Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting October 14, 2010

T

eleconference

1 Public Announcement
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Of fice of the Secretary of Transportation, told the public of this Future of Aviation Advisory Comm ittee (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

T

eleconference

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

B ACKGROUND AND W ELCOMING R EMARKS

This is the record of the fourth meeting of the Subcommittee on Fina ncing of the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC), a Federal advisory co mmittee formed pursuant to and subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Ac t (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 atte ndance, 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 main taining adherence to the agenda, keeping accurate minutes, and adjourning the meeting if necessary.

Mr. Hennigan noted meetings of the subcommittee ar e accessible to the public and stated interested people have the opportunity to submit comment s 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 regul atory docket and on the FAAC Web site at http://www.dot.gov/faac

. Mr. Hennigan read the formal st atement 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 altern ates, 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 ra tify 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

T

eleconference

3 D ISCUSSION

Mr. Pelton reviewed the agenda for the meeting, which included discussion of four topics: (1) Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) exemption; (2) f unding of aircraft equipa ge; (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 th e FAAC meeting on October 20, 2010, in Los Angeles, California. He stat ed 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 comb ined and issues that may need more detail. Mr. Pelton added he will present th e subcommittee’s issues via telec onference 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 reli ef from the AMT provisi ons for private activity bonds. He referred to a paper wri tten by the airport community (attach ment 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 ex emption 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-ben efit, ACI-NA noted that for every dollar spent, the Government receives $20 back. Mr. Kulis st ated 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 ?] pr ivate activity bonds totaling a co st of $6.4 million to the Federal Government per year.
Mr. Pelton asked if the $49 million total is for all pr ivate activity bonds subject to the AMT, or just private activity bonds for airport projects. Mr. Kulis stated the total, as no ted in the ACI-NA paper, includes airports, as well as stud ent loans, housing, and other public projects subject to the AMT.

Mr. Severin Borenstein, Haas School of Busi ness, asked from where the savings come. Ms. Debby McElroy, ACI-NA, stated the FAA has b een keeping a running to tal of bonds issued by airports, as well as entities ta king advantage of the 2 year AMT holiday. She commented there are savings from financing bonds at a lo wer 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 somethi ng costing $6 million can generate $1 billion in savings. Mr. Pelton stated the $1 billion savings has been over the lif e of the AMT holiday. Mr. Stan Van Ostran, Metropolitan Nashville Airports Authority, noted the $1 bi llion 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 toFuture of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting October 14, 2010

T

eleconference

4 reduce rates and charges at airports.

Mr. Borenstein asked about the pricing of bond interest ra tes. He stated the interest rate differential is driven by the tax savings of individu als 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 mo re than the actual best forecast of their savings in taxes because of the uncertainty created by AMT. Ms. McElroy stated i nvestors are looking for a premium on those bonds and airports have to pay higher inte rest 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 pushi ng this issue because there is no equivalent bond to show the interest rate differential. He stated th ese 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 ch allenge 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 m eeting in Chicago, Illinois, which illustrates an example. Mr. Van Ostran agreed a nd 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 opti ons, offered a savings of $11 million over a 30 year period.

Mr. Borenstein stated that type of example will he lp 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 th e 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 pape r regarding the funding of aircraft equipage. This paper is anFuture of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting October 14, 2010

T

eleconference

5 internal working document for consideration by the s ubcommittee. He asked Mr. Hennigan to discuss the details of the paper.

Mr. Hennigan stated this template on funding aircraftequipage was developed at the last subcommittee meeting. He stated the subcommittee had discu ssions 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 whet her there were cost-benefit analyses to support the proposal. Mr. Hennigan stated the subcommitt ee 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 conduc ting a cost-benefit anal ysis 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 co nsidering this issue since April 2010. He stated the President has recently announced additional stimulus funding (unde r the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) for NextGen, which supports the ideas of the subcommittee.

Mr. Hennigan stated the cost-ben efit analysis of the acceleration of equipage has not yet been completed by the government. He noted difficulties with the cost-benefit an alysis, 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 preliminar y indication is the overall investme nt in accelerating equipage is cost-beneficial; however, ther e is still work to be done. He stated the cost-benefit analys is is in process to help justify the acc eleration 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 document ation to determine the amount of the stimulus package to be used for NextGen equipage. A s ubcommittee 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

T

eleconference

6 Mr. Borenstein stated there are f our major issues: (1) cost-benefit of NextGen in 2020; (2) cost-benefit of accelerating NextGen; (3) who pays for the equi page; and (4) whether the Government should pay for equipage from general funds rather than industry pa yment. He stated if stimulus funds are allocated for aviation, then these funds must be spent quic kly. Mr. Borenstein added, funds must go toward projects that can begin in the ne ar term to provide economic stimulus to a slow economy. He also noted the year 2014 does not qualify for stimulus f unds. He stated more information needs to be provided to support arguments on funding aircraft equipage.

Mr. Hennigan stated the President w ould likely agree with the need fo r 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 stat ed equipage will not be an immediate upgrade, but will happen over time. He added, in terms of payi ng 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 mismat ch in the timing of cost and benefits.

Mr. Kolshak stated some upgrades can be done relatively quickly, dependi ng upon the airplane. He noted completing upgrades during scheduled mainte nance would be convenient. However, if necessary, air carriers could change maintenance sche dules or set up special ma intenance lines to equip aircraft on an expedited basis.

Mr. Borenstein stated this proposal needs to go be yond the DOT to the OMB for evaluation. He stated his belief that the concern of us ing 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 cons idered a failure if the i ndustry does not save more money than it costs to accelerate equipage. Mr. Borens tein stated the projections show there should be enough of a benefit if air carriers paid for equipage. However, the issue is whet her a loan guarantee or a grant is better suited fo r financing the equipage.

Mr. Hennigan stated the proposal, as it is currently written, is mind ful of these issues and does not prescribe a specific funding option. He stated the wording suggests thatthe appropriate type of funding is determined by many factors.

Mr. McKenzie stated a large part of accelerating NextGen is e quipage of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out, which is prim arily a benefit to the G overnment, because it will allow for cost savings through deco mmissioning of some FAA radar in stallations. Mr. Pelton stated ADS-B Out involves putting infrastruc ture in place over the next 2 to 3 years, which would create new jobs. Therefore, there would be a signif icant benefit under the stimulus package.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting October 14, 2010

T

eleconference

7 Ms. Christa Fornarotto, DOT, stated there is an unde rstanding that the changes made from the stimulus package may take several years. She stated the id ea 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 soone r rather than late r. He stated, on the issue of cost shari ng, reduced carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 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 worki ng on a similar proposal a nd their efforts may be combined with the efforts of the Finance Subcommittee.

Mr. Kolshak agreed with the sentiments of Mr. Bore nstein. Mr. Kolshak stat ed there is a projected 21 percent savings in fuel but only a 2 percent reduction in CO 2 . Mr. Borenstein stated the calculation for determining the reduction in CO 2 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 e quipage, without specifying which funding vehicles should be utilized. He also stated the proposal shoul d be left in a broad format. Mr. Pelton expressed concern about focusing solely on the stimulus packag e, because if the stimulus package changes, the funding of aircraft equipage may be lost. He emphas ized a need for this propos al to survive, regardless of the agenda of the stimulus package.

Best Equipped, Best Served Mr. Hennigan referred to an intern al working document regarding the concept of “best equipped, best served,” for consideration by the subcommittee. He stated the paper outlines th ree ideas: (1) The FAA must focus on advancing the benefi ts of NextGen for those who ar e 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 ta ke on the challenge of providing operational benefits to early adopters in a mixe d equipage environment through “best equipped, best served.” He stated the proposal al so 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 we ll with the acce leration of equipage under the NextGen proposal. He stated, according to the accelerati on 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 choos e to equip with technology such as area navigation (RNAV). Mr. Kolshak noted those op erators who choose to equip should receive the benefits associated with their i nvestment in NextGen equipment.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting October 14, 2010

T

eleconference

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 equi pped, best served,” where appropriate, so operators who choose to equip can receive the benefits. He noted the need to ac celerate 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 “bes t equipped, best served”. He added there is no opposition at the subcommittee level. He also stat ed there may be opposition on a case-by-case basis as the procedures are implemented at particular airports. Mr. Kolshak agreed thatair 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 th e eligibility criteria for AIP and PFC programs. Mr. Hennigan referred to a paper pr eviously drafted and reviewed by the subcommittee and a separate paper provided by United (attachment 2). Both pape rs 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 becaus e the traditional line between airport versus air traffic control projects and funding has become blurred. He stat ed the proposal regarding criteria for AIP/PFC funding suggests the FAA look at th e 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 sp end money. He stated the proposal started as a suggestion to evaluate the definiti ons so air carriers and general av iation 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

T

eleconference

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 us ed to fund the FAA Office of Airports, research and development, and other projects. She stated airports ha ve supported the procedural developments that will help with efficiency, environmental noise bene fits, 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. Howe ver, the decisions must reside w ith 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 collabora tive. He referred to an example of a system that monitors the location of airplanes at the airport. He stated the sy stem 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 fo r AIP and PFC projects. He stated, as long as there is a positive cost-benefit fo r the airports, the airports should have flexibility in how to use the funds. He comm ented 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 ai rports in Colorado. She noted the State used its own money to fund a project allowing for safer navi gation; 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 ar e NextGen implications, it is notthe primary issue. Mr. Pelton stated the proposal has been changed to exclude ai rport rates and charges. He added the proposal should focus on reviewing and modern izing 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 ite ms outside of the original scope. He also wanted to remove the portion of the proposal allowi ng air carriers to veto deci sions made at airports.

Mr. Van Ostran stated airports currently must cons ult with the air carriers on the use of PFC funding. He stated sometimes a project will still go forw ard 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 mu st remain airport-centric. He st ated there is a common interest in expanding how the funds can be spent, provide d it benefits one or both of the parties.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Financing Record of Meeting October 14, 2010

T

eleconference

10 Mr. Pelton stated there is a need to rewrite the proposal, stepping away from the broad context. Mr. Kolshak agreed the proposal coul d 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 f unding 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 c ould help solidify the proposal.

Mr. Hennigan asked if there is a wa y to craft a general proposal that modernizes the criteria, without getting into too specific details. Mr. Kolshak stated the original pr oposal 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 2 0, 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 th e revisions. Mr. Van Ostran, Mr. Kolshak, Mr. Kulis, and Ms. McElroy agreed to collaborate and revise the AIP and PFC proposal a nd circulate the revisions via email.

C LOSING R EMARKS /N EXT M EETING

Mr. Pelton reviewed the four focus items: (1) AM T exemption; (2) funding of aircraft equipage; (3) delivery of the benefits of Ne xtGen through “best equipped, best serv ed”; 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 th e 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 anot her Finance Subcommittee meeting because the October 20, 2010 FAAC meeting will result in stream lining the proposals from all five subcommittees. He stated a mid-November 2010 subcommittee meeti ng 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 A DJOURNMENT

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, Designate d Federal Official

Dated: __________________________________________________