Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: AIR TRANSPORTATION IN THE UNITED STATES IN THE 21ST CENTURY</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





	BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: AIR TRANSPORTATION
	IN THE UNITED STATES IN THE 21ST CENTURY

	=======================================================================

	(115-4)

	HEARING

	BEFORE THE

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON
	AVIATION

	OF THE

	COMMITTEE ON
	TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	__________

	MARCH 8, 2017

	__________

	Printed for the use of the
	Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure




	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]








	Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
	committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
	______

	U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

	24-655 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
	-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
	Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
	DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
	Washington, DC 20402-0001

















	COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

	BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

	DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
	JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
	Vice Chair Columbia
	FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JERROLD NADLER, New York
	SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
	DUNCAN HUNTER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
	ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington
	LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
	BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
	BOB GIBBS, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
	DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
	JEFF DENHAM, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
	THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JOHN GARAMENDI, California
	MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
	SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Georgia
	RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
	MARK SANFORD, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
	ROB WOODALL, Georgia DINA TITUS, Nevada
	TODD ROKITA, Indiana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
	JOHN KATKO, New York ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
	BRIAN BABIN, Texas Vice Ranking Member
	GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
	BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
	DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
	MIKE BOST, Illinois JULIA BROWNLEY, California
	RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
	DOUG LaMALFA, California DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
	BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
	LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
	PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
	JOHN J. FASO, New York
	A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia
	BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
	JASON LEWIS, Minnesota

	(ii)




	Subcommittee on Aviation

	FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman

	DON YOUNG, Alaska RICK LARSEN, Washington
	JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
	SAM GRAVES, Missouri DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
	DUNCAN HUNTER, California ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
	BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
	BOB GIBBS, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
	DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida Columbia
	JEFF DENHAM, California DINA TITUS, NEVADA
	THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
	MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JULIA BROWNLEY, California
	SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
	RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
	MARK SANFORD, South Carolina MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
	ROB WOODALL, Georgia GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
	TODD ROKITA, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
	BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
	DOUG LaMALFA, California Georgia
	BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
	PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan, Vice Chair PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
	JASON LEWIS, Minnesota Officio)
	BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
	Officio)

	(iii)















	CONTENTS

	Page

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

	TESTIMONY

	Brad Tilden, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Air
	Group, Inc..................................................... 6
	Russell ``Chip'' Childs, President and Chief Executive Officer,
	SkyWest, Inc................................................... 6
	Joseph C. Hete, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air
	Transport Services Group, Inc.................................. 6
	Sara Nelson, International President, Association of Flight
	Attendants--CWA, AFL-CIO....................................... 6
	Charles Leocha, President, Travelers United, Inc................. 6

	PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

	Brad Tilden...................................................... 42
	Russell ``Chip'' Childs.......................................... 45
	Joseph C. Hete................................................... 55
	Sara Nelson...................................................... 58
	Charles Leocha................................................... 71

	SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

	Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
	Washington, submission of the following:

	Written statement from Captain Timothy Canoll, President, Air
	Line Pilots Association, International..................... 81
	Letter of March 7, 2017, from Captain Timothy Canoll,
	President, Air Line Pilots Association, International...... 88
	Written statement from Robert A. Ross, National President,
	Association of Professional Flight Attendants.............. 90
	Chart prepared by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
	Congress from the State of Oregon, submitted by Hon. Todd
	Rokita, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana. 17

	ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

	Written statements from:

	Christian A. Klein, Executive Vice President, Aeronautical
	Repair Station Association................................. 93
	Atlas Air Worldwide.......................................... 98
	Stephen A. Alterman, President, Cargo Airline Association.... 100
	Candace McGraw, Chief Executive Officer, Cincinnati/Northern
	Kentucky International Airport, et al...................... 102
	Will Lofberg, Vice President, International, Government and
	Environment Affairs, Emirates Airline...................... 104
	FedEx Corporation............................................ 111
	Phillip N. Brown, Executive Director, Greater Orlando
	Aviation Authority......................................... 118
	Jonathan Ornstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mesa
	Air Group, Inc............................................. 122
	Frode Berg, Chief Legal Officer, Norwegian Air Shuttle....... 124
	Paralyzed Veterans of America................................ 130
	William J. Flynn, President and Chief Executive Officer,
	Atlas Air Worldwide, et al., on behalf of U.S. Airlines for
	Open Skies................................................. 136




	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



	BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: AIR TRANSPORTATION
	IN THE UNITED STATES IN THE 21ST CENTURY

	----------


	WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2017

	House of Representatives,
	Subcommittee on Aviation,
	Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
	Washington, DC.
	The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
	room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A.
	LoBiondo (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
	order. Thank you all for being here.
	Before I begin the prepared remarks, I would like to thank
	the Colgan family for once again being here, for so many of
	them being so strong in their continued dedication and
	commitment to enduring aviation safety. So thank you very much.
	Today, the Aviation Subcommittee is holding its third
	hearing in preparation for the upcoming FAA authorization bill.
	As all of you know, the focus of the Transportation and
	Infrastructure Committee this year is ``Building a 21st-Century
	Infrastructure for America.'' Today, we will be looking at the
	current state of our Nation's air transportation system and
	those who operate in it. We will also learn what those
	operators believe are needed for the system to move into the
	future.
	And we also want to learn from those in the public in the
	days ahead. We have created a dedicated email address to
	receive your ideas and welcome them very much. It is
	<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="17636576796467786563717272737576747c577a767e7b397f7862647239707861">[email protected]</a>. Please send us your ideas.
	Air transportation has become so commonplace that we really
	don't think about what an impact it has on our daily lives.
	Journeys that once took days, weeks, or even months are now
	safely completed in hours. We can order something online and
	have it delivered the next day.
	Today, air travel is routinely and readily available to
	millions of Americans. In fact, last year more than 800 million
	passengers traveled by air within the United States, a figure
	that is projected to grow to 1 billion within 10 years.
	This remarkable system is a testament to the hard work of
	the pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and others who take
	us safely across the country and around the world.
	Air transportation in the United States is diverse. Along
	with private aviation, it also includes mainline airlines,
	regionals, all-cargo airlines, and charter companies, each
	playing a vital role in meeting various needs of the traveling
	public and economy.
	Mainline airlines connect our major cities and also connect
	us to other countries. Regional airlines help connect many
	small and medium-size communities to large hub airports,
	providing them access to the globe. For other communities and
	certain travelers, such as small business operators, charter
	service or fractional ownership may be the only viable air
	transport option. Cargo airlines allow for our factories and
	supply chain inventories to remain fully stocked and keep goods
	flowing between businesses to consumers. They also play a large
	role in e-commerce.
	Our panel today represents a range of air transportation
	companies and stakeholders. Each witness brings a unique
	expertise and perspective on the state of our system. I look
	forward to their testimony on how Congress can help facilitate
	the building of a 21st-century aviation infrastructure.
	Before recognizing Ranking Member Larsen for his remarks, I
	would like to ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
	hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have
	provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them
	in writing and unanimous consent that the record remain open
	for 15 additional days for comments and information submitted
	by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
	hearing.
	Without objection, so ordered.
	I would now like to yield to Mr. Larsen for any remarks he
	may have.
	Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today's
	hearing on the state of today's U.S. air transportation
	industry. I too would like to recognize the families of the
	passengers of Colgan flight 3407 who are with us today.
	Welcome, and thank you for your tireless efforts to improve
	aviation safety.
	I also want to welcome to today's panel of witnesses Brad
	Tilden, the CEO of Seattle-based Alaska Airlines and a fellow
	Aleut. Brad and I know what that is. It is not necessary to
	explain it.
	The U.S. airspace is the busiest and most complex in the
	world and is undergoing a historic shift in modernization in
	the form of FAA's NextGen program. Alaska Airlines has been a
	strong advocate for NextGen, which has delivered more than $2.7
	billion in benefits to airlines and operators of GA aircraft
	and is expected to produce $13 billion in benefits for the
	Government and users by 2020 and over $160 billion by 2030.
	I understand that NextGen's performance-based navigation or
	PBN procedures allow Alaska Airlines flights to fly more
	directly and precisely into Juno each day. And the Greener
	Skies initiative improves the efficiency of the airline's
	flights, its landings at Sea-Tac International Airport.
	So, Mr. Tilden, I look forward to hearing from you today
	about how the state-of-the-art NextGen technologies and
	procedures are improving efficiency in today's airspace and
	providing benefits for the aviation industry generally.
	Not only the busiest and most complex, the U.S. is the
	safest aviation system in the world, and I would like to
	commend the FAA and all the industry witnesses here today and
	everyone involved in the air transportation system for their
	coordination and continued commitment to ensuring the highest
	level of safety. This laudable safety record of U.S. commercial
	airlines in recent years is due in large part to the 2010
	congressional mandate that each airline pilot possesses an
	airline transportation certificate. I personally support that.
	I believe that current pilot training requirements are
	nonnegotiable.
	At the same time, though, I realize that some regional air
	carriers, among them there is some concern about the shortage
	of pilots in this country. So earlier this week Ranking Member
	DeFazio and I made a request to the Department of
	Transportation's inspector general--I am sorry. At our request,
	the DOT inspector general reported that some regional airlines
	have started increasing pay to attract additional pilots. That
	is a step in the right direction.
	I also look forward to hearing today from Ms. Sara Nelson
	from the Association of Flight Attendants. We are in the midst
	of the safest period in U.S. civil aviation history, thanks in
	large part to the hard work of U.S. flight attendants. Their
	training and readiness to spring into action have saved lives
	and dangerous accidents. Therefore, it is critical that flight
	attendants are well-rested and that out-of-date Federal
	regulations of flight attendants' flight and duty periods are
	reformed.
	Last year's long-term FAA bill, as reported by the
	committee, included such a provision. I look forward to working
	with Chairman LoBiondo to ensure its inclusion in the FAA bill
	this year.
	And today, I am pleased to join with Ranking Member DeFazio
	in introducing a bill to improve passengers' travel experience
	by requiring airlines to be more transparent about what they
	will do for passengers caught up in large-scale network
	meltdowns, among other things.
	We must continue to ensure the air travel experience is
	fair and devoid of discrimination. On this front, I was pleased
	to have included in last year's short-term bill a provision on
	air travel accessibility and look forward to hearing what more
	the subcommittee can do to improve passengers' travel
	experience.
	And finally, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for unanimous
	consent that written statements prepared by the Air Line Pilots
	Association, International and the Association of Professional
	Flight Attendants be entered into the record.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Without objection, so ordered.

	[The information can be found on pages 81-92.]

	Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the
	witnesses' testimony.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Now I would like to recognize Mr. Shuster for
	any comments he may have.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo. Let me start by
	echoing your thanks to the families, the Colgan families, for
	being here, and your efforts to make sure that we have the
	safest possible system we can have. And so thank you very much
	for that dedication.
	I want to thank Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking Member Larsen
	again for this third in a series of the Aviation Subcommittee
	hearings focusing on FAA reauthorization and building a 21st-
	century aviation system for America. I look forward to
	discussing the state of the transportation industry. It is a
	vital industry to America. It is one of our most important, one
	we invented, and it for all my efforts is to continue to make
	sure that America leads the aviation industry in the world.
	Private air transportation plays an important role in our
	aviation system, connecting our smaller communities. I come
	from a rural community. It is vital that we have those
	connections. The general aviation also provides a tremendous
	training ground for potential future pilots to be able to go to
	work for the bigger carriers to make sure that we have the
	levels necessary to staff those planes and to continue to grow
	air transportation in this country.
	As I said, we have been a leader in it, and I want to
	maintain that leadership in the world. We have done lots of
	things over the last 40 years, from low-cost carriers,
	fractional ownership, giving people more and more choices, how
	we get our tickets, whether it is an e-ticket, which I am still
	not sure I know how to do, but I stumble along.
	It is true. I know what Aleut means, too. That is what
	pirates used to do.
	But, no, I stumble and bumble along with the technology,
	but having 20-year-old kids, they seem to get me to where I am
	going, as well as Mr. Larsen sometimes helps me.
	Again, in 2016, we took steps in the extension to help
	families sit together, things like that, that we thought would
	be helpful to the folks that are traveling in this country.
	Forty years after airline deregulation, which occurred in
	1978, the airline industry continues to evolve. And I am really
	interested in hearing from our witnesses today and to continue
	efforts to evolve and provide America with more choices, more
	opportunities for safe air travel.
	So I look forward to being here. Thank all of you for being
	here and taking the time to help educate us and help in this
	discussion.
	And with that I yield back.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Now I would like to turn to Mr. DeFazio for
	any remarks.
	Peter.
	Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	You know, we are living in the safest period of the U.S.
	civil aviation history. We can all be thankful for that. We
	want to sustain that. We are also looking at one of the longest
	and most profitable sustained periods for the airlines,
	combined after-tax profit, $25.6 billion in 2015, including
	$6.8 billion in bag and reservation change fees.
	And I would like to recognize that Brad Tilden here,
	representing Alaska, registered a record profit in 2016 of
	nearly $1 billion. Congratulations.
	A healthy industry is good for everyone, travelers,
	employees, our economy as a whole, and we want to see this
	continue into the future.
	I am concerned, and Ranking Member Larsen raised it
	earlier, about the IT situation. We had many thousands, tens of
	thousands of people stranded over the last couple of years
	because of IT meltdowns, some that relate to the dispatch of
	the planes, some that relate to the reservation systems.
	One high-profile event at Chicago Midway International
	Airport was described by a travel blogger as a war zone with
	the floors covered by stranded passengers. None of the airlines
	represented here today caused those disruptions, although
	SkyWest partnered some that did, and I am going to be
	interested if Mr. Childs has any reflection upon how difficult
	it was for them and their intended passengers because of those
	problems.
	So the bill we introduced would give people--I mean, people
	in Chicago Midway were just told by that particular airline: Go
	look at your contract of carriage if you want to know what you
	can get. We think it should be a little more clear than paging
	through the fine print somewhere online what obligations the
	airlines have when the airline itself has caused the problem
	with an IT meltdown. So I have introduced that bill today.
	The most important issue, as I said earlier, is safety. And
	we have Colgan families here today, many of whom I have met
	with and worked with in the past, and I appreciate your
	persistence. I think probably I first raised the issue of 250
	hours rating back in the early 1990s. It took way too long to
	change that, and unfortunately you had tremendous losses that
	ultimately did lead to that change. You know, I observed many
	times that people who are becoming hair stylists and
	manicurists in Oregon had to have 600 hours of training, but
	you could have people's lives in your hands and fly a plane
	with 250 hours. That was not adequate.
	Some are out there saying that this has led to a pilot
	shortage. As Ranking Member Larsen said earlier, we have a
	study showing that the pay is pathetically low at some regional
	airlines. Just look at Embry-Riddle. If you go to school there
	and go through the training for your certificate, it comes to
	about $300,000.
	But say, OK, some are advocating let's roll back the hours
	and some other things, cut the cost. All right, let's cut it
	down to $200,000 to get a certificate, something I don't
	support. But if you think about what that means, $200,000 is a
	little over $2,000 a month on your loans, and you are earning
	$20,000 a year.
	Now how does negative $4,000 income work out? That is why
	we had the copilot on the Colgan flight living in her parents'
	basement in Seattle and deadheading across the country. That
	shouldn't happen.
	And a lot of young people are not going to make a rational
	decision to become pilots until the pay better matches the
	costs of getting the certificate and engaging in that
	occupation. So I think that is a problem, but weakening the
	rules is not the solution.
	With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
	time.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
	I would now like to turn to our witnesses. And on the panel
	today included are Mr. Brad Tilden, chairman and chief
	executive officer of Alaska Air Group; Mr. Russell ``Chip''
	Childs, president and chief executive officer of SkyWest,
	Incorporated; Mr. Joseph Hete, president and chief executive
	officer of Air Transport Services Group; Ms. Sara Nelson,
	international president of the Association of Flight
	Attendants--CWA, AFL-CIO; and Mr. Charles Leocha, chairman and
	cofounder of Travelers United.
	Mr. Tilden, you are recognized for your statement.

	TESTIMONY OF BRAD TILDEN, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
	ALASKA AIR GROUP, INC.; RUSSELL ``CHIP'' CHILDS, PRESIDENT AND
	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SKYWEST, INC.; JOSEPH C. HETE,
	PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES
	GROUP, INC.; SARA NELSON, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION
	OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS--CWA, AFL-CIO; AND CHARLES LEOCHA,
	PRESIDENT, TRAVELERS UNITED, INC.

	Mr. Tilden. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen,
	Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the
	committee, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify
	today. It is a real pleasure to be here to talk about Alaska
	Airlines and the industry.
	My name is Brad Tilden, and I am the CEO of Alaska Air
	Group. Alaska Airlines is the fifth-largest airline in the
	United States following our recent acquisition of Virgin
	America. We now have approximately 19,000 employees, 280
	aircraft, and we fly about 1,200 flights a day.
	While that may or may not sound like a large company, we
	are small by airline standards. We have been in business for 85
	years, but we don't fit the legacy carrier mold in that we are
	low cost, low fare, and in the end that we have grown at a
	significantly higher rate than the average airline.
	Our customer-facing employees are focused on making the
	flying experience from start to finish as great as possible
	every day for our guests. As a testament to their skill and
	dedication, we are honored to have been recognized for 9
	consecutive years by J.D. Power as the best traditional network
	airline.
	We are bullish on the airline industry, and we believe that
	with our cost structure, customer orientation, and operational
	capability, Alaska is well positioned to take advantage of an
	improving industry. Warren Buffett, who in the past famously
	derided investing in airlines, now invests nearly $10 billion
	in the industry. That says something.
	The industry has changed a lot in the last 10 to 15 years.
	The pervasive bankruptcies and consolidation we have dealt with
	have been painful and challenging, but the industry as a whole
	is now in a different and healthier place. Airlines are
	investing in their facilities, people, and products in order to
	win new customers.
	For example, Alaska recently launched premium class
	service, providing our guests more leg room and amenities as an
	option. We are enhancing in-flight entertainment and
	connectivity options. We are adding popular new local food and
	beverage options. And we are taking steps to make our industry-
	leading mileage plan even better. Beyond these areas, we are
	also making major capital investments in things like new seats,
	space-saving bins, and airport improvements.
	Despite improvements in the industry, it is more important
	than ever that aviation policy supports vigorous competition.
	Today, the four largest airlines comprise more than 80 percent
	of the domestic market, whereas 10 to 15 years ago it took nine
	airlines to make up that much of the market.
	As you consider aviation policy issues, we ask you to
	embrace policies to keep the industry vibrant, including
	enhancing the ability for smaller carriers to gain access to
	constrained airports and enhancing our ability to share feed
	traffic with larger airlines.
	On that point, there are different perspectives on the Gulf
	Carrier Open Skies issue. As a smaller airline without a global
	network, Alaska needs to partner with airlines from around the
	globe to have a chance of competing with U.S. airlines that
	have a global footprint and that can offer a one-stop shop to
	customers needing global access. We believe it is imperative
	that the U.S. Government do zero harm to the vibrant U.S. Open
	Skies policy.
	The subject of this hearing is about building 21st-century
	infrastructure in America. Alaska believes it is imperative to
	speed up modernization of air traffic control to deal with
	increasing congestion and delays and to bring it into the
	modern era. To be fair, modern GPS technology is used today by
	most airlines for the en route portion of flights, but once an
	airplane starts its descent, efficient operations are typically
	interrupted by the use of 1950s-era radar-based manual
	procedures.
	Herein lies a big opportunity. We need to modernize the
	system to connect the en route navigation structure with the
	arrival and approach phases of a flight.
	Alaska Airlines is deeply familiar with this technology. In
	the mid-1990s, we pioneered what is called required navigation
	performance, which are GPS-based approaches and which are a key
	building block of NextGen. However, today, more than 20 years
	later, we use these RNP approaches for just 4 percent of our
	approaches nationwide.
	We believe that in the future airplanes should not be
	vectored left and right for spacing and engines shifted from
	idle to powered as airplanes descend and then level off in a
	stairstep approach to the runway. Instead, aircraft should
	arrive at a specific waypoint in the sky at a predetermined
	point in time to provide for spacing, and they should then
	begin a continuous glide at idle power, following a precise
	curving flight path down to the runway. This will allow more
	airplanes into the system. It will materially reduce noise,
	fuel consumption, travel time delays, and environmental
	emissions.
	As a pilot myself, I can tell you that this country's air
	traffic controllers manage the safest system in the world, and
	the FAA is full of talented professionals who have made
	progress with NextGen. However, under current governance and
	funding, we run a real risk that demand for airspace is going
	to rise at a rate that is more rapid than our rate of
	technology innovation, worsening delays.
	While we understand ATC reform may be a topic of future
	hearings, and while we know that there are numerous viewpoints
	on this subject, we would like to go on record with our belief
	that ATC reform, including the separation of ATC operations
	into an independent, nonprofit entity, as most other
	industrialized countries have done, is needed, and such a
	change will allow innovation and technology deployment to
	flourish.
	Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak with you
	today.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
	Mr. Childs, you are recognized.
	Mr. Childs. Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member
	Larsen, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and
	distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am Chip Childs,
	president and CEO of SkyWest, Inc., which is the largest
	regional airline in the world.
	SkyWest, Inc. owns and operates two regional airlines,
	SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet Airlines. Combined, these
	entities complete more than 3,000 flights per day and carry 53
	million passengers a year. This includes service to more than
	250 cities in North America, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean.
	On behalf of SkyWest, ExpressJet, and more than 18,000
	employees, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and
	offer testimony about the importance of the regional airline
	industry.
	Regional airlines operate under parts 121 and 135 and
	generally utilize aircraft with fewer than 100 seats in
	partnership with major airlines. As such, we are held to the
	same safety standards as mainline carriers. We treat Federal
	safety regulations as the floor, not the ceiling, and take
	pride in meeting and exceeding these standards.
	We believe in one level of safety for all passenger
	carriers, and our safety culture drives everything at SkyWest
	and ExpressJet. To that end, we utilize advanced technology and
	innovative safety programs. Our flight crews and mechanics are
	some of the most experienced and thoroughly trained in the
	entire airline industry, with training programs that are lauded
	by the FAA.
	We are part of the regional airline industry, which is by
	no means small. In 2015, regional airlines operated 44 percent
	of the Nation's departures and safely carried 157 million
	passengers on nearly 4 million departures, about 11,000
	departures a day.
	We play a critical role in the aviation industry by
	connecting communities large and small to the global air
	transportation network. We fly as Delta Connection, American
	Eagle, United Express, and in partnership with Alaska Airlines.
	We share our majors' codes and have their names, color schemes,
	and logos painted on our aircraft.
	Regional airlines are job creators. Our industry employs
	more than 59,000 employees. Among these employees are
	approximately 15,000 flight attendants and 20,000 pilots, and
	our industry needs more. While SkyWest has been able to stay
	fully staffed with qualified pilots, our industry has been hit
	by a growing pilot shortage.
	We are honored that the major airlines recruit heavily from
	the regional industry, but this honor comes with consequences.
	According to university studies, major airlines will hire more
	than 18,000 pilots in the next 3 years. That is nearly the size
	of today's active regional airline pilot workforce. Within a
	decade, cumulative demand for pilots is forecast to reach
	50,000 pilots.
	Overall the shortfall of commercial airline pilots is
	forecast to reach 15,000 by 2026. Using an industry standard of
	roughly 10 pilots per aircraft, a shortfall of this magnitude
	would necessitate parking 1,500 aircraft. For perspective, this
	number corresponds to roughly two-thirds of the regional
	airline fleet in operation today.
	Thanks to the leadership of this committee, Congress gave
	FAA tools to address these concerns. Recognizing the high value
	of structured training, Congress authorized the FAA to approve
	alternate pathways for first officer qualification, allowing
	specific academic training courses to be credited toward a
	portion of total flight-hours where the Administrator
	determines that these academic training courses will enhance
	safety more than requiring the pilot to fully comply with the
	flight-hours.
	Pilots following these approved pathways hold restricted
	privileges ATP [Airline Transport Pilot] certificates and may
	serve as part 121 airline first officers. These R-ATP pathways
	create a much higher level of safety and are well supported by
	data.
	Although Congress gave the FAA the authority to approve R-
	ATP pathways, the agency has taken a narrow view of its
	authority to grant additional pathways outside of military and
	degree program institutions. We urge Congress to prompt the FAA
	to use its existing authority to authorize additional R-ATP
	pathways.
	We could also help fill the shortfall with student loans.
	One of the single greatest deterrents facing new pilots is
	cost. Aspiring pilots can spend as much as $100,000 to $150,000
	on a flight training path to commercial airlines, but the
	return on investment on these training dollars exceeds that
	spent on teachers, lawyers, and even doctors.
	While we seek ways to reduce costs and offer tuition
	reimbursement, scholarships, and other incentives, Congress can
	help by backing loans to these students to achieve their dreams
	and meet the pilot shortfall.
	Mr. Chairman and Ranking Members and distinguished members
	of the subcommittee, it is my pleasure to be here today, and I
	look forward to taking your questions at the conclusion of the
	panel.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
	Mr. Hete.
	Mr. Hete. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and
	members of the subcommittee, I am privileged to serve as the
	president and CEO of Air Transport Services Group. Thank you
	for the opportunity to highlight our company's vision for all-
	cargo aviation in the 21st century.
	ATSG wholly owns two airlines, ABX Air, Inc. and Air
	Transport International, each independently certificated by the
	U.S. Department of Transportation. The company's airlines
	separately offer a combination of aircraft, crews, maintenance,
	and insurance services, commonly referred to as ACMI services.
	ABX operates Boeing 767 freighter aircraft, while ATI operates
	767s, 757 freighters, and 757 combi aircraft. Combi aircraft
	are dedicated to the U.S. military and are capable of carrying
	passengers and cargo containers on the main deck. The airlines
	can conduct cargo operations worldwide.
	The air cargo industry is unique compared with other
	industry users. We have a different business model and
	operational characteristics. So it is important to recognize
	our segment of the aviation industry when making policy
	decisions. Today, I would like to share with the committee some
	of the challenges and concerns we have and how they affect our
	cargo airline operations.
	We at ATSG have seen a great deal of change take place in
	the air cargo industry over the past 2 years. With stiff
	competition in the industry, removing specific regulatory
	burdens have the potential to pay off in the form of
	operational efficiencies, which will undoubtedly improve our
	costs and competitive abilities, as well as for our primary
	customers, the U.S. military, DHL, and Amazon.
	There are a few key topics of concern for our industry that
	I would like to share with you. Over the past few years, a
	debate has been waged over whether cargo pilots should continue
	to be regulated under the existing part 121 rules or whether
	they should be subject to newer, part 117 rules. The Federal
	Aviation Administration, after no less than three separate
	reviews, each time correctly found that the cargo pilots should
	be regulated under part 121.
	These rules work for our industry. There has been no sound
	evidence to suggest a move to a one-size-fits-all rule would
	improve safety for all cargo pilots, and this makes sense as
	the air cargo industry is inherently different from the
	passenger carrier industry. As I mentioned earlier, ATI
	operates the 757 combi, which carries passengers, and those
	flights are operated under the part 117 rules.
	If ATSG's airlines were forced to comply with the 117
	rules, we would have to hire more pilots, which would be a boon
	for the pilots union, but would allow for even less flying time
	for each pilot, potentially affecting their proficiency.
	Changes in flight and duty time rules that apply to all cargo
	carriers is a bad idea, and doing so could actually make our
	operations less safe and put our pilots at risk.
	At ATSG's airlines, we provide more and longer flight crew
	rest opportunities in our cargo operations than our passenger
	counterparts. Most importantly, our pilots average 40 to 45
	flight-hours per month and are usually point-to-point, while
	passenger carrier pilots fly approximately 60 hours each month
	and include many segments per day. Our pilots are also only
	scheduled for duty 14 to 16 days out of every month, and in
	many cases that includes weekend layovers.
	Former Administrator Randy Babbitt said it best at an ALPA
	Safety Conference: ``In rulemaking, not only does one size not
	fit all, but it's unsafe to think that it can.''
	With regards to the air transport of lithium batteries,
	ATSG supports the promulgation of tough and internationally
	consistent regulations governing the air cargo transportation
	of lithium batteries, as well as stringent enforcement of those
	regulations around the world.
	The key issue here for our company is consistency. We can
	simply not have a patchwork of international lithium battery
	transportation standards. Harmonization avoids confusion among
	shippers, carriers, and others in the supply chain while
	maximizing safety.
	Regarding the Open Skies issue, I share the opinion of the
	Cargo Airline Association that opposes altering the country's
	policy of expanding international opportunities through the
	negotiation of Open Skies agreements with trading partners. The
	all-cargo carriers have global networks with destinations all
	over the world, and we rely on the access that Open Skies
	agreements allow us to provide time-definite delivery of high-
	value goods.
	Unlike the passenger carriers, all-cargo carriers do not
	have code share agreements or worldwide alliances and depend on
	the beyond rights inherent in Open Skies agreements to provide
	global service. Therefore, we oppose any attempt to jeopardize
	our existing Open Skies agreements.
	Finally, one of the biggest impediments to NextGen may not
	in fact be funding or transfer of ATC to a private entity as
	many have talked about, but rather aircraft noise. With new,
	more fuel-efficient flight paths for aircraft being implemented
	as part of the airspace redesigned for NextGen, new communities
	are exposed to noise that previously were not. Further, as a
	cargo operator we fly a substantial number of nighttime
	operations, and any call to impose nighttime flight
	restrictions would be problematic. These issues tend to be
	local-level problems that then get elevated and then in time
	become congressional problems.
	While a lot of advances have been made in the area of
	aircraft noise, and a significant decrease in those exposed to
	noise has been achieved, this issue will continue to prove
	challenging for both the FAA and operators like us.
	In summary, I would oppose any effort to impose new
	aircraft noise restrictions that may undermine our national
	aviation and airport system or inhibit the implementation of
	NextGen modernization projects, which are crucial for the
	efficiencies of the future of air transport.
	Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
	today, and discuss the issues important to ATSG, its airlines,
	and the future of the airline cargo industry. I look forward to
	answering any questions you may have.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much.
	Ms. Nelson, you are recognized.
	Ms. Nelson. Thank you Chairman LoBiondo, Congressman
	Larsen, and members of the committee. We appreciate the
	opportunity to testify today about maintaining the safest,
	globally competitive U.S. aviation system in the world. As
	international president of the Association of Flight
	Attendants--CWA, representing nearly 50,000 flight attendants
	at 19 mainline, niche, regional, charter, and international
	airlines, I am proud to bring the expert voice from the
	aircraft cabin to this discussion.
	It is fitting that on International Women's Day, our union
	that was founded by strong women and which remains largely a
	workforce of women would have a platform to testify in the
	United States Congress. Our members are dutifully performing
	their work as aviation's first responders around the world
	today.
	But aviation would come to an immediate halt without the
	contributions of women in aviation, as there is a call for a
	day without women. We should recognize these women for the work
	that they do in aviation, and we appreciate the opportunity to
	testify on issues of equality in aviation today.
	My written testimony addresses four key issues flight
	attendants need: proper rest to do our work, an orderly and
	secure cabin free of voice calls, a reality check on the
	disparate compensation at regional airlines, and the
	enforcement of Open Skies agreements to keep global competition
	on a level playing field.
	AFA continues to advocate for equal rest with our flight
	deck counterparts, and thanks to over 100,000 flight attendants
	and our supporters speaking out and the action of this
	committee, a 10-hour minimum rest requirement and the
	implementation of a Fatigue Risk Management Plan for flight
	attendants was included in H.R. 4441 last year. We look forward
	to inclusion of this language in the base bill this year.
	Our job as aviation's first responders and the last line of
	defense in aviation has only become more challenging in recent
	years with staffing at minimums and aircraft cabins fuller than
	ever. The FAA rest minimum for flight attendants is 8 hours,
	even after a 14-hour duty day. During our rest breaks, flight
	attendants exit the airport, eat dinner, check into and out of
	hotels, and report for duty after returning to the airport and
	transiting security. The reality is we only have an opportunity
	for 4 or 5 hours of rest.
	Studies commissioned by Congress show we need more rest. We
	are thankful to Chairman LoBiondo, Congressman Capuano, Ranking
	Members DeFazio and Larsen, and the members of this committee
	for including 10 hours' rest in the Fatigue Risk Management
	Plan in the FAA reauthorization bill.
	Our industry is the safest in the world because of the work
	of the stakeholders represented today, the oversight of
	Congress, and our airlines' ability to compete on a level
	playing field with any other aircraft operator in the world.
	Our union is gravely concerned that this is all at risk due to
	the failure to enforce Open Skies agreements.
	The U.S. has negotiated 120 Open Skies agreements with the
	intention of providing increased travel and trade, enhancing
	productivity, and spurring high-quality job opportunities and
	economic growth. The majority of these agreements are working.
	However, failure of the previous administration to enforce Open
	Skies agreements with the Gulf States, means Emirates, Etihad,
	and Qatar Airways are distorting the market with over $50
	billion in subsidies from their governments.
	We can compete with any airline in the world, but competing
	with the treasuries of their governments is unsustainable and
	threatens to choke out U.S. carriers, ultimately destroying
	consumer choice as well.
	Every route ceded is a cost of 1,500 U.S. jobs. If these
	airlines cannot play by the rules, then we must consider
	canceling these agreements that are being violated.
	In addition, the Obama administration made a grave mistake
	when it approved the foreign air carrier permit of Norwegian
	Air International. NAI violates article 17 bis of the EU/U.S.
	Open Skies agreement by setting up an Irish subsidiary to
	capitalize on less restrictive labor laws. NAI's deliberate
	effort to undermine Norway's strong labor protections violates
	Open Skies and sets in motion a downward spiral for U.S.
	aviation and 300,000 U.S. jobs.
	This committee is uniquely positioned to take up this issue
	and stop the expansion of the approval of foreign air carrier
	permits for airlines operating according to this flag-of-
	convenience model.
	Aviation, born in the U.S., is perhaps one of the greatest
	symbols of our freedom. Our members and our passengers fly to
	every corner of the earth when only some can dream of crossing
	borders. Our airlines are staffed with those who come from
	service in our military, and we proudly transport our military
	around the world, most wonderfully to bring them home.
	The U.S. aviation industry accounts for 5 percent of U.S.
	gross domestic product, contributes $1.6 trillion in total
	economic activity, and supports nearly 11 million jobs. It is
	the symbol of American progress, innovation, and opportunity,
	and we must protect it.
	I understand with gut-wrenching firsthand experience that
	safety, security, and economic strength are paramount for an
	industry that continues to capture the imagination and
	attention of the world. As a Boston-based flight attendant on
	September 11, 2001, I lost my dear friends.
	But I know too that in the midst of our grief and our
	resolve to keep our airlines flying, we lost over 100,000
	aviation jobs, took massive pay cuts, lost our pensions, and
	now spend more time away from our families with staffing cut to
	minimum. Aviation workers had to face the harsh realities of a
	post-9/11 world, and so have our families.
	But in the long run, any aviation business model that seeks
	to operate solely on the backs of the people who make our
	airlines fly is not only inhumane, it is a threat to our
	safety. September 11 is not the exception to the rule for our
	charge as stakeholders, including, with deep respect, the
	Colgan Air families who are here today, and together with your
	careful oversight.
	It is forever the reality that a breach in aviation
	security and a wounded U.S. aviation industry is a threat to
	the very freedom of our Nation and the prosperity of every
	community across the United States.
	Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Congressman Larsen, and
	Congressman DeFazio, for serving as the strongest imaginable
	champions for our vital American industry. Flight attendants
	appreciate you and the members of this committee for the
	opportunity to testify here today, for your oversight, and for
	the protection of good American jobs. I look forward to
	answering your questions.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much.
	Mr. Leocha.
	Mr. Leocha. Thank you for giving passengers a seat at this
	hearing. My name is Charlie Leocha. I am president of Travelers
	United, the country's largest travel advocacy group. We work
	intimately with both Government and travel stakeholders here in
	Washington.
	Anyone who has flown recently in the back of a plane knows
	that passengers have far less personal space, planes are flying
	fuller than ever, leg room and seat width is being reduced, and
	ancillary fees are exploding. My testimony today focuses on a
	list of changes that have developed over the past decade in the
	aviation marketplace.
	Number one, common carriers. Airlines are common carriers.
	There are centuries of settled tort law. Pricing of common
	carrier services is considered public information. It used to
	be nailed up next to the door of their offices. It has been
	that way for thousands of years.
	The airlines, however, decided since 2008 to publicly
	release only partial pricing. Today it is impossible to
	effectively comparison shop for airfares and fees. This has
	stopped IT development in its tracks.
	Once the full airfare and fee data is released, IT experts
	can expect new shopping engines that will allow passengers to
	comparison shop for airline travel. Don't tell the airlines,
	but they will make far more money selling their products
	throughout their total distribution network.
	Public pricing. Once an airline decides to work with travel
	agencies, their pricing should become public, and it always
	should be under common carriers. Airlines should not be
	permitted to pick and choose where their airfares and fees
	appear. Their prices are public information.
	Reservation system outages. These are under the complete
	control of the airlines. Airlines should not be allowed to
	treat them like acts of God. Bizarrely, passengers are being
	punished for the failures of the airlines.
	When there is an airline IT system failure, the airlines
	are responsible and should make their customers whole. Full
	refunds should be made available, and all airline tickets
	should be valid for at least 1 year from the date of the
	disruption. Plus, additional expenses should be covered.
	Next, DOT should reevaluate the antitrust immunity and
	airline alliance rules. Originally, these grants were developed
	to create a better travel experience for passengers. Today, the
	airlines are using these DOT-provided grants to stop
	competition.
	As smaller airlines, like Alaska, JetBlue, Southwest, and
	Hawaiian, begin to look at new markets, they are being faced
	with coordinated efforts by large alliances to deny them useful
	takeoff and landing slots at international airports. Airlines
	simply cannot compete without takeoff and landing slots. And
	without competition, consumers suffer, prices rise.
	Open Skies treaties. These have been the bedrock of
	expansion for the U.S. aviation industry since the early 1990s.
	Today, these treaties are providing consumers some hope for
	competition and lower transatlantic and international airfares.
	Middle Eastern carriers, Etihad, Emirates, and Qatar, are
	serving a part of the world that was virtually ignored by the
	U.S. carriers for years, and low-cost carriers, like Wow and
	Norwegian, are finally forcing Delta, American, and United to
	lower transatlantic airfares.
	Better service to the fastest growing areas of the world
	and lower transatlantic airfares are both enhanced by Open
	Skies treaties.
	Next, airport taxes. As head of Travelers United, I have
	never met a traveler who thought they should pay more taxes for
	using an airport. Any increase in airport funding should come
	from the surrounding municipalities that benefit from the
	economics of the airport. Passengers are already paying their
	fair share. Proposed airport fee increases may result in more
	than $60 of fees being added to a ticket before passengers even
	spend $1 on airfare, and that dollar is taxed another 7.5
	percent.
	And finally, this one should be easy: Educate travelers
	about their rights. Congress doesn't have to pass any bills.
	DOT doesn't need any rulemakings. The only thing we need from
	our Government is the courage to let passengers know their
	rights regarding compensation. And there are only two of them.
	One, passengers are due compensation for lost, damaged, and
	delayed luggage up to $3,500. And when passengers are bumped,
	they can get compensation up to $1,350. That is it. End of
	domestic passenger compensations.
	I look forward to any questions.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much.
	Mr. DeFazio, you are recognized.
	Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	So we have heard from two people mention Etihad. Let's talk
	about that for a second. H.E. Sultan Bin Saeed Al Mansouri is
	head of the aviation authority, H.E. Eng. Mohamed Mubarak Al
	Mazrouei is head of the airline, H.E. Eng. Awaidha Murshed Al
	Marar runs the airport, and the Government is dumping massive
	amounts of money into a losing proposition.
	And it isn't just that they are providing service to parts
	of the world that were underserved. Emirates is flying planes
	to places like Milan, Italy, and using their Fifth Freedom
	Right to come across the Atlantic.
	Simple question: Do you think we should allow a State-owned
	enterprise in a monarchy dictatorship, do you think that is
	fair competition for our airlines, just because you get a
	little bit off the ticket?
	Yes or no, Mr. Leocha? Do you think it is fair.
	Mr. Leocha. Well, if what you are----
	Mr. DeFazio. Yes or no?
	Mr. Leocha. If what you are saying is true, no.
	Mr. DeFazio. Yes, it is true. OK. Thank you.
	Mr. Leocha. OK. I don't----
	Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Thank you.
	Mr. Tilden? So do you want to be ultimately competing--I
	mean, you want to partner with a State-owned enterprise, but
	what happens if a State-owned enterprise starts competing with
	you?
	Mr. Tilden. What I would say about this, Alaska Airlines is
	a domestic airline operating in the U.S., but we have treaties
	with these other countries----
	Mr. DeFazio. I know, but my question, do you think the
	United States of America should have policies that require our
	capitalist, privately owned companies to compete with State-
	owned enterprises from dictatorships that are being financed in
	that manner?
	Mr. Tilden. I think every country in the world sets up
	their airline industry a little differently.
	Mr. DeFazio. OK. All right. So you are not going to----
	Mr. Tilden. Well, what I will say is that all these
	airlines should be required to comply with the treaties. I do
	believe that.
	Mr. DeFazio. Well, I don't think the treaty--you know, most
	of our trade policy is a failure, and that is another example
	of it.
	Now, we just had a panel last week, Mr. Leocha, of airports
	talking about their needs. You are opposed to an increase in
	the passenger facility charge.
	Now, I will give you an example. Denver was in to see me.
	They are doing everything they can, including a P3 to redo
	their main terminal, which needs to be redone to tremendously
	facilitate the movement of passengers through security and also
	will provide much more shopping environment and all that kind
	of stuff.
	So they are using P3s. They have got a PFC. They are bonded
	out. You are saying they shouldn't be allowed to increase their
	PFC, but they have a dire need to extend their terminals to
	accommodate additional traffic so people won't be sitting on
	the ground waiting to get to a gate. So you are just saying you
	are against PFC increases no matter how well they are merited?
	Mr. Leocha. I am saying that we don't need PFC increases.
	There are other ways to increase the money for the airports.
	Mr. DeFazio. Well, excuse me, sir, but they are using a P3.
	They are getting a huge benefit from that. They are charging
	the airlines fees. They are doing everything else. And the
	question is, at some point you are bonded out, and what are you
	going to do when you are bonded out?
	I was the Democratic author of PFCs because I use the
	Eugene Airport. Eugene had to do municipal bonds to expand the
	airport. I didn't pay a cent. I don't live in Eugene. Now, you
	are just saying, well, the municipality benefits, and I live in
	the next town over, which you can hardly distinguish, but I
	shouldn't pay anything.
	Mr. Leocha. Those are questions which need to be raised by
	the localities and municipalities serviced by the airports.
	Mr. DeFazio. Well, I raised them 20 years ago when we
	established the PFC, which I think is the fairest way to have a
	user fee-based system. And there are all sorts of restrictions
	on the PFCs. There are no abuses of the PFCs. It is all
	benefitting the flying public.
	So I find your adamant opposition--I don't like the
	Greyhound bus experience, which I find in a number of airports,
	that are constrained from making improvements, and the PFC is a
	fair way to make it. And in the case of Denver, the
	municipality isn't necessarily benefitting from all the people
	who are just changing planes in Denver, and that is what some
	of the terminals are targeted toward. What is the benefit
	there? So I just find your adamant opposition very problematic.
	And then, finally, I did not want to get into ATC today,
	but if you could hold up the chart.

	[The chart follows:]


	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


	Mr. DeFazio. Just again, Mr. Tilden, this is the
	organizational chart, because there is a little problem in
	privatizing in the United States of America. The Germans had to
	change their Constitution. We are not changing ours.
	So we prohibit private entities from doing anything that
	affects competition. So that means if they want to increase
	taxes, obviously it has to go to the Secretary. If they want to
	change flight paths, it has to go to the Secretary. If they
	want to change NextGen procedures, it goes to the Secretary. If
	they want to change anything else regarding ATC, it has to go
	to the Secretary. If they decide to close an air traffic
	control tower, contract tower, et cetera, it has to go to the
	Secretary. If the Secretary disagrees, then we go to court.
	I don't find that to be a more efficient system. Plus, you
	are cleaving the FAA in half, and certification, which is vital
	to manufacturers, stays over here, and, yes, we move ATO over
	here. I believe there are other ways to resolve longstanding
	issues, and I didn't really want to get into this today, but
	since you raised it, I had to say that.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
	Is Mr. Davis back yet?
	Mr. Gibbs.
	Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman.
	Mr. Hete, welcome, fellow Buckeye. I hear you are from
	Ohio, from Clinton County. I just wanted to recognize you,
	fellow Buckeye.
	I guess the first question is to anybody on the panel that
	wants to talk about it. You know, we have seen, we had a
	downturn in the industry and the industry has bounced back and
	doing well now, and we are seeing things turn around a lot. And
	we have also seen quite a few mergers in recent years.
	And I guess my first question is, how does the capacity
	issue interact with the regional carriers and the big carriers
	for slots and just airports in general? How does that
	interaction work? So anybody that wants to try to answer that,
	I appreciate it.
	Mr. Childs. I will take a shot at it, if I could. Our
	business model that we have at regional carriers, to be clear,
	what we do is, as in my opening statement, we fly for the major
	carriers, and we are under contract with them to where we get
	paid a block hour, which is a flight-hour basis to fly the
	routes that they want us to fly.
	We do not have any material say in the slots or how we are
	scheduled in the big cities. That is completely up to the major
	carriers that make all those decisions for us. We just go where
	they want us to go and make sure we coordinate it and do it in
	a very safe and effective manner. But we don't have any say
	relative to how we are utilized in those big areas.
	Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Tilden, I see you are biting at the bit
	there.
	Mr. Tilden. Yeah, I think this is an interesting time in
	our country. These airports were built 40, 50 years ago. In
	some cases a runway was added 10 or 15 years ago. But
	facilities are constrained. I think almost every airport in
	Alaska is in significant--every big airport, LAX, San
	Francisco, Portland, Seattle, is significantly constrained. I
	just think that is a fact of our future.
	To points that others have made, I do think this is a time
	for substantial investment in infrastructure. I think folks are
	doing this. We are on board with that. I think the industry is
	a lot healthier today than it was 10 or 15 years ago, so
	airlines are better able to support these very substantial
	capital programs.
	And I think airspace is a part of that. So we need more
	capacity in the airspace. We need more capacity at the airport
	itself.
	Mr. Gibbs. That is the other part of my question, capacity.
	So we have got the issue with runways, getting passengers
	through the terminals, and then issue with airspace, so they
	are obviously intertwined. So if we ever get the NextGen
	adopted and moving on, does that solve that airspace issue?
	Mr. Tilden. That will go a long way to helping. There are
	constraints, airspace, runways, terminal gates, even roadways
	in front of the airports, there are constraints sort of at
	every step of the process. But airspace is certainly a big one.
	Mr. Gibbs. Go ahead.
	Ms. Nelson. Congressman Gibbs, I think it is also important
	to recognize the interplay between the regionals and the
	mainlines for the people who make the airplanes fly. As Mr.
	Childs testified, the regional airlines provide 45 percent of
	the lift in the domestic market, but the pilots and flight
	attendants are also being paid at 45 percent the rate, even
	though the same passengers are buying the same tickets and
	expecting to get to the same destinations. So it is an
	important piece within a part of all this discussion.
	Mr. Gibbs. Since you brought that up, Ms. Nelson, I saw, it
	must have been about a year ago, an article in a newspaper, and
	I was really taken aback by what they were saying the salaries
	were for regional personnel. And as I recall, I think, I don't
	know if it was a pilot or the copilot, could be around low
	$20,000 annual pay. Is that correct?
	Ms. Nelson. That is correct. It is insufficient, and it is
	part of the reason that you have twice as many pilots with
	certificates to fly today as are performing the jobs today. If
	we can increase those wages and provide a living wage for these
	people, we will encourage people to enter the market.
	Mr. Gibbs. So you just said there are twice as many pilots
	that are available, they are just not, because they have got to
	find other jobs to support their families. Is that what you are
	saying?
	Ms. Nelson. Correct.
	Mr. Gibbs. OK. Anybody want to respond to that?
	Mr. Childs. Yeah, I would love to respond to that. I think
	that there has been a tremendous move and shift in compensation
	in the last couple years with pilots and some flight attendants
	as well. And it is important to note, as we went through the
	statistics early on in my testimony, and in my written
	testimony, we are the only source of travel for over 60 percent
	of the airports that we serve.
	We have never really come out of service at SkyWest or
	ExpressJet due to a lack-of-pilot scenario. We have come out
	because it didn't make economic sense. Now, other carriers
	outside of us do have a very, very difficult time, and all of
	us see a very significant pilot shortage on us today, and a lot
	of people believe that there is a very strong inventory out
	there.
	I can tell you from personal experience, because we hire
	them and we interview them and we train them, that that is
	absolutely not the case. We are deeply concerned about the
	statistics as it is moving forward in the next 3 years. There
	are a lot of retirements at the mainline carriers, and there
	simply is not enough backfilling them as of today. So we need
	to do some things to make sure that we fix that.
	Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman. My time has expired.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Larsen.
	Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Tilden, in your written testimony you discussed RNAV
	[area navigation], instrument procedures and such, and said
	nationwide it is 4 percent. For your flights, it is about 4
	percent. And Sea-Tac, do you have a percentage?
	Mr. Tilden. I do not have that percentage with me. Despite
	Greener Skies, it isn't 25 percent even.
	Mr. Larsen. Oh, yeah?
	Mr. Tilden. Yeah. It is less than that.
	Mr. Larsen. And what steps, either nationally or even at
	Sea-Tac, could be done to increase that to something higher
	than it is?
	Mr. Tilden. Yeah. The situation we have is that these
	Greener Skies or RNP [required navigation performance]
	approaches have to be approved for every approach to every
	runway end at every airport. So Sea-Tac there are three
	runways, so that means there are six runway ends, and there are
	two or three approaches to each runway. And there is noise--one
	of the other gentlemen spoke to noise--noise is a big part of
	the review process. The FAA takes time to develop the
	procedure.
	So what we have is a one-by-one approval of each of those
	approaches. And I just think somehow we need a much more
	rapid--in my own way of thinking about this, there should sort
	of be a default view that these approaches, this technology is
	better than what we have today. Even though the noise may be a
	little bit, it will be an engine at idle power, and with GPS it
	will be the same track every day. It may hit one house more
	than the current system, but there will be way less noise with
	this new technology than we have with the old. So some sort of
	fast-tracking of those approaches I think would help us.
	Mr. Larsen. Yeah. So it is not just a matter of different
	approaches. It is also in how you operate that approach as
	well, is what you are saying?
	Mr. Tilden. Yes.
	Mr. Larsen. If you have the same kind of approaches, but we
	still do the stairstep in and out, we are not really taking
	full advantage of the technology.
	Mr. Tilden. Correct. Correct. But I think in the perfect
	world, these approaches are designed so that the airplane at
	altitude, 38,000 feet, it goes to idle power, and it stays
	there until maybe a little bit of a true-up just at the end
	before it touches down.
	Mr. Larsen. Just don't tell your passengers that.
	Mr. Tilden. Safety is number one above everything else.
	Mr. Larsen. Yeah, I know. Just flew in yesterday.
	Ms. Nelson, could you give a little more detail on flight
	attendant fatigue and why it is an important issue to you all?
	Ms. Nelson. Yes, I appreciate that very much. Flight
	attendant fatigue is something that we have been working on
	addressing for the last 30 years. The first duty and rest
	regulations went into place in 1994, and they were essentially
	a dart thrown at a dart board just to get something on paper.
	Then-Chairman Norman Mineta suggested that there should be
	a 10-hour free-from-duty rest. And the reason for that is what
	we have seen through the fatigue studies, seven fatigue studies
	commissioned by Congress that show that there needs to be more
	rest in order to avoid fatigue. If you can imagine, that was
	the conclusion.
	And so, in order to get that proper rest, because of the
	duties that have to be completed during that rest time as well,
	it is important to have the 10 hours' rest that is equal with
	our flight deck counterparts that is now in place.
	And we are adamant to get this done, especially with the
	increased duties and less staffing that flight attendants have
	on board, with more opportunity for error with fewer of us
	handling more passengers. It is simply unacceptable. We have
	got to address this fatigue issue and have equal rest with our
	flight deck counterparts.
	Mr. Larsen. Thanks.
	Mr. Hete, I believe the current administration pulled back
	a rule from FMCSA [Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration]
	on lithium, transporting lithium batteries. But I understand
	you support the ICAO's [International Civil Aviation
	Organization's] work to improve the standards for transporting
	lithium batteries. Do you have a consistent pattern about how
	you transport lithium?
	Mr. Hete. Yeah, I think it is critical, because if you look
	at our customers, DHL, for example, everything that we handle
	for them throughout their North American network is an
	international ship, either originating or destinating in an
	international environment. And so if you have a mixed bag of
	rules and you don't have harmonization of those rules, you have
	an exposure to a shipment getting into the system without
	following prescribed procedures, and no one wants to see that
	happen. So it has got to be consistent across the board.
	Mr. Larsen. Yeah, thanks.
	Mr. Chairman, I will yield back and let someone else have a
	chance. Thanks.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
	Mr. LaMalfa.
	Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Childs, thank you for appearing, and for the whole
	panel here today. I am from far northern California, where--
	including airports such as Chico and Redding--until 2014, Chico
	had service from SkyWest.
	And I know that regional airlines do face unique
	challenges, et cetera. And some of the testimony I heard from
	the panel here that they can operate between the smaller
	airports, but this is also at the behest of what the parent
	airline that you are contracting with requires.
	So is it different to operate just between the smaller
	airports or when you have to tie into a larger one where the
	major aircraft and the parent airline is operating? Is there a
	difference in the way you can operate that way? Do you have
	more freedom to set rates or types of service, numbers of
	trips, et cetera, like, say, Chico to Redding or Redding to
	Oregon, places like that?
	Mr. Childs. Yeah. So let me go back, because we miss
	serving Chico, honestly. And from our perspective on how that
	happens, there are some models that we do under a prorate
	arrangement, where we do have some freedoms to do some things.
	That only constitutes about 10 percent of our particular model,
	and many regional carriers don't even have that model.
	So back historically, when it was with Chico, we enjoyed
	great service there. We did it with a turboprop, a 30-seat
	Brasilia. And as we continued to evolve as a company, we
	started to take larger aircraft, and as we continued to execute
	on some good strong compensation models with our people.
	Unfortunately, what happened was that it did not make economic
	sense and we couldn't do it profitably there.
	So that technically was one of our decisions that we also
	made with our partner. We were doing it with United at the
	time. And that was one at which the cost was prohibitive
	because of certain elements of our business model where that
	service was----
	Mr. LaMalfa. Understood. We had some airport
	representatives, as was mentioned earlier, last week, and some
	of that tied into the conversation.
	So if a 30-seat turboprop plane, as you mentioned and they
	talked about last week also, those are being phased out, what
	is the size of the aircraft, the more regional jets? Is that
	the volume part of the reason that it is priced out on more
	regional airports like that?
	Mr. Childs. Yeah, that is exactly----
	Mr. LaMalfa. Sixty, seventy passengers, is that what you
	are dealing with?
	Mr. Childs. Yeah. So the majority of our fleet is a 50-seat
	jet. And we now are taking more new aircraft that are at 76
	seats with first-class configuration and longer range and that
	type of stuff. So that is the trend. That is what the
	manufacturers are making.
	You bring up an excellent point, because there are cities
	that, from our economic model, we can't serve anymore. We have
	gotten bigger, and certainly, given our compensation strategy
	with that, we can't serve with a 30-seat aircraft anymore.
	There are a lot of other carriers that can, and they are the
	ones that are struggling with attracting pilots and they are
	the ones that are struggling with some of the things that they
	can do to actually execute on those plans.
	So, unfortunately, Congressman, your city is an interesting
	case study about what our situation is, because our economic
	model is very volatile and it is one which it can't bear a lot
	of fluctuation relative to costs. And that is kind of what we
	have to work with within our industry.
	Mr. LaMalfa. Are the facilities themselves part of the
	issue, being able to handle, versus the turboprop aircraft the
	jet, the jetway, or what are some of the issues with that that
	the facilities might need more upgrades on to accommodate a
	newer----
	Mr. Childs. There are a lot. If this industry continues to
	evolve the way it is, away from turboprops to jets the same way
	that we did, there are a lot of small airports that need to
	make airport adjustments--longer runway, wider runway,
	emergency equipment, those types of things--to accommodate the
	jet.
	We are working in no less than 10 cities since we pulled
	out with turboprops and want to go back in with 50-seat
	aircraft. If it is economically viable, that the communities
	need to upgrade their airports and their facilities to
	accommodate a 50-seat jet, which would be the next step for
	most of these communities.
	Mr. LaMalfa. Well, Chico, for example, has a 6,700-foot
	runway and I have seen 737s take off there. So that is probably
	not the issue there, right?
	Mr. Childs. Not in Chico, no.
	Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Is there anything that Department of
	Transportation regulation-wise that are causing any kind of
	imposition to be able to do what you need to do, either on the
	regional basis or in its integration with the larger carriers
	or larger airports?
	Mr. Childs. And I don't know if there is anything that the
	Department of Transportation specifically can do, but in my
	opening statements we talked a lot about some solutions to keep
	the regional airline viable and strong. We fundamentally
	believe that if we keep a strong stream of pilots coming into
	the industry, good things happen all around. Everything becomes
	more safe. We can make more clear decisions relative to some of
	the things that the manufacturers want to make.
	I mean, part of our problem, particularly with Chico, is if
	it is not supportive of a 50-seat aircraft, we need a
	manufacturer that makes an aircraft that can fit the size of
	your town. And the manufacturers simply don't want to make that
	aircraft, because they don't have confidence that we have a
	strong pilot stream within the industry.
	So the industry needs confidence about the fact that we
	will have pilots. As an entity, you are comfortable that we are
	going to do what it takes to do it safely. But, again, the
	other thing that we can do is do some of these restricted ATP
	things, which actually enhance safety.
	We are not out here to reduce the 1,500-hour rule. I
	actually like the rule, and I think that that is a good mark.
	But I think that we know now that there are some things from a
	safety perspective that we can have some alternate pathways to
	help people get integrated into the industry.
	Mr. LaMalfa. I am sorry, I have to yield back.
	Thank you. I appreciate the answers.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Lipinski.
	Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I know Mr. DeFazio, Ranking Member DeFazio had talked about
	the Middle Eastern airlines and the unfair competition. We want
	to make sure that we have rules that are in place that help the
	airlines, the airline employees, and the flying public.
	I wanted to raise another related issue in regard to
	international competition in the Norwegian Air International.
	As most of you probably know, NAI is flying as an Irish airline
	with flight crews employed by contracts that are governed by
	the laws of several Asian countries. It sort of leaves you
	wondering who the regulator is here.
	Clearly--well, unfortunately, this was approved here in the
	U.S. I would assume that, going forward, there may be more
	attempts to do something similar. I think it really undermines
	our Open Skies agreement in regard to maintaining labor
	standards.
	And so I wanted to ask Ms. Nelson what the effect of
	something such as NAI has on your members' employees?
	Ms. Nelson. Thank you, Congressman Lipinski.
	Yes, this is a grave concern for us. What Norwegian has
	done here is they have created a subsidiary with the Norwegian
	name to essentially hoodwink the public and regulators to
	believe that they are going to be flying under the same
	standards, high standards that we would expect from Norway. As
	a signatory to the U.S.-EU Open Skies agreement, that was
	negotiated based on the idea that we would maintain the high
	labor standards in the U.S. and EU. None of the other
	provisions would have gone forward unless that first standard
	was met.
	And yet, the NAI permit was granted, setting aside,
	essentially, article 17 bis. Not saying that it wasn't being
	violated. It is being violated with this flag of convenience in
	Ireland, which will allow Adecco or OSM, essentially these temp
	agencies that hire out aviation workers, pilots and flight
	attendants and other workers, from anywhere in the world where
	they can find the lowest labor standards.
	We cannot compete with that. Not only that, but there are
	U.S.-based Norwegian flight attendants working today, working
	for Norwegian today. What Norwegian has attempted to do is to
	also hoodwink the public into believing that the NAI
	certificate needed to be approved in order to offer U.S. jobs,
	when, in fact, we have no assurances from Norwegian that they
	will continue to hire under U.S. or European contracts once
	this takes hold.
	Our European counterparts told us that their airlines were
	very honest with them that they were opposed to this flag-of-
	convenience model that NAI sets up, but if it was approved they
	will have to immediately compete within 2 years' time. SAS has
	already filed for an Irish certificate just since this permit
	has been approved. So we are seeing this. This is going to be a
	faster destruction than there was with the flag-of-convenience
	model with U.S. shipping, where now we see Liberian flags
	flying in our ports. All of our airlines will be choked out,
	because they will not be able to compete.
	The flight attendants flying for Norwegian here today have
	just unionized. They are voting right now to join the
	Association of Flight Attendants, because we are going to beat
	back these temp agencies who form short-term contracts with
	them. When they get too old, too fat, they are the wrong color,
	they don't go along, they can just end their contracts when it
	comes to the next time. They only have a 4-year pay scale,
	because they do not intend for these people to stick around.
	These are some things that we beat back in 1946, and this
	is where our aviation industry is headed if we allow the flag
	of convenience to remain in place, if we allow Norwegian to
	continue to hoodwink the public and allow other carriers to
	follow their suit, to follow this flag-of-convenience model for
	putting down their flag wherever they need to in the world so
	they can find the lowest labor standards and compete based on
	that.
	Our airlines can't compete. U.S. aviation workers can't
	compete. And the reality is that 300,000 good U.S. aviation
	jobs are at stake here.
	Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
	Can I have another minute, Mr. Chairman? You can say no.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Go ahead.
	Mr. Lipinski. Sorry, I will yield back.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Go ahead.
	Mr. Lipinski. Very quickly. Mr. Tilden, Mr. Larsen went
	through some of what you are doing to increase efficiency. I
	know you have done some work with--you did a flight with
	biomass fuel. You work with Boeing. Boeing uses the CLEEN
	[Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise] program to
	research for engine efficiency. Is this something that is also
	very helpful to what you are trying to do with efficiency?
	Mr. Tilden. It is. We are really proud. I think it is still
	the case that Alaska Airlines has the most fuel-efficient fleet
	in the industry. That is also true of Horizon Air for regional
	airlines. And we have been a big partner with anybody that
	approaches us with biofuels or other alternative fuels.
	There is a big role for the science community and the
	engine manufacturers and others in that. What we are really
	trying to do is demonstrate that there is a market. If somebody
	can bring a new fuel to the market, we have run several of
	these flights, commercial flights with biofuels on board, just
	to demonstrate, if this fuel does come to market in a feasible
	fashion, we will buy it.
	Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I yield back.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Davis.
	Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
	granting Mr. Lipinski the extra minute. That was a great
	question. I am supportive of that.
	And also, I want to thank you for asking the question of
	Ms. Nelson, because you took mine. So I want to add my name to
	being supportive of that question too.
	But thank you for your response, and thank you for what you
	are doing. You know, we want to make sure that we offer
	bipartisan consensus on some of the concerns that were
	addressed.
	Mr. Childs, during your opening remarks--and I fly a lot of
	regional airlines in central Illinois, thank you for what you
	do in keeping many of my regional airports active--but you also
	mentioned something about student loans and student debt. I
	have got a bill I would love for you to take a look at that is
	called the Employer Participation in Student Loan Assistance
	Act. I figured our team probably could have thought of a
	shorter title, but they didn't, so I will address that later.
	But what it does is it creates a private sector incentive
	for companies like yours and others to have another tool in the
	toolbox to address student debt, and that is a tax incentive to
	provide up to $5,250 a year to your employees to pay down their
	debt. The employees wouldn't be taxed on it. It is a win-win,
	addresses a big problem. Please take a look at that. We would
	love your support.
	Now, Mr. Tilden and Mr. Childs, my colleague Mr. DeFazio
	talked a lot about ATC reform. He and I are good friends. He
	may not admit that, but I do. But I am on the other side of
	that debate. I support ATC reform. I think NextGen's rollout
	has been a continuous inefficient, expensive rollout that we
	are not seeing progress in.
	Now, there were a lot of charts put up. I don't have any.
	But I want to hear from you. What are your thoughts on those
	charts? What are your thoughts on ATC reform? How can we make
	the aviation industry better through ATC reform?
	We will start with Mr. Tilden.
	Mr. Tilden. Thank you, Congressman Davis. If I could, I
	just wanted to support Chip Childs on the pilot training. I
	think this is a real issue for our country.
	Mr. Davis. It is.
	Mr. Tilden. Alaska feels this issue as well. When I went to
	Pacific Lutheran University with Congressman Larsen, I got
	student loans that were guaranteed by the Federal Government. I
	think if we could bring something like that to the pilot
	profession, the mechanic profession, I think it would be really
	beneficial and Alaska would certainly be supportive.
	On ATC reform, I know it is a contentious issue. I know
	that people feel differently. How we feel about this is that we
	have actually had this--it actually isn't a technology problem
	anymore. It is a technology deployment issue.
	The technology has been proven, it has been in place for 21
	years, and the speed is just not what it could be.
	And I personally think it is a time--and I do respect the
	diversity of opinion on this, but I personally think--flying is
	about freedom. This is the greatest country in the world. We
	invented flying here. Almost everything about flying was done
	in this country.
	I think it is a time for us to move forward and create
	airspace that is the most modern and in a time of more and more
	congestion is the most advanced in the world. And I think
	safety will actually be enhanced if we say to the FAA, ``You
	are responsible for making sure we are safe at every single
	juncture,'' and separate the operation of the system into
	another company or another organization that has whatever
	oversight it needs to have, but has stability with funding, it
	has stability with governance, and it has a singular focus to
	give us the best airspace system in the world.
	Mr. Davis. And what you are saying is the status quo is not
	achieving any of those goals.
	Mr. Tilden. The status quo--I personally believe that
	demand is growing at a rate that is higher than technology
	deployment. So the delays are getting worse and worse by the
	year.
	Mr. Davis. And costing taxpayers.
	Mr. Tilden. Yes.
	Mr. Davis. Thank you.
	Mr. Childs.
	Mr. Childs. Well, he is my partner, so I shouldn't probably
	say much more than what he did. He did a great job.
	The only thing I want to emphasize is that operating a
	regional aircraft, we want to be very careful about how it is
	funded. No matter what the reform is, you can get into a dots-
	on-the-screen scenario, but we fundamentally, like we have
	talked about, the volatility of our model is tight. And we just
	want to make sure that it is a fair representation of the
	economics within our model.
	But we are 100 percent supportive of the direction that you
	are going down with that. And I agree with Mr. Tilden on those
	points as well.
	Mr. Davis. All right.
	Any additional points, Mr. Tilden, you want to make on ATC
	reform----
	Mr. Tilden. Not----
	Mr. Davis [continuing]. Comparatively speaking to any other
	countries?
	Mr. Tilden. I think I made the point in my testimony. There
	are different models in different countries, but most
	industrialized countries in the world have moved to a separate
	air traffic management organization, separate from the FAA or
	the safety oversight, aviation safety oversight.
	And I think the examples are mixed. There are some great
	examples. There are examples that aren't so good. But there are
	models out there for us to look at if we choose to.
	Mr. Davis. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
	Mr. LoBiondo. I would like to now recognize Mr. Tom Brady--
	no, I am sorry, Mr. Capuano.
	Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Ms. Nelson, I just want to kind of draw a big bold line on
	this. The other day when I took a late flight home, 9 o'clock I
	landed--actually, a little before 9. The 8-hour rest period,
	last passenger gets off, flight attendant steps off the plane,
	the 8-hour rest period starts, bang. A flight attendant has to
	walk out to the sidewalk just like me, get a ride, usually from
	a van, to a hotel--I am going home, they are going to a hotel--
	check into the hotel, grab something to eat, and go to sleep.
	So let's just assume, for the sake of discussion, that the
	8-hour rest period starts at 9 p.m., let's assume they are
	asleep by 11 p.m., which, of course, nobody I know that works a
	9-to-5 job is asleep at 7 p.m., but let's just assume it for
	the sake of discussion.
	In order to get back to work by 5 a.m., which is the 8-hour
	period, you have to do the same thing in reverse. You have to
	wake up, grab a shower, check out of the hotel, have a little
	something to eat, grab a ride back to the airport, get off that
	shuttle, walk through security, walk down, and the 8-hour shift
	starts the minute you step on that plane.
	That means that has left you with--now, again, that
	presumes you have had 2 hours from the end of your shift to the
	time you are actually asleep. If it takes you 2 hours to do
	that, it takes you 2 hours in the morning, that leaves you 4
	hours to sleep. Now, as I understand it, pilots have 6. You
	have 4.
	How many flight attendants were lost on 9/11?
	Ms. Nelson. Twenty-five.
	Mr. Capuano. How many flight attendants were on the flight
	with Sully Sullenberger when he landed in the Hudson?
	Ms. Nelson. Three.
	Mr. Capuano. Did they do their job?
	Ms. Nelson. They did their job perfectly.
	Mr. Capuano. And their job was a little bit more than
	serving drinks and picking up after my trash. It was saving my
	life.
	Ms. Nelson. That is correct.
	Mr. Capuano. I only do this--I know you know all these
	answers and I know the people at the panel and I know the
	people here know it, but I do it to make sure that people
	understand, to the best of my ability, that flight attendants
	are a lot more important than what we see on a regular basis.
	I don't want to see a flight attendant in an emergency
	situation. And when they ask me when I am sitting in the
	emergency row if I am willing to help, and they say, you really
	don't want me opening that door, that is a problem. And I want
	a flight attendant there who is trained on how to help me.
	So I actually don't think you are asking for much. I think
	you are asking for ridiculously little. And I hope that
	Congress can do what is long overdue to get this done.
	Mr. Tilden, I would like to shift gears a little bit. I am
	a big supporter of NextGen. I totally agree with everything you
	said about trying to catch up in technology and try to make
	things efficient. But does NextGen alone require a specific
	flight path to make it work?
	Mr. Tilden. No. No. I think NextGen is about----
	Mr. Capuano. It allows more options.
	Mr. Tilden [continuing]. A lot of different technologies to
	shorten the travel time.
	Mr. Capuano. As an executive of a growing airline, do you
	ever concern yourself with the noise of the people who live
	under these flight paths?
	Mr. Tilden. Yes.
	Mr. Capuano. I figured you would. You should, and I believe
	that. So, therefore, there is nothing that you know about in
	NextGen that would prohibit the FAA and my NATCA [National Air
	traffic Controllers Association] people from changing the
	flight paths to spread whatever noise is there. Noise is noise,
	I get it. But there is no need to have a flight path
	continuously going over one house and only one house. Is that a
	fair statement?
	Mr. Tilden. Yes. I think it is a fair statement.
	Mr. Capuano. The reason I ask, because many of us have had
	some trouble. The FAA has finally acquiesced to try to take a
	look at it. I think we can have modern NextGen equipment,
	saving you some money, saving me some time, and still concern
	ourselves with the quality of life of people who live under
	flight paths.
	Mr. Tilden. I agree with you, sir.
	Mr. Capuano. Thank you. That is really all I want to say.
	Mr. Childs, would you agree with that?
	Mr. Childs. I would agree with that, yes.
	Mr. Capuano. And, Mr. Hete, would you agree with that?
	Mr. Hete. I would agree with that.
	Mr. Capuano. I am not going to ask you two guys, because
	you don't own airlines. If you did, though, I know you would.
	I guess I am just going to use the last 30 seconds I have
	to also add my voice to the Norwegian thing. The Norwegian
	thing is horrendous. It is an absolutely wrong decision and it
	is heading in a direction exactly as you described, Ms. Nelson.
	It is jeopardizing American jobs.
	Mr. Tilden, you will not be able to compete if this goes
	undone.
	I also want to add one more thing. Mr. Tilden, what is your
	largest airport that you service?
	Mr. Tilden. Los Angeles.
	Mr. Capuano. Los Angeles. If I start an airline tomorrow
	and I wanted to fly to L.A., and California said, ``You know
	something, Mike, we are going to give you, your new airline, $4
	billion to be able to fly into L.A. so you don't have to pay
	quite so much landing fee,'' do you think that would be fair?
	Mr. Tilden. No. And to be fair, I wasn't asked. But Alaska
	actually has not taken a position on the Norwegian Air
	International.
	Mr. Capuano. I am not asking you to take a position. I am
	just kind of using you to like----
	Mr. Tilden. No. And I said it earlier, but just to be
	really clear, as a little airline ourselves, we are 6 percent,
	5.5 or 6 percent of the industry now with Virgin America. At
	every opportunity, we want to make the case that we want a
	level playing field.
	And the simple point I made with the Gulf Coast airlines is
	that we are competing against airlines that can go into
	companies and say, ``We are a one-stop shop, we can sell you
	tickets all over the world.'' Alaska can't. And in a network
	business, we need to build partnerships with others to have any
	shot----
	Mr. Capuano. And that is why I am not asking you to knock
	your partners. That would be wrong.
	Mr. Tilden. Gotcha.
	Mr. Capuano. But fair is fair. And fair is a level playing
	field, the Government not paying me to do what somebody else
	already does.
	Mr. Tilden. Yes, I agree.
	Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Tilden.
	Mr. Chairman, it looks like I am over. You are getting kind
	of lax.
	Mr. LoBiondo. You are always over.
	Mr. Capuano. I yield back the remainder of the time I don't
	have.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Just for the record, you are always over.
	Mr. Webster.
	Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
	Mr. Tilden, you mentioned constrained capacity in your
	testimony. And I had a question about, are you satisfied with
	the way you can obtain a gate slot at an airport, in general?
	Do you think it is balanced?
	Mr. Tilden. At most airports in our country, it is actually
	a good system. The Government gives these airports money and,
	as a consequence of receiving Federal money, they are required
	to create access for airlines like Alaska that might want to
	come into Chicago or Indianapolis or what have you.
	There are a handful of highly constrained airports. And I
	think smaller airlines like Alaska would say, ``No, we would
	like more access to these airports, and if we had more access
	we will bring our brand of service, different fares'' and so
	forth.
	So I think in the most congested, slot-controlled airports,
	more access would be a good thing for competition and for
	smaller airlines.
	Mr. Webster. So how would you propose to remedy that?
	Mr. Tilden. You know, I didn't sort of put a lot of thought
	into this today, but in markets like JFK, as an example, I
	think we got into there a couple of years ago with one red eye
	flight. I think as we look to make changes in the flight
	schedule at JFK, we might allocate a certain number of slots, a
	certain number of landing rights and departure rights for
	airlines that don't have capacity, airlines that will come in
	and bring competition to the marketplace.
	Mr. Webster. I have another question about cybersecurity.
	There was another panel a while back, I don't remember exactly
	when, and they downplayed cybersecurity in the flight industry.
	And then, on the other hand, I was in another committee, and
	they were talking about the fact that even Barbie dolls have
	IPOs. And I am not sure why, maybe just because they can do it.
	I don't know. But it seems like if that is open, maybe there is
	a problem.
	Do you see, or can you even talk about in a public forum,
	what might be the problems in cybersecurity?
	Mr. Tilden. I can speak to that. Are you talking about
	cybersecurity with respect to airlines generally or with
	respect to----
	Mr. Webster. Yes. Well, the more specific you can get,
	great.
	Mr. Tilden. Yeah. No, I think it is a big, big concern for
	every U.S. company. I think it is a particular concern for
	airlines. You have seen airlines have had some outages, some
	issues in the last 2, 3, 4 years. Alaska had an outage 5 years
	ago that required us to shut down our operation for half a day.
	I think folks are dealing with it. And it is one of these,
	whatever, the bad guys are moving at a certain rate, and we are
	trying to move as fast as we can.
	At Alaska, I will tell you that we have quadrupled our IT
	budget in the last 5 years. We have gone from roughly $50
	million a year to roughly $200 million of spending on IT.
	Cybersecurity, I would call that defensive. A lot of that
	spending is defensive. It protects our operation the way it is
	today, but it doesn't really add new features or functionality
	or benefits for our customers.
	Mr. Webster. Thank you very much.
	I yield back.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Carson.
	Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Hete, in your written testimony you note that ATSG
	provides more and longer flight crew rest opportunities than
	your passenger counterparts. Would you care to comment further?
	And you noted your opposition to any new aircraft noise
	restrictions. As you know, noise is a very contentious issue
	for Members of Congress. What steps would your airline
	subsidiaries be willing to reduce with regards to local
	communities' exposure to aircraft noise?
	Mr. Hete. Well, I think it would be, with the existing ATC
	system, we have to follow prescribed flight paths to begin
	with. So there is not much you can do in regard to controlling
	noise other than operate the aircraft according to the
	manufacturer's specifications and keep your engines as low a
	turn rate as possible. So we don't have a lot of flexibility in
	that regard today.
	Our concern is more if you expand and go to a Next
	Generation System, that it imposes more restrictions on us.
	Since most of our flying is done in the off-hours during the
	nighttime, since we service the express industry primarily,
	that we have a larger exposure I think in that regard to the
	time that people are sleeping. So it is a greater concern to us
	than it would be for the passenger carriers who operate in
	daylight hours.
	As far as the crew rest times, as I said, our operations
	are built around primarily a 5- or call it 5\1/2\-day-a-week
	operation. Most flights are one flight into a hub and maybe a
	shorter leg tagged onto it thereafter, and then the pilot is
	off duty for a considerable period of time. If they fly to a
	west coast, we have 36-hour layovers, for example, where they
	get the additional rest period. So it is not as great a concern
	for us, because of the limited number of flight legs that we do
	fly in a given day.
	Mr. Carson. Thank you.
	Ms. Nelson, we have heard from U.S. regional airlines that
	they are experiencing a growing pilot shortage, and this kind
	of shortage is often attributed to the 2010 requirement that
	airline first officers possess an airline transport
	certificate. As you know, this requirement raised the training
	prerequisite for first officers to 1,500 flight-hours.
	As president of AFA, you have a vested interest in aviation
	safety. Do you take a position on this issue and whether there
	should be any rollback on minimum flight-hours for first
	officers?
	Ms. Nelson. The Association of Flight Attendants supports
	the position of the Air Line Pilots Association and the Colgan
	families who are here today, and we believe that industrial
	issues should not inform safety issues in aviation.
	Mr. Carson. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Westerman.
	Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Ms. Nelson, could you elaborate a little bit more about
	your concerns with voice calls on airplanes?
	Ms. Nelson. Yes. We have incredible concerns with voice
	calls on airplanes. We have concerns in many ways.
	First and foremost, our members are charged with keeping
	order in the cabin, and more and more we are having to
	deescalate conflict. We are concerned about the conflict, that
	this will increase as people are having to listen to very loud
	business meetings or conversations with new boyfriends or
	girlfriends or relationships that are ending. Whatever those
	conversations may be, people don't want to hear it in the space
	of the cabin where they are closer together than they have ever
	been before.
	But even more so, we have a concern with security. And if
	terrorists are able to communicate in real time through voice
	communications, Richard Reid's bomb likely would have gone off.
	Flight attendants would not have been able to thwart that
	effort. If we have voice calls allowed in the cabin, we will
	not be able to see those who are intending to use this for ill
	purposes. They will not stand out, they will blend in.
	And so, for those reasons, we are adamantly opposed. And we
	are also opposed, we believe, because we also are often the
	strongest advocates for the passengers in our care, and they
	are unanimously opposed to voice calls in the cabin.
	Mr. Westerman. I believe you just addressed a question
	about pilots, but what can be done from a policy standpoint to
	encourage more young people to pursue aviation careers?
	Mr. Hete. I think from an aviation career standpoint, a lot
	of it is just awareness, for young people to be aware of what
	the opportunities are in the aviation community. I know there
	is a lot of focus on pilots, but we also operate an MRO,
	maintenance, repair, and overhaul operation. And from a
	technician standpoint, trained aircraft mechanics are in very
	short supply as well, just because of lack of familiarity of
	the opportunities there for young people to get into those
	career fields.
	Certainly from a pilot standpoint, the investment is
	significantly greater than you would have for a mechanic, for
	example. So anything that could be done to facilitate the
	funding of those certainly would be of long-term benefit.
	Mr. Westerman. And, Ms. Nelson, I saw a story recently
	about--I think this actually happened several years ago, but it
	was highlighting airline employees intervening in human
	trafficking. There was a young girl, who I believe passed a
	note in the bathroom, and found out she was being harassed or
	trafficked.
	Can you explain more about the progress of enhanced
	training required by our 2016 bill to help flight attendants
	detect human trafficking?
	Ms. Nelson. I would like to thank this committee very much
	for taking up that issue and mandating training for flight
	attendants to recognize and report human trafficking.
	The only issue is that there was not a process to implement
	that training or specific requirements about what would be
	contained in that training. And so we are working with our
	airlines to implement those programs to the highest standards
	possible, hopefully aligning with the Blue Lightning Initiative
	of DHS and DOT.
	And we are a little bit concerned that this is not moving
	as quickly as it should. We have heard from flight attendants
	over the years that they have seen something that just doesn't
	look right or thought about it after the flight but didn't know
	what to do at the time. So everyone needs to understand how to
	recognize it, what to do, how to report it, and how to get it
	to the proper authorities so that we can stop human trafficking
	in our skies.
	Mr. Westerman. I have got one final question, I guess more
	for the airline companies. I live in a rural district where
	what commercial airline service we got is essential air
	service, and I get complaints from my constituents on the
	quality of that service. So what can we do to get more--twin-
	engine turboprops would be an improvement in some of these
	airports or even jet service--through the Essential Air Service
	program?
	Mr. Childs. Well, I think a lot of it has to do, quite
	candidly, with the economics and that type of stuff. I
	mentioned earlier that the best thing for us is to make sure we
	have got a very strong, ample supply of aviation professionals.
	I think reassuring the confidence with manufacturers, airplane
	manufacturers and that, so they continue to move technology in
	the right direction is a great thing.
	And more importantly, speak out to your carrier. I don't
	know which location you are meeting with, but there are a lot
	of great opportunities that are being left behind today
	throughout the United States relative to essential air service,
	great communities that deserve outstanding support. But some of
	the things that we have talked about in my previous written and
	oral testimony I think are very key elements to help us resolve
	that.
	Enhancing safety to making sure that we have got an R-ATP,
	make sure there is an awareness like was discussed about how
	good the aviation community is. We need more diversity within
	it. And then we need some loan programs for pilots that help
	them get to a very lucrative career, what is out there today.
	All of that stuff will come back to small communities. But
	we have got to get granular, more confidence in the regional
	airline side to make sure that we get the right aviation
	professionals in there to help even have that conversation.
	Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Mrs. Napolitano.
	Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
	Ms. Nelson, you detailed concerns about pilot pay. Can you
	explain about flight attendants' pay and where you stand?
	Ms. Nelson. Yes. Thank you very much for that question.
	We have the same concerns about flight attendant pay in the
	regional industry. In fact, flight attendant pay is lower than
	the figures that were given today for pilots.
	So, for example, actually sharing the panel here today, Mr.
	Childs, SkyWest does a better job of paying flight attendants
	in the regional industry. But across the board, on average,
	flight attendants working on regional jets under the flag of
	the mainline carriers and serving the same passengers are
	making 45 percent less.
	Mrs. Napolitano. Why?
	Ms. Nelson. And that is concerning, because they are also
	aviation first responders and last line of defense in aviation
	security.
	Mrs. Napolitano. Why are they getting less pay?
	Ms. Nelson. Because of what has been described here today,
	which is the volatility of the regional model that is very,
	very tight in these capacity purchase agreements with the
	mainline airlines. And those agreements have not built in
	enough ability for these regional carriers to provide
	sufficient pay to the people who are working for them.
	Mesa Airlines is a bottom feeder on this, providing 20
	percent less than the rest of the regional flight attendants as
	well. We are in the middle of a strike vote on that and trying
	to rectify that situation. But they also have very low work
	rules that include only paying for schedules. So if a flight is
	going from Chicago to LaGuardia and has to divert, has to hold
	in the air, has to stay with those passengers for upwards of 6,
	7 hours, depending upon what happens, they are still only paid
	the 2 hours that they were originally scheduled for.
	It is inhumane. It has got to change. And it is a problem
	with the general structure of the agreements between the
	mainline and the regional carriers, first and foremost.
	Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. But one of the other questions
	that I had was the concern I have over subsidized foreign
	airlines in the U.S. market. I was wondering whether they have
	the same requirements for pilots and for the attendants,
	because if they are subsidized, we don't subsidize that to the
	size of what they do in foreign countries.
	Would you have any comment about the concern this brings up
	and the problem with any airline and how we could address it?
	Ms. Nelson. We have concerns that, of course, we don't have
	oversight over what those airlines are doing. So in some of
	these countries it is outlawed for workers to even organize, to
	bargain contracts, to band together, to beat back the
	discriminatory practices that we have beat back over the years.
	If they overtake our market, we will not be able to get
	that back again. So for every route that the U.S. airlines have
	to cede, those Gulf carriers are encroaching upon the U.S.
	market, which is decreasing their ability to actually compete
	with the network structures and ultimately will be choked out.
	And we won't have any say over how those workers are treated or
	what the safety standards are. We won't have any control over
	the industry that is providing service for Americans.
	Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I would like to ask you one question
	since you brought up the attendants. Are the attendants and the
	pilots given any mental health screenings? Because you deal
	with a lot of crazy people sometimes. And I fly twice a week,
	so I have seen it all, I have heard it all. Eighteen years of
	it. Mental health is beginning to be a major problem that we
	should have maybe training for the pilots and for the
	attendants.
	Ms. Nelson. So mental health is certainly an issue that we
	deal with for our union. And having unions and having
	professional pilots and flight attendants who are career
	employees is very important. We can provide resources and
	structures to be able to support people throughout their
	careers.
	So we have vibrant EAP programs where we address these
	issues in the workplace immediately. Their peers understand
	that they can report any concerns that they might have, get
	people the help that they need sooner.
	Mrs. Napolitano. But are they trained to recognize any of
	the symptoms?
	Ms. Nelson. Our EAP committees are trained to recognize
	those symptoms, to report that. And all workers are advised in
	unionized workplaces at U.S. carriers that they have the
	ability to use these resources to their benefit, to report any
	potential problems in a confidential atmosphere, to get help to
	those employees, get them off the job while they need to
	recover, and bring them back when they are healthy.
	Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Rokita.
	Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Chairman.
	I thank the witnesses.
	Mr. Tilden, you said you are a pilot. Are you current?
	Mr. Tilden. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Rokita. What do you fly?
	Mr. Tilden. I actually bought a TBM now. I was in a Cessna
	182 for a long time.
	Mr. Rokita. Right. There we go. So general aviation for
	sure.
	Mr. Tilden. Yes.
	Mr. Rokita. I appreciate that. I also appreciate, if I
	understood your testimony to questions prior to that, a lot of
	the congestion and capacity issues aren't just in the air,
	right? You said that is at the airport, whether it is going to
	the airport, marshalling issues. You know, we have that issue a
	number of times trying to get to a gate.
	Mr. Tilden. Yes.
	Mr. Rokita. And, in fact, don't the airlines execute their
	schedule such that you have departures and arrivals generally
	coming together at the same time so you can facilitate the
	movement of passengers, so you don't have to pay people at
	extraneous hours if you don't have to, to make things more
	efficient, which I appreciate, correct?
	Mr. Tilden. Yes.
	Mr. Rokita. So that contributes to capacity and constraints
	and some things as well.
	I also understood from your testimony--and I haven't really
	heard this before, I think you said it very well--look, we are
	looking for fast tracking of approaches.
	Mr. Tilden. Right.
	Mr. Rokita. I am happy to work with you on that. I think
	that is a great idea. I am going to have you put up an approach
	I picked from Miami just kind of randomly. I don't know if you
	can read that. I don't know if we can get it any bigger.
	You have seen this if you are instrument-rated. This is a
	relatively simple approach. And you can see two-thirds of the
	way down to the right the profile view of that approach. And
	you see this is an ILS into 26-left at Miami, and you come down
	that approach and starting at about 3,000 feet, and for the
	next 6, 7 miles or so it is exactly what you are talking about.
	Mr. Tilden. Correct.
	Mr. Rokita. But I think what you are saying is that you
	would like to see that line continue on for 100, 150 miles out
	or whatever, so that you can idle the engines, which would help
	with sound. You can hit your numbers, hit your speeds, true up
	at the end if you have to, but otherwise, boom, you are in,
	right?
	Mr. Tilden. That is exactly right. So this is an ILS
	approach. And an ILS has two radio beams. It has got a
	localizer, which is the up/down--sorry, the lateral beam.
	Mr. Rokita. I only got 5 minutes, so we are not going to do
	a class now.
	Mr. Tilden. OK. But what you want is to get rid of that and
	have GPS a curved line from altitude down to the runway in.
	Mr. Rokita. Sure, but not get rid of this. I don't like
	that, because for some of us we use that still, because we are
	not coming from 30,000 feet or 200 miles away.
	Mr. Tilden. But it only extends 10 miles.
	Mr. Rokita. Right. It is simple enough. I think we are on
	the same point. We can get an approach for you, because we have
	a GPS approach that I can put up right now that would show the
	same thing. Within 2 or 3 years, we had GPS approaches plates
	pop up all over the country. They got that done.
	Mr. Tilden. Yes. Yes.
	Mr. Rokita. I don't see why they can't get that done for
	you, and I would like to work with you on that.
	At the same time, I don't see why you would testify, why
	you need to testify that that is the problem, that we need to
	give away the national treasure that is our airspace, not even
	lease or sell like we did with the Indiana toll road for $3.8
	billion, but give away the national treasure that is our
	airspace to facilitate that for you. I think there is just a
	much simpler way.
	And I would, Chairman, introduce, without opposition,
	apparently, hopefully, Mr. DeFazio's poster board for the
	record with unanimous consent, if I can have that. Whatever he
	was testifying with, I would like that in the record.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Without objection.

	[The chart can be found on page 17.]

	Mr. Rokita. Thank you.
	Because you want to do all that Mr. DeFazio pointed out to
	accomplish that line getting extended 100, 150 miles out, which
	I completely agree with.
	I think perhaps the bigger problem is maybe, not to put
	words in your mouth, these are mine, that once you do that,
	once you idle back and you set that course--and you could do
	this very easily, very safely, and you are hitting your numbers
	just like you say--you can't have anyone else get in your way,
	right?
	So if I am flying that approach coming in, not on your
	timetable, but my own timetable, you can't, because it defeats
	the purpose if you have to vector away, come back, idle back up
	to hold an altitude, which is exactly what our ATC
	professionals are there to do, to provide safety in an
	environment where we all have a right to use the airspace. And
	you, as a GA pilot, certainly in Alaska, know that we pay a gas
	tax, we have a right to that airspace just like everyone else
	for as much as we use of it.
	Mr. Tilden. Right.
	Mr. Rokita. And it works and it works very efficiently.
	So at least on the approach plate aspect of this, count me
	as a fan. Count me as someone who wants to get you there.
	Because not only is it the sound, you are saving a lot of
	money, because to run a turbine at a lower altitude is an
	extremely much more amount of fuel than at a higher altitude
	where they are designed to run.
	Mr. Tilden. I think we calculate 100 gallons and 1 ton of
	emissions per approach that is flown with this methodology.
	Mr. Rokita. This is the issue. It is easily solvable. We
	just did it with GPS approaches all over the country. We can
	get there without destroying the ecosystem that is our national
	airspace and where a lot of your future pilots for both you and
	the regionals are going to come from.
	I will shut up.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Johnson.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	This question is for Mr. Tilden, Mr. Childs, and Mr.
	Leocha. And, Mr. Leocha, I would like for you to answer first,
	followed by Mr. Tilden and Mr. Childs.
	With respect to flight pricing data, is there a legal or
	public interest requirement that requires that flight pricing
	data be public information that can be displayed or published
	by anybody, any entity, at any time; or, on the other hand, is
	flight pricing data proprietary information protected by
	intellectual property law, which enables the airline to control
	which entities can display or publish their flight pricing
	data?
	Mr. Leocha?
	Mr. Leocha. Thank you for the question.
	The airlines are common carriers, and there is a lot of law
	that says that pricing of common carriers is public
	information. At the same time, airlines should be allowed to
	operate and to sell their tickets through businesses of their
	choice.
	What we at Travelers United have been pushing for for years
	is for the release of all of the pricing data, including
	airfares and ancillary fees, so that we can then put together a
	good shopping engine and IT professionals can put together
	something which allows good comparison shopping.
	We are not trying to take away the choice of an airline in
	terms of who they would like to sell their tickets through, but
	we are trying to find out how we can comparison shop and
	understand what the final cost of the product is going to be.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you.
	Mr. Tilden.
	Mr. Tilden. So on this subject, when we advertise a fare,
	Seattle to Los Angeles, for example, we are required to include
	all the Government fees and taxes in those fares as part of the
	advertised price, and those fees and taxes can be 20 or 25
	percent of the ticket price. So that is done. And if we try to
	sell that fare over AlaskaAir.com or through a travel agent or
	whatever third-party website it might be, those fares are all
	represented.
	I think where the industry pulls back is people that are
	saying, you are required to give us extra information on--it
	might be the charge for a bag or for a fruit and cheese tray,
	for any ancillary. And here is the important part of this, is
	these people all have a business model where they charge the
	airlines for that.
	And I think what we say is that that should be a commercial
	transaction. If it is in our interest to distribute through a
	travel agency that uses Sabre, then we should go negotiate that
	transaction with the travel agency that uses Sabre and provide
	the information.
	But to be compelled to and then to have to pay the fee to
	the global distribution service, I guess what we are saying is
	we don't see the commercial value. We think that we will
	actually have lower costs and lower fares for travel--and low
	fares is something Alaska cares about a lot--through lower cost
	and more direct distribution.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you, Mr. Tilden.
	Mr. Childs.
	Mr. Childs. Yes, I would echo what Mr. Tilden said. We do
	not, within our business model, in any way distribute any of
	the sales of the tickets. We don't do any advertising, we don't
	do any of that. We just make contracts with the major carriers
	that fly from point A to point B. So for us, it would be not
	necessarily part of our business model or I wouldn't be able to
	have anything to say about it.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you.
	Ms. Nelson, in your written testimony, you mentioned that
	the United States lags behind other countries in equalizing
	rest regulations. As you noted, the committee included a
	provision requiring a 10-hour rest between flight attendants'
	duty days and Fatigue Risk Management Plans in last year's FAA
	reauthorization.
	How would these requirements help create equality with
	other countries on flight attendant rest?
	Ms. Nelson. Thank you very much for the question.
	What ICAO has done is set standards that say that the
	flight deck and the cabin crews should have equalized rest, and
	has been very prescriptive about that and was very clear about
	that in 2009.
	What changed is when 117 went into place, FAR 117 for the
	pilots, the minimum rest moved to 10 hours' minimum rest, and
	the flight attendant rest regulations got left behind, even
	though we had participated in at the same time fatigue studies
	commissioned by Congress that concluded that flight attendants
	needed more rest in order to avoid fatigue.
	So including the 10 hours' minimum rest and a Fatigue Risk
	Management Plan that will help flight attendants identify when
	they are tired, how to avoid being tired, and how to stay
	rested longer is critical to ensure that we do not have flight
	attendants who are serving as aviation's first responders
	fatigued in our aviation system.
	It is a critical safety issue. And I want to thank the
	committee again for making this a top priority. And I also want
	to note that we have a leader in the industry at the table.
	Alaska Airlines actually does better than this. So there are
	some carriers who have negotiated better contracts, but we need
	to raise the standard across the industry, because the 8 hours
	that are in place today are simply not enough to avoid fatigue.
	Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
	And I yield back.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
	Mr. Leocha, how would you rate the performance of the DOT
	consumer protection efforts?
	Mr. Leocha. DOT's consumer protection efforts, when I first
	came to Washington back in 2009, were excellent. We had several
	big changes in terms of increasing the compensation for lost
	luggage, delayed and damaged luggage. We had increases in the
	denied boarding compensation. They began with the tarmac delay
	rules. And we also have the Full Fare Advertising rule that
	came into effect. And on top of that, the 24-hour rule, where
	if you make a mistake you can go back and you have got up to 24
	hours to cancel your flight.
	Over the last 4 years, the Department of Transportation has
	been doing an awful lot of studies and rulemakings, and I have
	filed literally hundreds of pages of comments. However, nothing
	has really changed.
	So at this point, we are in a situation where the system is
	operating. As you heard from my testimony, I still don't feel
	that consumers can adequately comparison shop and to know what
	the full price of the product that they are buying is. There is
	no way today for anybody to say, ``I am traveling with my wife
	and two kids, we are going to carry on four bags and check two
	bags, and we are going from New York City to L.A.'' You cannot
	get the total price, including checked bags, assigned seats,
	and airfares. It doesn't exist. And that is something which we
	need to get around to, and eventually we will, because it will
	help everybody.
	Competition is what makes these systems work. And without
	competition, without having the pricing and the data available
	to everyone, the system just won't change.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
	For Mr. Tilden and Mr. Childs, Mr. Westerman touched on
	this, and it may be purely economics, but I represent Atlantic
	City Airport. We have a 10,000-foot runway. We were backup for
	the shuttle when it was in operation. We have a new, very
	modern terminal. We are in fairly close proximity to
	Philadelphia, which is bursting at the seams with trying to
	figure out how to expand.
	And maybe it is just economics, but the South Jersey
	Transportation Authority and actually the New York Port
	Authority, which is now the operator for the airport, we are
	just searching for, like, the same thing Mr. Westerman was
	searching. Do you have any advice for an airport like ours of
	how to attract additional?
	Mr. Tilden. What we have seen on the west coast, what Mr.
	Childs said, I think airports have had outreach efforts. They
	come talk to airlines like Alaska. And I think when they work
	with the airline and they commit that an airline brings in
	service, we are going to try to get people on the flight, we
	have done that in many cases, and often it works. Often the
	community says, bring new air service to us. We bring the new
	air service. They get people out, support the air service, and
	it works. So that is a bit of advice I would have.
	The other thing I would just add is the system is
	fantastic. I mean, it works really, really well. But a lot of
	the things we have been talking about today, it just costs
	money to fly an airplane well and safely and pay people the way
	you want to pay them and so forth.
	So what you have seen--and Chip has been speaking to this--
	is that the smallest airplane size you see has gone from 9
	seats to 19 seats to 28 seats to now really the smallest
	airplane you see much of at all is about a 50-seater. And I
	don't know what to do about that. I don't have any bright, any
	great--it just may be that to fly the way we want to fly and
	need to fly, that is about the size that you are going to see
	sort of commonly used.
	To the other Congressman's question, in certain markets
	where they are really remote, maybe essential air service with
	some help from the Government is how you prop up service in
	some of those locations.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Anything different, Mr. Childs?
	Mr. Childs. Yeah, I may sound like a broken record a little
	bit here today, but the reality is, if there are not enough
	pilots and the statistics that I read earlier are real, if you
	are trying to get new service the way you are talking about, it
	is very, very difficult unless we solve this pilot solution
	through the means in which we have talked about, because that
	enables you to have a conversation.
	We talk about communities losing service. We talk about
	communities getting service. A lot of this has to be solved by
	this pilot situation that we need help with.
	Mr. LoBiondo. OK.
	Ms. Nelson, you were very articulate about the rest hour,
	and at least some of us hope that becomes a reality. But in
	addition to that, is there anything that we should be looking
	at that would be on a top priority list for you that we have
	not asked about that you think should be included or we should
	be looking at?
	Ms. Nelson. Thank you very much, Chairman LoBiondo.
	Our top priority is the 10 hours with the Fatigue Risk
	Management Plan. We also appreciate the work of this committee
	and would continue to support some of the items that were in
	last year's bill, which include a review of the evacuation
	standards, no knives on planes, and I am trying to look for the
	list of the rest.
	But we would really implore this committee to continue with
	the 10 hours in the Fatigue Risk Management Program and to take
	very seriously your job with the oversight of the industry in
	enforcing these trade agreements, enforcing these Open Skies
	agreements, and addressing the issue of the flag-of-convenience
	model in aviation. We believe that that is the top concern for
	our members and we hope that that will be addressed this year.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Very well.
	Mr. DeFazio, do you have anything else.
	Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Hete, the Trump administration has recently put a hold
	on an FAA rule to harmonize the United States with the ICAO
	lithium battery transport requirements. ICAO determined that
	the risk is such that there should be no commercial transport
	of lithium batteries on passenger aircraft whatsoever. And then
	secondly, they imposed requirements upon packaging and charge
	and other things for freight transport. Do you support the ICAO
	rules?
	Mr. Hete. Yes, we do. Harmonization is key to us.
	Mr. DeFazio. OK. Right. So I am hopeful that the Trump
	administration will withdraw their delay in that rule. I mean,
	what this said is: Well, we know we will have voluntary
	compliance.
	I am always concerned with voluntary compliance because
	there is always some low-budget person out there saying: To
	heck with that, I will take your stuff.
	So you think if we set this floor we are going to be much
	better off because everybody has to follow the same rules.
	Mr. Hete. That is correct.
	Mr. DeFazio. OK.
	And then to Mr. Tilden or Mr. Childs, I would assume you
	support the ICAO position that the commercial transport at this
	point in time is too hazardous and would not want to see that,
	again, someone is transporting commercially on passenger
	aircraft.
	Mr. Tilden. Yes.
	Mr. DeFazio. OK.
	Mr. Childs.
	Mr. Childs. Yes.
	Mr. DeFazio. OK. Good. Well, hopefully we can get that
	straightened out with the administration. So--well, OK.
	I had asked the question of Ms. Nelson. Your testimony was
	great. And, I mean, one thing that came to my mind was, is if
	we are contracting for pilots around the world, what standards
	would they have been trained under and what number of hours
	would they have. And then of course there is the additional
	problem of the Malaysian flight that we still haven't found. So
	I am not anxious to be having Malaysian pilots in the near
	future.
	And I have found, the staff found that ICAO says 200 hours
	of flight time, or 150 if completed during training, is the
	pilot standard. So when we start looking at this contract
	model, it is likely that your people are going to be flying
	overseas in complicated, large aircraft with someone who has
	got 201 hours of time. That is great.
	I do note in India, in fact, there were people who got
	certificated who had never, ever even flown a simulator, let
	alone a plane. It was a bit of a scandal, and they got their
	certificates pulled, but it did happen.
	So I just want to thank you for raising those issues. And I
	don't think we should be asking U.S. airlines to compete with
	countries that only require 200 hours to meet the minimum ICAO
	standard. I would have a tremendous concern about that.
	Would you, Mr. Leocha, have a concern in terms of consumer
	protection of having people fly on planes with pilots with that
	little experience?
	Mr. Leocha. The international airline system as it is
	running right now is probably the safest that it has ever been
	in history, and if we keep doing what we are doing and we have
	basically no fatal crashes for a long time, I think that we are
	on the right track.
	Mr. DeFazio. OK. That was a little equivocal. I would say
	we still haven't found that Malaysian flight, so I have
	concerns about chasing the cheapest labor around the world. I
	have spent a lot of time on cruise line issues and domestic
	maritime issues, and nobody wins in a race to the bottom, which
	is where we have taken things, particularly with flags of
	convenience.
	There was a great ``60 Minutes'' piece about 15 years ago
	on flags of convenience and what it means for passengers: rape,
	murder, whatever. You would go to the Liberian courts if you
	were on the high seas. A ship gets hijacked, call the Liberian
	Navy. I do not want to see something like that happening to the
	airline industry, and this model will take us in that
	direction.
	With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time, and
	yield back.
	Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
	I would like to thank our panelists here today. I think
	this was very productive.
	I would like to remind everybody we are looking for your
	ideas, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96e2e4f7f8e5e6f9e4e2f0f3f3f2f4f7f5fdd6fbf7fffab8fef9e3e5f3b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</a>.
	And this hearing stands adjourned.
	[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


	[all]



	</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body></html>