Mr. McGee stated the subcommittee had originally discussed intermodalism as a complement to EAS, 

but had backed away because of concerns regarding legal limitations on EAS. Ms. Friend declared the 

FAAC’s job was to make the best recommendation possible, and if that included approaching EAS and 

intermodalism together, then the FAAC’s work product should reflect it. She stated beyond that, it 

would be up to Congress to decide whether to follow the recommended approach. Ms. Baer clarified 

intermodalism and EAS are not necessarily the same issue, but they should inform each other.

Dr. Alonso asked if the essence of the proposal was that the Secretary should emphasize 

intermodal planning or if it was ensuring that aviation participates when intermodalism is discussed. 

Ms. Baer replied the recommendation was that the Secretary create the opportunity for discussion to 

occur, perhaps even by creating an intermodalism task force.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

20

Ms. Kurland stated there are several discussions about topics such as aviation, infrastructure, and 

high-speed transit taking place because of the Administration’s focus on it. She suggested the 

subcommittee’s recommendation emphasize aviation participation in intermodalism discussions.

Dr. Borenstein stated that the three more contentious proposals had not yet been discussed. He noted at 

the previous FAAC meeting Mr. Tilton had offered presentations that had not been vetted by the 

subcommittee, which presented views skewed toward the positions of the Air Transport Association of 

America, Inc. (ATA). Dr. Borenstein added Mr. Tilton failed to present alternative views during his 

presentation. He reiterated his objection during that earlier meeting, and added he had requested and 

received time at the last meeting of the subcommittee to present alternative views.

Dr. Borenstein stated although the competitiveness and viability proposals rest critically on the 

assumption that the air carrier industry faces a threat to its viability, he disagrees with that assumption, 

and added he was not alone in rejecting that assumption. He noted his presentation had exhibited that 

although the air carrier industry had gone through good and bad times, investment in the industry had 

remained steady. Dr. Borenstein added demand had exhibited ebbs and flows, but low-cost air carriers 

had grown since deregulation.

Dr. Borenstein argued that an important point not mentioned by the ATA and legacy air carriers was 

that legacy air carriers have costs as much as 30 to 50 percent higher than low-cost air carriers. He

contended in any business, if two participants are performing the same function at disparate costs,

rather than the higher cost participant receiving assistance, it should be questioned as to why it cannot 

operate at a lower cost. Dr. Borenstein stated his viewpoint is that the legacy air carriers have managed 

to stay in business despite their higher costs by protecting their markets through exclusionary practices 

such as monopolizing airport space and frequent flyer programs leveraged to present barriers to entry 

for lower cost air carriers. He argued under these circumstances, portraying that air carrier viability is 

at stake is misguided. Dr. Borenstein defined viability as the ability to live and, he argued, there was 

no question that the aviation industry would continue to live. Dr. Borenstein admitted if policies 

became less friendly to the air carrier industry, the industry would become smaller, but he stated it 

would still survive.

Dr. Borenstein then moved to the issue of taxes. He stated if higher taxes were imposed on the 

industry, it would in turn raise ticket prices, and as a result, less people would fly. Dr. Borenstein 

argued it was unrealistic to contend the air carrier industry would fail if taxes were raised. He stated 

harm to the air carriers, because of increased taxes, would not be in the form of lower margins per 

passenger, but rather a lower number of passengers. Dr. Borenstein stated the basic elasticity formula 

informs us if ticket prices go up 20 percent, then 20 percent less people will be flying.

Dr. Borenstein stated when the subcommittee’s revised jet fuel proposal had been drafted and 

circulated, industry viability had been deleted. He stated after the subcommittee had reached 

agreement on the proposal, it had been further modified to draw a link between jet fuel price volatility 

and industry viability. Dr. Borenstein expressed frustration with the change, adding he should not have 

to scrutinize the subcommittee’s work product to check for unapproved language.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

21

Ms. Kurland noted there have been spirited discussions within each subcommittee, and expressed her 

belief everyone is and has been working in good faith. She asked the group to continue working in a 

friendly atmosphere, and asked every member to recognize that all documents produced to date remain 

works in progress. Dr. Borenstein agreed with Ms. Kurland’s sentiment, but asked for assurance that 

language would not be changed after agreement by the subcommittee.

Ms. Baer noted the quick turnaround time between meetings could have contributed to the documents 

presented not accurately representing what had been agreed upon in the subcommittee meetings. She 

added the viability issue should be discussed at the next subcommittee meeting.

Mr. McKenzie noted the subcommittee had agreed that the final document would be a compromise, and 

expressed hope the end product would represent the compromised view of the whole subcommittee and 

not just the wording of one person.

Mr. McKenzie also commented on the issue of industry viability. He shared a conversation he had with 

a three-time furloughed union leader from US Airways who stated he would rather the air carrier fail 

than compromise in negotiations. Mr. McKenzie argued if union leaders across the industry adopted 

that position, it would indeed pose a threat to viability. Ms. Friend interjected to correct Mr. McKenzie, 

asserting the person Mr. McKenzie referred to is a rogue member who does not reflect the 

majority opinion or the opinion of labor advocates.

Mr. John Conley, TWU, AFL-CIO, and Ms. McAhron-Schulz concurred with Ms. Friend. 

Mr. McKenzie stated he was encouraged by those sentiments, but he remained troubled by scenarios 

such as the demise of Pan American World Airways and Eastern Air Lines. He argued in terms of 

viability, there was the possibility that the worst-case scenario could happen and an air carrier could fail 

because of a work force-management dispute. Mr. McKenzie stated even though the industry would 

survive, the impact would be severe.

Mr. Barger countered by stating rogue management represents as much of a threat to viability as 

rogue labor. He admitted there is a sense of urgency and fear concerning viability, but stated the air 

carriers are trying to speak with one voice. Mr. Barger stated the major concern for air carriers was 

how to manage wildly fluctuating fuel costs, and reiterated jet fuel constituted the highest operating 

cost to air carriers. He asked if there was agreement on the subcommittee on how to take NextGen 

issues into NextGen Advisory Committee meetings. Mr. Barger stated the advances from NextGen 

offered cost benefits that would keep air carriers from shuttering, and would allow the era of new 

entrants to enter a second decade.

Ms. Baer suggested putting a separate section in the committee report that emphasizes the broad 

economic impact of the viability issue. Dr. Alonso disagreed, stating because there was a genuine 

disagreement about the subject of viability it did not seem appropriate to craft a report that says 

otherwise. He suggested the final report capture these disagreements because the Secretary should see

that these issues are complex and that there are divergent opinions.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

22

Ms. Baer stated that in regards to the tax issue, the views of the subcommittee members ranged from 

advocating a moratorium on new taxes to advocating more taxes. She stated the subcommittee reached 

basic agreement that there should be a review of the taxes to see if they are a reasonable way to fund 

aviation needs. Ms. Baer added the review should address questions such as whether there is a better 

way to pay for aviation needs, if the breakdown needs to change, and if security costs should be 

included. She argued that because taxes and fees had been levied in a reactionary manner, a 

comprehensive review is necessary to address the questions and concerns previously mentioned.

Ms. Egnotovich noted when thinking about viability and competitiveness, it was important to recognize 

the underlying group of organizations required to support a viable aviation industry. She urged the 

analysis go beyond air carriers alone and extend to the entire aviation industry. Ms. Baer replied the 

next round of edits would include adding language addressing manufacturers.

Mr. McKenzie asked Ms. Kurland if the DOT could provide guidance as to what it meant by viability. 

Ms. Kurland replied she would seek guidance, but reminded the committee that one of the purposes of 

this committee was to inform the DOT on the topic of viability.

Mr. Williams questioned the elasticity and demand figures referred to by Dr. Borenstein, stating, in 

terms of viability, they did not sound right. He stated business and leisure passengers exhibit widely 

varying demand elasticity, ranging from single to double digits. Mr. Williams argued the numbers 

sounded overly simplistic, and asked that the subcommittee provide true historical data to get a sense of 

how decisions should be made.

Dr. Borenstein acknowledged the numbers were simplified, but added it was a matter of rounding up 

from a decimal. He stated the actual elasticity numbers are approximately .7 for business travelers and 

1.3 for leisure travelers. Dr. Borenstein noted he had circulated a paper to the subcommittee that has 

the detailed historical data. He stated the issue of viability is in the context of the entire industry and 

not limited to specific air carriers. He noted his belief is the FAAC should focus on having an industry 

that serves the demands of the community. Dr. Borenstein noted even though some air carriers have 

failed or experienced bankruptcies, the industry itself has grown since deregulation.

Mr. Regalado reminded his colleagues the short turnaround time between meetings sometimes resulted 

in delivery of incomplete packages to the committee, but noted everyone had been putting in their 

best efforts to deliver accurate subcommittee status updates.

Ms. Kurland agreed and encouraged FAAC members to attend subcommittee meetings to discuss 

points of contention, even on other subcommittees. She reminded the FAAC that final 

recommendations are due November 22, 2010.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

23

Aviation Safety Subcommittee

Ms. Piasecki opened by thanking the Aviation Safety Subcommittee members for their hard work and 

excellent participation, including at the previous day’s subcommittee meeting in Seattle, Washington. 

She stated because the subcommittee’s conclusions were very much in line with its fact-finding, her 

presentation would not differ greatly from her reports at previous full FAAC meetings.

Ms. Piasecki stated the Aviation Safety Subcommittee has broad agreement on five strategic areas; 

adding it hopes to tightly integrate those areas. She mentioned the subcommittee also discussed some 

important tactical issues that fall outside of those identified areas, but noted work is being completed to 

incorporate that dialogue and those topics in its proposals.

Ms. Piasecki admitted the Aviation Safety Subcommittee felt they had a large challenge because the 

United States enjoys a unique aviation safety system, and noted the United States’ safety record is 

phenomenal. She stated that because of initiatives in the 1990s, accident rates have plummeted, but 

added the trend line has flattened. Ms. Piasecki stated the challenge for the committee was to discuss 

and explore ways to enhance safety going forward in an already safe system, particularly in light of 

anticipated growth over the next 20 years.

Ms. Piasecki stated during the July 2010 meeting, all subcommittee members submitted topics they 

wished to discuss. She noted the full subcommittee then ranked them according to two criteria: (1) the 

significance of the issue; and (2) the feasibility of accomplishing real change in accordance with the 

Secretary’s directive to develop actionable recommendations. Ms. Piasecki stated the subcommittee 

discussed a number of issues and heard expert testimony during the course of its discussions. She

noted during the July 2010 and August 2010 meetings, the subcommittee members agreed the safety 

management systems (SMS) concept was foundational to all of its recommendations. Ms. Piasecki 

stressed the culture of safety thoroughly described in the recommendations is essential to both 

preserving the current system and to building upon that system to go to the next level. She explained 

the recommendations are broken up according to these two criteria.

Ms. Piasecki stated the first focus area included expansion of data sources and bringing the same level 

of protection available to commercial aviation to the GA arena. She noted although members of the 

GA community are not formally part of the Aviation Safety Subcommittee, several members of the 

GA community participated in the meetings. Ms. Piasecki added the subcommittee and GA community 

members believe GA could truly benefit from the progress and infrastructure the commercial aviation 

community has created.

Ms. Piasecki reiterated the second focus area would be regarding recommendations that take the 

U.S. aviation safety system to an even higher level.

Ms. Piasecki directed the committee members to their briefing books, starting with recommendation 

number 4. She mentioned the numbers would change as the subcommittee worked to integrate all of 

the recommendations. Ms. Piasecki stated recommendation number four suggests expanding the 

sources of voluntary data. She noted it is the subcommittee’s view that safety could be increased if 

additional constituencies provided data to the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

24

(ASIAS) voluntary data program. Ms. Piasecki stated the subcommittee recommends adding data from 

maintenance providers and airport operators. She added the subcommittee seeks contribution from the 

GA community, noting the GA community does not currently enjoy the same level of protection as 

commercial air carriers with respect to voluntarily submitted data. Ms. Piasecki stated the 

subcommittee’s next step is to spend time analyzing ways in which potential new and valuable sources 

of data could be included and protected.

Ms. Piasecki then directed the committee to recommendation number 1 regarding equal protection of 

safety data. She stated identifying new sources of data is closely linked to the need to offer 

comprehensive legal protection of safety data and information that has been submitted. Ms. Piasecki 

explained because accidents and safety issues are frequently the source of litigation, media attention, 

and public inquiries, if voluntary-submitted data and information unrelated to a specific accident or 

incident becomes a source of information in those proceedings, the information may not be as 

forthcoming in the future.

Ms. Piasecki noted the data and information analyzed in these programs is currently de-identified, but 

added if a source of voluntary data has reason to believe its reports could show up in the public sphere,

voluntary reporting could very likely cease. She acknowledged there are some protections in place, but 

added the subcommittee strongly believed that legal protection of voluntary data deserves 

more attention.

Ms. Piasecki emphasized the need to protect broad data from scrutiny beyond the scope of analysis for 

which it was provided. She stated the subcommittee will spend the next few weeks examining areas for 

which the Secretary and the FAA might seek more comprehensive legal coverage and protections for 

safety data. Ms. Piasecki stated such protections would be particularly valuable in light of recently 

enacted legislation requiring SMS.

Ms. Piasecki then moved to the subcommittee’s second focus, which was to take the U.S. safety system 

to another level and reduce the accident rate further. She stated the subcommittee identified a need to 

enhance the U.S. Government and aviation industry’s ability to analyze data collected from voluntary 

safety programs to provide risk discovery capabilities. Ms. Piasecki noted joint industry and FAA 

safety information analysis and safety programs, such as ASIAS, have produced initial safety results. 

She stated these prototype programs have demonstrated the value of using safety information to 

measure known problems and solutions designed to mitigate them to produce initial system safety 

baseline measurements. Ms. Piasecki further noted while these programs are encouraging, they must 

be expanded, accelerated, and matured to include true risk discovery capability that identifies and 

mitigates emerging and future safety risks.

Ms. Piasecki stated the subcommittee recognized that data collection alone would not suffice. She 

noted the FAA needs to move into a culture in which it is prepared to make decisions based on 

predictive data, not merely spurred to action by an accident or fatality. Ms. Piasecki stated the 

subcommittee’s next steps relative to this recommendation are to examine the merits of leveraging the 

2011 budget cycle to provide the focus and resources necessary to develop some of the tools and 

methods required for predictive analytics.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

25

Ms. Piasecki next stated the safety subcommittee is an avid supporter of creating an integrated 

NextGen. She noted both the subcommittee and the Joint Program Development Office believe in the 

importance of using safety as an opportunity, as much as efficiency, capacity, and environment, to 

advocate for NextGen and to include safety when incorporating NextGen criteria. Ms. Piasecki 

underscored the importance of monitoring the safety needs on a system level to avoid destabilization as 

the system transitions and modernizes.

Ms. Piasecki stated the subcommittee also discussed the importance of the Secretary marketing 

NextGen to the public. She stressed the public needs to understand the benefits of the system so it truly 

supports investment in necessary changes.

Ms. Piasecki stated the final strategic recommendation is about identifying safety priorities. She noted 

when something goes wrong in aviation it receives significant attention from all quarters, which forces 

the aviation safety community to try to address every issue area at once. Ms. Piasecki stated the air 

carrier industry and FAA have a finite amount of resources, and the Aviation Safety Subcommittee 

wants to ensure the focus remains on the most impactful items. She stated the subcommittee believes it 

would be fitting for the DOT, FAA, and aviation industry to look at the issues collectively and prioritize 

accordingly to determine which areas have the highest impact. Ms. Piasecki noted this approach was 

successful for the Commercial Aviation Safety Team when used to identify and prioritize safety issues.

Ms. Piasecki stated the subcommittee would recommend the Secretary create a regulatory priorities 

review team to examine all the issues and provide some parameters and criteria for FAA to prioritize its 

future rulemakings.

Ms. Piasecki concluded the section by reiterating the subcommittee’s goal of protecting the current 

safety culture and taking the necessary steps in the area of data availability and technology to take 

U.S. aviation to the next level of safety. She then addressed two additional issues that received 

significant attention and discussion during the subcommittee deliberations. Ms. Piasecki stated 

although these topics did not fall under the focus areas, they were important enough to several 

subcommittee members to warrant mention in the subcommittee’s report.

Ms. Piasecki stated the first issue was regarding child restraint systems (CRS). She noted while lack of 

current data may keep the subcommittee from making this a separate focus area, the 

subcommittee members were moving towards reaching consensus that the FAA should actively and 

continuously promote the use of CRS for children under the age of 2, and consider a more permanent 

ongoing information campaign targeting parents of young children. Ms. Piasecki added some 

subcommittee members urged for CRS mandates.

Ms. Piasecki stated the second issue was regarding the growing volume of outsourced maintenance and 

the potential underlying safety risk. She stated the subcommittee held several lively discussions

regarding what the fundamental issues appear to be. Ms. Piasecki noted, by way of example, questions 

about whether privacy laws allow the same questioning of workers in foreign countries as in the 

United States, or whether such concerns are more a matter of security than safety. She noted the 

subcommittee never concluded this was in fact a safety issue, but stated the subcommittee members did 

engage in much discussion regarding this issue.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

26

Ms. Piasecki stated several members had heard reports that emerging rules geared at improving 

security of foreign and domestic maintenance stations are being drafted. She stated while a majority of 

the subcommittee members found it impractical to draft a recommendation on this topic, it was 

recognized a harmonized set of global regulations is important and the pursuit of one standard of safety 

is a worthy cause to note in the Aviation Safety Subcommittee’s final report.

Ms. Piasecki concluded by stating the subcommittee found identifying, protecting, and leveraging data

sources, coupled with introducing new technology in the form of NextGen, and recommitting to 

prioritization of impactful safety issues with resources and leadership would help achieve the quality of 

today’s existing safety system and allow the U.S. aviation industry to go to the next level of safety.

Ms. Piasecki solicited comments from the public in attendance, but none were forthcoming. She then 

opened the floor for comments from the FAAC.

Ms. Friend stated her organization has advocated for CRSs for many years. She noted it was

inconceivable that all possessions must be secured for takeoff and landing, but not small children. 

Ms. Friend urged CRSs be made mandatory. Ms. Piasecki stated the subcommittee was in adamant 

agreement with that assessment.

Dr. Borenstein asked what is keeping the CRS requirements from enactment if there is such support for 

them. Ms. Friend stated the FAA’s rationale is based on the elasticity of demand for young parents. 

She stated the belief is if they were compelled to purchase tickets for children under 2 years of age, 

many of these young parents would forego flying and would drive instead, resulting in a higher 

casualty rate than without the requirement.

Ms. Piasecki requested Mr. McGee speak on this topic. Mr. McGee stated Boeing had recently helped 

facilitate a meeting in Washington, DC to discuss CRSs. He stated there were 20 participants,

including representatives from AFA, ATA, JetBlue, and subject matter experts from the DOT, FAA, and 

the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Mr. McGee noted for 20 years the FAA and NTSB 

have been on opposite sides of this issue. He added there was no disagreement that a child held in a 

caregiver’s lap is less safe than one held by an approved CRS. Mr. McGee stated he took that into 

consideration when formulating his recommendation. He added merely implementing greater 

education would be insufficient.

Mr. McGee expressed his belief there is widespread misinformation on this topic, suggesting many 

parents and caregivers have no idea what they are doing is statistically less safe than using a CRS. He 

noted, to their credit, the FAA and ATA have initiated educational efforts in the past, but the effort 

needs to be continuous and ongoing because each year new individuals enter parenthood. Mr. McGee 

stated even if efforts were made for continuous ongoing education, regulation would also be required. 

He noted the industry is fortunate in that, because of the low accident rate, there are few fatalities at 

which to point. Mr. McGee stated the focus of the subcommittee was risk and there is certainly a safety 

risk presented by not requiring CRS. He added without a CRS, there is a risk to child safety not only 

during catastrophic accidents, but also during turbulence.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

27

Mr. McGee stated the recommendation of the subcommittee was therefore to couple educational efforts 

with regulation. He suggested the FAA reexamine its current policy, and, if necessary, gather additional 

data. Mr. McGee added he had developed a presentation on CRS for the subcommittee that he would 

happily provide to any requester.

A committee member asked for statistical information on the number of child deaths attributed to lack 

of proper restraints. Mr. Tony Fazio, AVP–100, stated in the past 30 years, there have been 3 infant 

deaths stemming from the infants being lap-held; since 1995, there have been none. Mr. Fazio added 

those numbers reflect the overall low accident rate. Mr. McGee interjected the numbers also reflect 

more parents proactively using CRS, and more airplane seats and belts being compatible with 

infant carriers.

Ms. Baer stated while she and some other subcommittee members did not disagree with discussing 

these latter topics, she questioned whether these non-global issues should be referred to the Secretary 

under the FAAC’s recommendations, or if another venue would be more appropriate.

Mr. McKenzie asked if a potential mandatory CRS requirement would apply to any carrier flying into 

the United States or to domestic air carriers only. Mr. McGee stated there had been significant 

discussion on this topic during the Washington, DC meeting. He noted the United Kingdom is also 

working on the CRS issue. Mr. McGee added the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is 

discussing this as well, suggesting that perhaps the Secretary may be encouraged to work with ICAO. 

He recognized although ICAO can provide guidance, they cannot enforce regulations.

Ms. Friend stated many European air carriers use a lap belt system that extends on the 

parent/caregiver’s seat belt to restrain the child. She noted this extender system is not approved in the 

United States because there are questions to its safety. Mr. McGee added in the 

Washington, DC meeting experts stated the lap belt extender would actually cause the child to be 

crushed between the caregiver and the belt in a forward dive accident.

Ms. Piasecki reiterated the focus of the subcommittee was on system safety changes. She stated CRS 

falls into a category for “other” issues. Ms. Piasecki noted the science of this issue is clear, but the 

solution is not. She added her subcommittee will continue working through this and other issues. 

Ms. Piasecki stated the next subcommittee meeting is during the week of November 15, 2010, but the 

date itself will have to be rearranged because the Labor and World-class Workforce Subcommittee 

announced earlier that they will be meeting on November 15, 2010. Ms. Kurland thanked Ms. Piasecki 

for moving the Aviation Safety Subcommittee meeting date, reiterating if all of the subcommittees meet 

on different dates it gives other committee members and the public the opportunity to attend all of the 

meetings if they so choose.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

28

Mr. McGee added the one issue that the subcommittee did not achieve consensus on, but which was 

subject to significant discussion, was whether to recommend one level of safety for both 

mainline air carriers and commuter air carriers, and for all maintenance operations, whether internal or

outsourced or domestic or abroad. Ms. Kurland noted the FAA and DOT currently have one level of 

safety for commercial operations, and suggested the subcommittee couch discussion in those terms. 

Mr. McGee clarified the subcommittee was discussing previous investigations by the DOT Inspector 

General.

Ms. Kurland provided an outline of the agenda for the remainder of the day. She noted because the 

swift progress of the morning, the meeting would be ending 30 minutes early. Ms. Kurland asked in 

the last 10 minutes of the meeting that each committee member provide some general thoughts to share 

with the group forward into the last set of subcommittee meetings.

Environment Subcommittee

Ms. Kurland stated Mr. Bedford was unable to attend the meeting so Dr. Alonso would be speaking on 

behalf of the Environment Subcommittee.

Dr. Alonso stated, like the Aviation Safety Subcommittee, the Environment Subcommittee’s report 

would not differ greatly from what they have reported at earlier FAAC meetings. He noted the 

subcommittee has reached consensus on the content for the recommendations.

Dr. Alonso stated on September 20, 2010, the subcommittee held a pre-meeting teleconference to 

define the major areas for potential recommendations and to assign those recommendations to 

individuals for refinement. He stated the subcommittee then took those recommendation areas and 

formulated proposals at the October 5, 2010, meeting.

Dr. Alonso stated the subcommittee believes environmental impacts that accompany aviation growth 

represent a huge challenge to the United States’ ability to meet increases in demand for 

air transportation. He stated as demand for aviation grows, the environmental impacts will place 

critical constraints on capacity unless those issues can be adequately mitigated in advance.

Dr. Alonso stated the environmental issues related to the climate have recently received significant 

attention and will be shaping aviation’s future growth both domestically and internationally. He

emphasized though the subcommittee did look at other environmental issues such as noise, land use, 

water quality, or other pollutants, it decided the focus should be on carbon emissions (CO2). 

Dr. Alonso also clarified none of the recommendations targeting CO2 would adversely affect the other 

environmental issues.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

29

Dr. Alonso stated the subcommittee is advocating a balanced approach to CO2. He stated the 

subcommittee early on adopted the view that a multipronged approach that seeks to reduce the 

carbon footprint of commercial aviation is necessary to meet the very stringent targets for 

environmental impact reduction for commercial aviation (50 percent net reduction in CO2 by 2050) 

both nationally and internationally. Mr. Alonso stated the subcommittee agreed the recommendations 

contain the best options for addressing carbon footprint reduction, but also acknowledged the difficulty 

of meeting the CO2 reduction targets. He stated that is why the vast majority of the recommendations 

include research and development (R&D), which implies a certain amount of risk and investment to 

minimize those risks, if in fact those targets are going to be reached.

Dr. Alonso stated the subcommittee advocated decreasing the environmental footprint of aviation by 

minimizing fuel burn of the fleet during operations. He stated these operational changes are directly 

related to NextGen advances that support the environmental targets. Dr. Alonso added reducing 

fuel burn reduces CO2 at a ratio of one-to-one.

Dr. Alonso outlined the four recommendation areas on which the subcommittee had reached consensus: 

1. Reducing the environmental footprint by reducing the amount of fuel that is burned through 

improved operations in NextGen.

2. Reducing fuel burn through improved aircraft technologies that live directly on the aircraft.

3. Developing alternative fuels produced sustainably, and thereby reducing net CO2.

4. Harmonizing U.S. environmental standards with international standards so the industry is not 

unnecessarily or unduly penalized by requirements that differ from what is required by other 

countries. ICAO would be the focus point for those discussions.

Dr. Alonso expanded on the recommendations. He stated for recommendation number 1 the focus 

would be on improved operations and improved infrastructure. Dr. Alonso stated in an ideal world, the 

NextGen changes in 2025 would reduce fuel burn and CO2 emissions in the entire fleet by 

10 to 12 percent; he stated in reality those numbers are more likely closer to 5 to 7 percent. He then

read the proposal, stating, “We are seeking substantial additional targeted investment to accelerate 

equipage elements of NextGen so as to have significant near-term benefits and increase the likelihood 

of successful deployment. In addition, we recommend other surface management efficiencies, not just 

the reduction of fuel burn resulting from airplanes flying shorter routes, but also the reductions of fuel 

burn that derive from the airplanes wasting less time on the surface”.

Dr. Alonso added the subcommittee was also considering recommending a pilot program that would 

seek to reduce and manage taxi delays and establish a methodology for all U.S. air carriers within 

3 years. He noted several smaller items were discussed within this context, such as reducing the 

carbon impact of ground support equipment, and added some of those topics could potentially be 

folded into the broader recommendations.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

30

Dr. Alonso continued to the focus area for proposal number 2, R&D for airplane and engine 

technologies. He noted while significant reductions in fuel burn came through operational 

improvements, in the past (50 to 60 years) the vast majority (80 to 90 percent) of the environmental 

impact improvements have come from technologies onboard the aircraft, and this trend is expected to 

continue, although the environmental impact may be closer to 50 to 60 percent. Dr. Alonso urged quick 

action, noting the timeframe from developing ideas to producing and testing new technologies usually 

runs about 12 to 15 years. He stated the subcommittee suggested accelerating the R&D so these 

technologies would be ready in 8 years. Dr. Alonso also noted the Administration is currently 

examining permanently extending tax credits for R&D, but added the subcommittee did not yet have 

full information.

Dr. Alonso moved to the focus area for proposal number 3, sustainable alternative fuels. He 

emphasized with future emission reductions targeted at 50 percent below 2005 levels and expected 

growth in aviation demand, the emissions targets cannot be met with operational and equipage changes 

alone. Dr. Alonso admitted alternative fuels were still in the early stages of development, but stated the 

subcommittee recommends that the DOT start a national initiative to have U.S. aviation become the 

lead in alternative fuel production and use and to promote U.S. aviation as being the first user of 

sustainable fuels. He stated this initiative would involve coordinating and enhancing the concerted 

effort of Government and industry to pool resources, overcome challenges, and take concrete actions to 

promote deployment of the use of sustainable fuels.

Dr. Alonso acknowledged there R&D issues, but noted industry has taken steps over the last 

4 to 5 years to demonstrate these fuels can be used in existing commercial aircraft in a 

50-50 combination. He stated the industry is ready to adopt these fuels as long as they can be produced 

and priced competitively. Dr. Alonso added the environmental effect of sustainable fuel use cannot 

fully be gauged until there is more widespread and prolonged use. He stated the subcommittee 

hypothesized, assuming the fuels produce 50 percent less CO2 than petroleum or oil-based sources, and 

a fleet penetration of 15 to 20 percent, the sustainable fuels could lead to a CO2 reduction of 

10 to 15 percent. Dr. Alonso added those numbers could go higher or lower depending on 

fleet penetration.

Dr. Alonso then presented the final focus area of harmonized approach. He stated as the United States 

moves forward in charting a path to sustainable aviation, it should remain mindful that other countries 

are setting other targets. Dr. Alonso declared the U.S. Government should take an active role in 

making sure these targets are harmonized across the world. He noted parts manufactured in the 

United States are operated around the globe, and each air carrier has to meet certification requirements 

wherever they fly. Dr. Alonso also urged the U.S. Government to ensure it is leveling the playing field 

so what is required in the United States is also transferable globally.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

31

Dr. Alonso asked his fellow subcommittee members if they had anything to add. Mr. Regalado stated 

CO2 emissions, though not as great as from aircraft in flight, also occur at the airports themselves 

because of emissions caused by ground-support equipment. He noted although the FAA currently 

provides funding to reduce emissions through the Voluntary Airport Low Emissions (VALE) program, 

the problem is an airport must be in a non-attainment zone to receive those funds. Mr. Regalado urged 

the Secretary to broaden the criteria so airports without a problem could preemptively address 

emissions. He clarified he did not seek to increase VALE funding, merely to make that funding 

attainable to more airports. Mr. Regalado argued the goal of reducing CO2 emissions would be better 

met if the emissions were addressed before areas became non-attainment zones.

Dr. Alonso then asked the members of the public if they had any comment. When there were none, he 

opened the floor for comments by the full committee.

Ms. Baer noted the ground taxi management program at JFK has demonstrated effectiveness at 

reducing CO2, but added the FAA had not yet worked out the data sharing component of the protocol 

that prevents the program from export to other airports. She suggested including this information 

in the recommendation. Ms. Baer volunteered to provide metrics on how the decrease in 

runway delays alleviates the problem of excess fuel burn. Ms. McAhron-Schulz urged the 

Environment Subcommittee to include language clarifying that the subcommittee’s recommendations 

do not sacrifice safety to achieve the environmental benefits. Dr. Alonso stated standards for 

sustainable fuels are already in place and address safety. He added none of the other recommendations 

sacrifices safety in order to achieve environmental goals.

Mr. McGee commented one of the factors that confuses consumers is that carbon footprints have not 

been quantified, making it difficult for them to compare the environmental impact of various forms of 

travel. He stated there are many environmentally conscious consumers who would travel in the most 

environmentally friendly mode, but noted they have no way of effectively comparing the 

carbon footprints of different travel methods.

Mr. McGee asked if the Environment Subcommittee had discussed this issue. Dr. Alonso stated the 

subcommittee had not discussed it, but noted the number should not be tough to calculate, using the 

basic metric for every pound of air carrier fuel burned there are 3.2 pounds of CO2 created. Mr. McGee 

agreed with that calculation, but differentiated it from the consumer issue. He stated the fuel burn to 

CO2 ratio does not help consumers decide whether it is better to go from New York City, New York, to 

Boston, Massachusetts, via plane, train, bus, or automobile. Mr. McGee suggested the DOT can impart 

some education in this area, especially because current available online sources provide wildly 

varying information.

Ms. Baer asked if there was clarification or a recommendation that supported a broader range of 

environmental mitigations, such as suggesting a range of airport improvements that makes them more 

environmentally friendly. Dr. Alonso stated the subcommittee decided to focus on CO2, so issues with 

smaller environmental impact were not discussed, noting airport excesses contribute to less than 

1 percent of the negative environmental impact. Dr. Alonso made a note of the issues Mr. McGee and 

Ms. Baer discussed so the subcommittee could discuss them at the next meeting.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

32

Ms. Baer noted there are issues the committee could look at that embrace a broader environmental 

consciousness, such as supporting carpooling and providing more transportation means for employees. 

Ms. Baer also suggested examining intermodalism. Mr. McGee agreed, adding intermodalism is an 

area where Consumers Union has observed conflicting advertising from companies. He stated motor 

coach companies will purport to have the smallest carbon footprint, while train advertisements will say 

the same thing, leaving consumers unsure on how to make the most environmentally sound decision.

Dr. Alonso asked if there were any additional comments. There were none.

Ms. Kurland thanked the Environment Subcommittee for its input. She then opened the floor for 

general comments by the committee members.

Mr. Conley noted as Dr. Borenstein had mentioned earlier, the U.S. aviation industry is not going away, 

and will evolve and reinvent itself. He stated in forums like this there will be disagreements, but urged 

committee members not to shy away from disagreement. Mr. Conley encouraged committee members 

to seize disagreements as opportunities for discussion aimed toward resolution. He also urged the 

U.S. Government and aviation industry to continue these conversations.

Ms. Baer suggested all cited data in the FAAC’s final report be checked and sourced so the committee 

can be sure the information is an accurate portrayal of the state of affairs.

Closing Remarks

Ms. Kurland then moved to her closing remarks. She thanked the FAAC members for their hard work 

and commitment. Ms. Kurland encouraged the FAAC members to participate in the subcommittee 

meetings taking place the week of November 15, 2010. She asked that subcommittee reports be 

submitted to her by November 22, 2010, so all FAAC members would have opportunity to review the 

proposals before the December 15, 2010, meeting. Ms. Kurland clarified there will be a 

two-step process for completing the final report: (1) a package of recommendations will be readied for 

submission to the Secretary by the end of the December 15, 2010, meeting, and (2) the final report will 

be submitted a few months later.

Ms. Bowens asked if the committee members would be voting on the individual recommendations at 

the December 15, 2010, meeting. Ms. Kurland replied they would. Mr. McGee asked if dissenting 

opinions to the recommendations would be included in the final report. Ms. Kurland responded 

although opposing viewpoints would be included, the focus of the report will be the agreed upon, 

actionable recommendations. She added once she receives the revised subcommittee proposals on

November 22, 2010, she will send them to the full FAAC for consensus.

Ms. Friend asked if consensus should be interpreted as unanimous consent or majority approval. 

Ms. Kurland replied the parameters of consensus were still being considered, and would probably not 

require unanimity, but would also probably need more than a simple majority.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Record of Meeting

October 20, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Headquarters

Los Angeles, California

33

Ms. Hamilton thanked Ms. Kurland and reminded the FAAC members and public in attendance 

information regarding the December 15, 2010, meeting would be posted to the FAAC Web site soon. 

She noted the December 15, 2010 meeting would be taking place in Washington, DC.

Adjournment

Ms. Hamilton solicited a motion for adjournment. On motion, duly seconded and approved by the 

majority of the FAAC members present, the meeting adjourned.

The meeting adjourned at 3:23 p.m.

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

Approved by: _______________________________________________

Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Designated Federal Official

Dated: ________December 15, 2010_____________________________