Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

October 14, 2010

Teleconference 

1 

Public Announcement 

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

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

a Federal Register notice published September 30, 2010 (75 FR 60491). 

Subcommittee Members in Attendance via Phone 

Name Affiliation(s) 

Jack J. Pelton 

(Subcommittee 

Chair) 

Chairman, President, and 

Chief Executive Officer 

Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) 

Severin Borenstein Professor Haas School of Business, 

University of California, Berkeley 

John Hennigan

(Designated Federal 

Official (DFO)) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Joseph Kolshak Attended for Mr. Glenn Tilton United Airlines, Inc. (United) 

Mike Kulis Attended for 

Ms. Thella Bowens 

San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 

Steve Litty 

(Alternate DFO) 

DOT 

Daniel McKenzie U.S. Airlines 

Research Analyst 

Hudson Securities, Inc. 

Stan Van Ostran Attended for Mr. Regalado Metropolitan Nashville Airports Authority 

Committee Members Not in Attendance 

Name Affiliation(s) 

Thella Bowens President and 

Chief Executive Officer 

San Diego County 

Regional Airport Authority 

Raul Regalado President and 

Chief Executive Officer 

Metropolitan Nashville Airports Authority 

Glenn Tilton Chairman United Continental Holdings 

Christopher Williams Chairman, Founder, and 

Chief Executive Officer 

The Williams Capital Group, L.P. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

October 14, 2010

Teleconference 

2 

Other Persons Present via Phone 

Name Affiliation(s) 

Chris Brown United 

Patty Clark Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

Ashleigh de la Torre Bombardier 

Mike Derrick PAI Consulting 

Paul Feldman General Aviation Manufacturers Association 

Christa Fornarotto DOT 

Steve Giles MITRE Corporation 

Lorraine Howerton Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

Debby McElroy Airports Council International-North 

America (ACI-NA) 

Lisa Piccione National Business Aviation Association 

BACKGROUND AND WELCOMING REMARKS

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

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

requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Mr. Jack Pelton, subcommittee chair, 

Cessna, called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. He welcomed the subcommittee members and 

members of the public in attendance, and opened the meeting by having the teleconference 

subcommittee members introduce themselves. 

Ms. Pelton introduced Mr. John Hennigan, FAA, the DFO for the meeting, and asked him to 

summarize FACA requirements. Mr. Hennigan noted the meeting is conducted under FACA and 

outlined his responsibilities as DFO, including maintaining adherence to the agenda, keeping accurate 

minutes, and adjourning the meeting if necessary. 

Mr. Hennigan noted meetings of the subcommittee are accessible to the public and stated interested 

people have the opportunity to submit comments before each meeting either by email at faac@dot.gov

or by submission to the regulatory docket at www.regulations.gov. He added the minutes of each 

meeting will be made available in the regulatory docket and on the FAAC Web site at 

http://www.dot.gov/faac. 

Mr. Hennigan read the formal statement required under FACA. He noted, although the meeting was 

open to the public and members of the public were attending the meeting, participation in the meeting 

was limited to subcommittee members, their alternates, and Federal officials. He added only 

subcommittee members and their alternates were entitled to vote on subcommittee business. 

Mr. Hennigan noted there are no previous minutes to ratify because the document is still in editing. He 

then turned the meeting back over to Mr. Pelton to open substantive discussion. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

October 14, 2010

Teleconference 

3 

DISCUSSION

Mr. Pelton reviewed the agenda for the meeting, which included discussion of four topics: 

(1) Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) exemption; (2) funding of aircraft equipage; (3) “best equipped, 

best served”; and (4) eligibility criteria for projects funded by the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

and Passenger Facility Charges (PFC). 

Mr. Pelton reviewed the agenda for the FAAC meeting on October 20, 2010, in 

Los Angeles, California. He stated the objective of the FAAC meeting is for the subcommittees to 

(1) bring forward their issues for discussion and consideration by the full committee, and (2) determine 

common issues among subcommittees that can be combined and issues that may need more detail. 

Mr. Pelton added he will present the subcommittee’s issues via teleconference with the assistance of 

Ms. Thella Bowens, San Diego Regional Airport Authority, who will be present at the FAAC meeting. 

Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) Exemption 

Mr. Hennigan began discussion of the need for relief from the AMT provisions for private activity 

bonds. He referred to a paper written by the airport community (attachment 1). He asked an airport 

representative to brief the subcommittee on the paper. 

Mr. Mike Kulis, San Diego Regional Airport Authority, stated the airport community used the template 

provided to summarize the benefits of permanent exemption from AMT provisions. He noted the paper 

explains savings realized over the last 2 years from the exemption and highlights ongoing legislative 

efforts. He stated, with regard to the cost-benefit, ACI-NA noted that for every dollar spent, the 

Government receives $20 back. Mr. Kulis stated permanent AMT exemption would cost the 

Government $49 million per year in lost taxes for the next 5 years. He explained only 13 percent of 

that total is for [airport ?] private activity bonds totaling a cost of $6.4 million to the Federal 

Government per year. 

Mr. Pelton asked if the $49 million total is for all private activity bonds subject to the AMT, or just 

private activity bonds for airport projects. Mr. Kulis stated the total, as noted in the ACI-NA paper, 

includes airports, as well as student loans, housing, and other public projects subject to the AMT. 

Mr. Severin Borenstein, Haas School of Business, asked from where the savings come. 

Ms. Debby McElroy, ACI-NA, stated the FAA has been keeping a running total of bonds issued by 

airports, as well as entities taking advantage of the 2 year AMT holiday. She commented there are 

savings from financing bonds at a lower rate, which allows for the 1-to-20 ratio on dollars spent versus 

money received by the government. 

Mr. Borenstein stated it is shocking that something costing $6 million can generate $1 billion in 

savings. Mr. Pelton stated the $1 billion savings has been over the life of the AMT holiday. 

Mr. Stan Van Ostran, Metropolitan Nashville Airports Authority, noted the $1 billion represents savings 

on bond issues but is not limited to a 1 year period; it is a savings over the life of the bond, up to 

30 years. Mr. Van Ostran stated the Nashville Airports Authority saved $8.4 million over 7 to 8 years. 

He agreed that giving up $6 million allows for more investor interest in the bonds and the ability to 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

October 14, 2010

Teleconference 

4 

reduce rates and charges at airports. 

Mr. Borenstein asked about the pricing of bond interest rates. He stated the interest rate differential is 

driven by the tax savings of individuals in higher income brackets. Ms. McElroy stated it is difficult to 

find investors interested in airport bonds because of the potential for the AMT penalty. She added, in 

some cases, there is a 120-to-150 basis point differentiation. 

Mr. Borenstein asked if investors are willing to pay more than the actual best forecast of their savings 

in taxes because of the uncertainty created by AMT. Ms. McElroy stated investors are looking for a 

premium on those bonds and airports have to pay higher interest rates on bonds to compensate for the 

uncertainty. 

Mr. Van Ostran stated the savings are not all due to AMT and include a significant reduction in interest 

rates. Mr. Borenstein agreed and noted he is pushing this issue because there is no equivalent bond to 

show the interest rate differential. He stated these numbers are not obvious enough to calculate and the 

study needs to be looked at closely. 

Mr. Van Ostran agreed this ATM issue presents a challenge since there are differing circumstances for 

each bond issue. He stated it is more difficult to quantify the AMT impact when looking at bonds as a 

whole. Mr. Borenstein commented he would like to see individual cases with actual numbers to help 

make the subcommittee’s argument stronger. 

Mr. Pelton referred to a document, distributed at the subcommittee meeting in Chicago, Illinois, which 

illustrates an example. Mr. Van Ostran agreed and stated the financial managers at Metropolitan 

Nashville Airports Authority put together the document illustrating how a $100 million bond, with 

86 basis points between AMT and non-AMT options, offered a savings of $11 million over a 

30 year period. 

Mr. Borenstein stated that type of example will help strengthen the case for AMT relief and suggested 

detailing several similar cases. Ms. McElroy stated the FAA has been the source for data and a request 

will need to be made. Mr. Van Ostran and Mr. Kulis agreed to provide examples from their airports. 

Mr. Borenstein stated research must be gathered to make the case as strong as possible and show how 

removing AMT will result in greater savings. He added it is a compelling case to demonstrate the 

inefficiency of AMT. Mr. Borenstein stated the premium paid for AMT is much greater than the 

interest the Government receives in return. 

Mr. Hennigan stated he will collect and distribute examples from the airport community. Ms. McElroy 

offered to distribute a document from Morgan Keegan from November 2008 showing impacts of AMT 

on airports over a period of years. Mr. Pelton agreed these documents and examples will help 

strengthen the proposal for AMT relief. He stated the subcommittee will move forward with this issue 

and use the supporting documents to make the business case. 

Funding of Aircraft Equipage 

Mr. Pelton referred to an issue paper regarding the funding of aircraft equipage. This paper is an 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

October 14, 2010

Teleconference 

5 

internal working document for consideration by the subcommittee. He asked Mr. Hennigan to discuss 

the details of the paper. 

Mr. Hennigan stated this template on funding aircraft equipage was developed at the last subcommittee 

meeting. He stated the subcommittee had discussions regarding the use of Federal funds for 

accelerating equipage for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). He noted the 

action item from the last meeting was to determine whether there were cost-benefit analyses to support 

the proposal. Mr. Hennigan stated the subcommittee has since received a document from the Port 

Authority of New York and New Jersey on the importance of NextGen to their airports. 

Mr. Hennigan stated the FAA and DOT are conducting a cost-benefit analysis examining the 

acceleration of NextGen equipage; the analysis indicates that NextGen produces benefits over time. He 

also stated the subcommittee has considered the difficulties of accelerating equipage. Mr. Hennigan 

added the subcommittee has been considering this issue since April 2010. He stated the President has 

recently announced additional stimulus funding (under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009) for NextGen, which supports the ideas of the subcommittee. 

Mr. Hennigan stated the cost-benefit analysis of the acceleration of equipage has not yet been 

completed by the government. He noted difficulties with the cost-benefit analysis, including factors 

such as: the costs to equip fleets; general aviation versus air carrier costs; different equipment with 

different associated costs; and the choice of various tools that can be used to fund equipage such as 

grants, loan guarantees, or low interest loans. 

Mr. Hennigan stated the preliminary indication is the overall investment in accelerating equipage is 

cost-beneficial; however, there is still work to be done. He stated the cost-benefit analysis is in process 

to help justify the acceleration of equipage. 

Mr. Hennigan stated the paper also addresses issues with delay savings, fuel savings, and 

environmental benefits. He noted other subcommittees have addressed some of these concerns and he 

assumes there will be further discussion of these points at the full FAAC meeting in 

Los Angeles, California on October 20, 2010. 

Mr. Joseph Kolshak, United, asked about the timeline of the cost-benefit analysis. Mr. Hennigan stated 

the study is being conducted by the FAA (through the DOT and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB)), and then through Congress. He stated it should be completed by the end of the year. 

Mr. Kolshak asked if it would be complete in time to present proposals to the Secretary. Mr. Hennigan 

responded it is likely. 

Mr. Hennigan stated a need for supporting documentation to determine the amount of the stimulus 

package to be used for NextGen equipage. A subcommittee member noted the need for coordination 

between logistical constraints of equipage and funding availability to determine the timeline of 

accelerated equipage. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

October 14, 2010

Teleconference 

6 

Mr. Borenstein stated there are four major issues: (1) cost-benefit of NextGen in 2020; (2) cost-benefit 

of accelerating NextGen; (3) who pays for the equipage; and (4) whether the Government should pay 

for equipage from general funds rather than industry payment. He stated if stimulus funds are allocated 

for aviation, then these funds must be spent quickly. Mr. Borenstein added, funds must go toward 

projects that can begin in the near term to provide economic stimulus to a slow economy. He also 

noted the year 2014 does not qualify for stimulus funds. He stated more information needs to be 

provided to support arguments on funding aircraft equipage. 

Mr. Hennigan stated the President would likely agree with the need for using stimulus funds quickly. 

He stated the aviation industry may not be able to equip faster than 2014, which is already as quickly as 

possible. Mr. Kolshak noted that, depending on the size of the fleet, 4 years may be a realistic timeline, 

but the ground infrastructure will need to be in place as well. 

Mr. Daniel McKenzie, Hudson Securities, Inc., stated many air carriers will not be able to equip their 

fleet until major maintenance is scheduled. He stated equipage will not be an immediate upgrade, but 

will happen over time. He added, in terms of paying for equipage, the subcommittee was tasked with 

developing ideas to make the aviation industry more financially stable and competitive. Mr. McKenzie 

noted a new ticket tax makes the industry less competitive and hurts the current economics of the 

industry. He stated there will be a mismatch in the timing of cost and benefits. 

Mr. Kolshak stated some upgrades can be done relatively quickly, depending upon the airplane. He 

noted completing upgrades during scheduled maintenance would be convenient. However, if 

necessary, air carriers could change maintenance schedules or set up special maintenance lines to equip 

aircraft on an expedited basis. 

Mr. Borenstein stated this proposal needs to go beyond the DOT to the OMB for evaluation. He stated 

his belief that the concern of using the stimulus money over the next several years will quickly become 

an issue with the OMB. He stated the case will be much stronger if funds are spent in the short term. 

He also stated the cost-benefit analysis would be considered a failure if the industry does not save more 

money than it costs to accelerate equipage. Mr. Borenstein stated the projections show there should be 

enough of a benefit if air carriers paid for equipage. However, the issue is whether a loan guarantee or 

a grant is better suited for financing the equipage. 

Mr. Hennigan stated the proposal, as it is currently written, is mindful of these issues and does not 

prescribe a specific funding option. He stated the wording suggests that the appropriate type of funding 

is determined by many factors. 

Mr. McKenzie stated a large part of accelerating NextGen is equipage of Automatic Dependent 

Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out, which is primarily a benefit to the Government, because it will 

allow for cost savings through decommissioning of some FAA radar installations. Mr. Pelton stated 

ADS-B Out involves putting infrastructure in place over the next 2 to 3 years, which would create new 

jobs. Therefore, there would be a significant benefit under the stimulus package. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

October 14, 2010

Teleconference 

7 

Ms. Christa Fornarotto, DOT, stated there is an understanding that the changes made from the stimulus 

package may take several years. She stated the idea is to look over a 3 year period and not focus on 

spending the funds immediately. 

Mr. Borenstein stated the argument is stronger if funds can be spent sooner rather than later. He stated, 

on the issue of cost sharing, reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions seemed like a minor impact and 

was not a good example for strengthening the argument for accelerated equipage. 

Mr. Pelton stated the environmental issues were included because NextGen will have a positive 

environmental impact. He stated the FAAC meeting will allow the subcommittees to discuss like ideas. 

He noted the Environmental Subcommittee is working on a similar proposal and their efforts may be 

combined with the efforts of the Finance Subcommittee. 

Mr. Kolshak agreed with the sentiments of Mr. Borenstein. Mr. Kolshak stated there is a projected 

21 percent savings in fuel but only a 2 percent reduction in CO2. Mr. Borenstein stated the calculation 

for determining the reduction in CO2 is straightforward, and the ratio of 10 to 1 for fuel savings versus 

carbon reduction will not change even with NextGen. 

Mr. Kulis asked if the proposal would need revision to include discussion of the stimulus package. 

Mr. Pelton stated the proposal was created on the premise that there is a benefit to accelerating 

equipage. He noted the issue is how to fund equipage, without specifying which funding vehicles 

should be utilized. He also stated the proposal should be left in a broad format. Mr. Pelton expressed 

concern about focusing solely on the stimulus package, because if the stimulus package changes, the 

funding of aircraft equipage may be lost. He emphasized a need for this proposal to survive, regardless 

of the agenda of the stimulus package. 

Best Equipped, Best Served 

Mr. Hennigan referred to an internal working document regarding the concept of “best equipped, best 

served,” for consideration by the subcommittee. He stated the paper outlines three ideas: (1) The FAA 

must focus on advancing the benefits of NextGen for those who are already equipped; (2) The FAA 

must improve the environmental review process to offer procedures that are both environmentally 

responsible and more efficient for operators; and (3) The FAA must take on the challenge of providing 

operational benefits to early adopters in a mixed equipage environment through “best equipped, best 

served.” He stated the proposal also discusses the need to create a time table to provide air carriers 

with more certainty of when benefits will be realized. 

Mr. Kolshak stated the initial “best equipped, best served” proposal works well with the acceleration of 

equipage under the NextGen proposal. He stated, according to the acceleration topic, all operators 

must equip with technology such as ADS-B to receive benefits. He further explained, “best equipped, 

best served” focuses on operators who choose to equip with technology such as area 

navigation (RNAV). Mr. Kolshak noted those operators who choose to equip should receive the 

benefits associated with their investment in NextGen equipment. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

October 14, 2010

Teleconference 

8 

Mr. Hennigan agreed with Mr. Kolshak’s examples. He stated the essence of this proposal is to get 

away from “first come, first served” to “best equipped, best served,” where appropriate, so operators 

who choose to equip can receive the benefits. He noted the need to accelerate development of 

procedures, rules, and training on how air traffic controllers and pilots will operate within the airspace 

to allow for an efficient transition to the new thought process, because “first come, first served” policy 

has been the only way of handling traffic until now. Mr. Pelton stated this is an operational issue and 

procedures and processes cannot stand in the way. 

Mr. Borenstein asked if any operators would oppose the “best equipped, best served” idea. 

Mr. Hennigan stated the need for a definition of “best equipped, best served”. He added there is no 

opposition at the subcommittee level. He also stated there may be opposition on a case-by-case basis 

as the procedures are implemented at particular airports. Mr. Kolshak agreed that air carriers with older 

fleets may oppose the “best equipped, best served” idea if the change puts that air carrier at a lower 

priority. He stated, even with that opposition, the greater good of this proposal should overcome any 

objection. 

Eligibility for AIP/PFC Funding 

Mr. Pelton stated the next topic for discussion is to review and update the eligibility criteria for AIP and 

PFC programs. Mr. Hennigan referred to a paper previously drafted and reviewed by the subcommittee 

and a separate paper provided by United (attachment 2). Both papers were provided to members in 

advance of this meeting. He stated the review of eligibility criteria at the last subcommittee meeting 

was substantial due in part because the traditional line between airport versus air traffic control 

projects and funding has become blurred. He stated the proposal regarding criteria for AIP/PFC 

funding suggests the FAA look at the current criteria and evaluate what changes should be made. 

Mr. Pelton stated this proposal was initiated because the airport community believes the definitions of 

AIP and PFC are too restrictive regarding ways to spend money. He stated the proposal started as a 

suggestion to evaluate the definitions so air carriers and general aviation can benefit from using airport 

resources. He added some of the feedback from subcommittee members reflected a desire to use AIP 

and PFC money to fund NextGen; however, that is not the intent of this proposal. Mr. Van Ostran 

agreed and stated the intent of the proposal is to broaden the definitions to offer airports the flexibility 

of using funds to benefit the airport. 

Mr. Kolshak stated United’s perspective was to accelerate NextGen’s operational improvement. He 

noted the definition of AIP infrastructure is antiquated because infrastructure now exists in aircraft as 

well as at airports. Mr. Van Ostran stated it will be too difficult to distinguish which funding goes to 

the airport and which funding would go to aircraft. He also stated the proposal would dilute the 

funding to which the airport has access. Mr. Van Ostran commented the problem with using 

AIP funding for aircraft equipage is that aircraft have access to all airports, therefore funding cannot 

come from just one airport. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

October 14, 2010

Teleconference 

9 

Ms. McElroy stated AIP funding has diminished over the years and the amount of money available for 

grants is lower. She noted AIP money has been used to fund the FAA Office of Airports, research and 

development, and other projects. She stated airports have supported the procedural developments that 

will help with efficiency, environmental noise benefits, and some NextGen improvements at airports. 

Ms. McElroy referred to the United paper and stated airports will not support air carriers having the 

right to approve certain projects. She stated AIP funding is designed for airports, which may work in 

cooperation with air carriers. However, the decisions must reside with airports and not air carriers. 

Mr. Kolshak stated he understood the aircraft equipage issues; however, he also stated his belief that 

the nature of NextGen is collaborative. He referred to an example of a system that monitors the 

location of airplanes at the airport. He stated the system helps with the flow of traffic in movement and 

non-movement areas at the airport. This system falls under the airport infrastructure category, but 

benefits air carriers. 

Ms. McElroy stated air carriers are not needed to approve decisions. She noted one air carrier might 

not be in favor of technological improvements if these improvements change the level of competition 

achievable by the air carrier. 

Mr. Van Ostran stated the purpose of the proposal is to broaden the definition for AIP and PFC projects. 

He stated, as long as there is a positive cost-benefit for the airports, the airports should have flexibility 

in how to use the funds. He commented if the costs at airports can be lowered, then the cost to 

air carriers will be reduced. 

Ms. McElroy referred to improvements made at four airports in Colorado. She noted the State used its 

own money to fund a project allowing for safer navigation; however, the issue of using State money 

blurs the idea of the proposal. 

Mr. Pelton stated when the proposal was first discussed, the original ideas did not include accelerating 

NextGen. He stated, while there are NextGen implications, it is not the primary issue. Mr. Pelton 

stated the proposal has been changed to exclude airport rates and charges. He added the proposal 

should focus on reviewing and modernizing the criteria in AIP and PFC funding. Ms. McElroy agreed, 

as long as the criteria do not extend to aircraft equipage. 

Mr. Borenstein stated the subcommittee seems to agree there needs to be more flexibility in the AIP and 

PFC definitions. He added there seems to be concern that the air carriers and airports will not agree on 

how the funding is used. Mr. Borenstein stated there should be flexibility in the definition, but it must 

not be so broad that it includes items outside of the original scope. He also wanted to remove the 

portion of the proposal allowing air carriers to veto decisions made at airports. 

Mr. Van Ostran stated airports currently must consult with the air carriers on the use of PFC funding. 

He stated sometimes a project will still go forward even though the air carriers do not support the 

project. Mr. Van Ostran commented there are things airports can do to benefit both the airport and the 

air carriers, but the projects still must remain airport-centric. He stated there is a common interest in 

expanding how the funds can be spent, provided it benefits one or both of the parties. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

October 14, 2010

Teleconference 

10 

Mr. Pelton stated there is a need to rewrite the proposal, stepping away from the broad context. 

Mr. Kolshak agreed the proposal could be rewritten to consider both the air carrier and airport points 

of view. 

Mr. Van Ostran suggested the proposal also look at criteria for AIP/PFC funding from a cost-benefit 

standpoint. He stated the focus on lowering operating costs should be in the forefront of decisions to 

use AIP or PFC funding. Mr. Kulis stated a data call could be helpful to determine where exactly 

airports want to use the money. He stated this information could help solidify the proposal. 

Mr. Hennigan asked if there is a way to craft a general proposal that modernizes the criteria, without 

getting into too specific details. Mr. Kolshak stated the original proposal tasks the FAA to review and 

redefine what is meant by aviation infrastructure, and to modernize eligibility criteria for AIP and PFC. 

Mr. Hennigan suggested that should be the essence of the proposal. He added the subcommittee should 

keep the proposal at a high level to avoid dissent. 

Mr. Hennigan stated, to prepare for the October 20, 2010 FAAC meeting in Los Angeles, California, 

the airport community should look at the proposal and make revisions based on this discussion. 

Mr. Van Ostran volunteered to take the lead on the revisions. Mr. Van Ostran, Mr. Kolshak, Mr. Kulis, 

and Ms. McElroy agreed to collaborate and revise the AIP and PFC proposal and circulate the revisions 

via email. 

CLOSING REMARKS/NEXT MEETING

Mr. Pelton reviewed the four focus items: (1) AMT exemption; (2) funding of aircraft equipage; 

(3) delivery of the benefits of NextGen through “best equipped, best served”; and (4) eligibility criteria 

for AIP and PFC funding. 

Mr. Pelton listed the following action items to prepare for the October 20, 2010 FAAC meeting in 

Los Angeles, California: (1) the need for examples to strengthen the AMT proposal; (2) clarification of 

funding of the aircraft equipage proposal; and (3) creation of a broader proposal for AIP and PFC 

program eligibility. 

Mr. Pelton stated there is a need for another Finance Subcommittee meeting because the 

October 20, 2010 FAAC meeting will result in streamlining the proposals from all five subcommittees. 

He stated a mid-November 2010 subcommittee meeting will allow the subcommittee to finalize its 

proposals before the FAAC concludes in December 2010. The subcommittee members agreed to meet 

on November 17, 2010 in Washington, DC. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee 

Subcommittee on Financing 

Record of Meeting 

October 14, 2010

Teleconference 

11 

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Hennigan adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m. 

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete. 

Approved by: ____________________________________________ 

John Hennigan, Designated Federal Official 

Dated: __________________________________________________