[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: STATE OF AMERICAN
AIRPORTS
=======================================================================
(115-3)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 1, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC 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
24-654 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
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........................................ vii
WITNESSES
Sean Donohue, Chief Executive Officer, Dallas Fort Worth
International Airport:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Responses to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Mark Meadows of North Carolina...................... 47
Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington........................... 48
Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois......................... 50
Lance Lyttle, Managing Director, Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Responses to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Mark Meadows of North Carolina...................... 66
Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington........................... 67
Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois......................... 69
Christina Cassotis, Chief Executive Officer, Allegheny County
Airport Authority:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Responses to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Mark Meadows of North Carolina...................... 79
Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois......................... 82
Lew Bleiweis, Executive Director, Greater Asheville Regional
Airport Authority:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Responses to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Mark Meadows of North Carolina...................... 88
Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois......................... 90
Todd McNamee, A.A.E., C.A.E., Director of Airports, County of
Ventura Department of Airports:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 92
Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Daniel
Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois................................................... 99
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri...................................... 41
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, request to submit the following letters in support
of H.R. 1265, ``Investing in America: Rebuilding America's
Airport Infrastructure Act'':
Letter dated March 1, 2017, from the American Association of
Airport Executives......................................... 101
Letter dated March 1, 2017, from the U.S. Travel Association. 103
Letter dated March 1, 2017, from Airports Council
International.............................................. 105
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Memorandum dated March 8, 2017, from Richard Garcia, Mayor of
Edinburg, Texas, and President, Board of Edinburg Economic
Development Corporation, et al., to Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.............................. 106
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: STATE OF AMERICAN
AIRPORTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 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. I would like to thank you all for being here today.
Today the Aviation Subcommittee is holding the second of its
hearings in the 115th Congress in preparation for FAA
reauthorization.
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 airports and their role in the
21st-century transportation network.
Airports are the most visible piece of physical
infrastructure in the air transportation system, and the place
where all flights begin and end. More than 800 million
passengers pass through our Nation's 509 commercial service
airports on U.S. air carriers each year, a figure that is
projected to grow to 1 billion within 10 years.
Our Nation is home to 3 of the 10 busiest airports in terms
of passengers, and 8 of the 10 busiest airports ranked by the
number of aircraft operations. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport tops both categories, earning the title
of the world's busiest airport by any measure.
Our Nation's airport infrastructure is not limited to just
passenger service airports.
It also includes small general aviation airports that are
located in every congressional district; I have five in my own
district. These airports may be small, but they play a vital
role in connecting remote communities, providing emergency
services, fostering small business development, and teaching a
new generation how to fly. No other country supports its
airport infrastructure to the degree and scope that we do here,
in the United States of America.
In partnership with States and municipalities, the Federal
Government supports airport infrastructure development in a
number of ways, including airport improvement program grants,
passenger facility charges, and favorable tax treatment of
airport bonds. Increasingly, however, there is a perception
that American airports are falling behind their global
competitors.
In a 2016 ranking by the Skytrax World Airport Awards, the
best performing American airport was Denver International, but
only in 28th place. According to a 2015 FAA analysis, nine of
the country's largest airports will be capacity constrained by
2030, even if all planned improvements are implemented. At the
other end of the spectrum, available flights to smaller cities
and rural communities are declining, decreasing connectivity
and leaving airports with huge maintenance costs for oversized
facilities.
Not only must Congress be mindful that our Nation's
airports need to plan for and be capable of handling future
passenger growth, but we must remember the needs of smaller
communities and those impacted by declining air services.
Our panel today represents a broad range of airports in
terms of both size and geography. Each airport is also from a
State or district represented by the Aviation Subcommittee, and
each witness brings a unique perspective to the state of
America's airports. I look forward to their testimony on how
Congress can help facilitate the building of a 21st-century
aviation infrastructure.
Before recognizing Mr. Larsen for his remarks, I 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 days for
additional comments and information submitted by Members or
witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
Now I would like to yield to Mr. Larsen.
Rick, it is all yours.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for calling
today's hearing on the state of U.S. airports. As we confront
the FAA reauthorization this year, this hearing provides an
opportunity for us to better understand how Congress can help
airports satisfy their growing capital needs and keep pace with
progress abroad.
First and foremost, I want to welcome a fellow
Washingtonian as part of today's panel of witnesses. Mr. Lance
Lyttle is managing director of Sea-Tac, Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport, which many of my constituents, as well
as tens of millions of others each year, rely on for air
travel. I look forward to hearing from him today, in particular
about the needs and challenges Sea-Tac faces as it undergoes
its own long-term capital improvement plan to modernize
facilities to alleviate congestion, which I know is a serious
issue at Sea-Tac, as well as to improve the customer
experience.
Each year, nearly 800 million passengers board aircraft in
the United States, with approximately 70,000 commercial and GA
[general aviation] flights taking off daily. FAA's most recent
forecast projects the number of commercial enplanements in the
U.S. alone will reach more than 1 billion a year by 2036. So it
should come as no surprise, then, that the U.S. is home to 4 of
the world's 10 busiest airports, and, in total, the U.S. has
over 19,000 airports, ranging from the world's busiest to small
general aviation airfields across the country. And forecasts of
increasing air travel may seem encouraging for the U.S.
economy, but without adequate investment in airports,
passengers will experience congestion, delays, and the U.S.
will miss out on economic opportunities.
The Nation's top airports will continue reaching higher
levels of congestion, unless airports add new capacity and
manage overcrowding. For many years, Chairman LoBiondo and I
have called for the modernization of the air transportation
system. This includes encouraging immediate implementation of
NextGen priorities: improved surface operations to reduce time
spent taxiing between gate and runway, and improved flight
routes and procedures are just two of the priorities, along
with added capacity, that will be critical as air travel
increases.
But, as the airport manager in Arthur Hailey's 1968 novel
``Airport'' remarked--a book I am sure we have all read--``We
have broken the sound barrier, but not the ground barrier.''
That was true in 1968; it is true today. Congress has long
recognized a Federal role with respect to investing in our
aviation infrastructure, including the airport improvement
program and authorizing passenger facility charges.
Unfortunately, airport capital needs significantly exceed
available funding through these two mechanisms. The FAA
estimates that, over the next 5 years, airports will need $32.5
billion for AIP-eligible [Airport Improvement Program] airport
capital projects alone, amounting to about $6 billion per year.
These numbers are even more startling when we add in the non-
AIP-eligible projects. The leading airport association
estimates the airports will need more than $100 billion over
the next 5 years for all airport capital projects. The math
says it is about $20 billion a year.
Congress is falling short, providing $3.35 billion in AIP
funding annually, and the current PFC [passenger facility
charge] currently capped at $4.50 generates only about $3
billion per year. So, even with airports' ability to raise
revenues through PFCs, there is still a significant gap between
available funding and the investment needed for critical safety
and capacity projects. We need to make headway on these funding
shortfalls in order to make U.S. airports more efficient and
more competitive.
So, what I expect to glean from today's hearing is that
this committee must encourage investment at airports, large and
small, and keep airport funding in mind in the development of a
long-term, comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill this year. I
look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses, but
especially the one from Sea-Tac, about the status of our
airport infrastructure and ideas for continued investment now
and into the future.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. All right. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
Chairman Shuster?
Mr. Shuster. I thank Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member
Larsen. Thanks for having this hearing today. Welcome to all of
our witnesses.
We talked about a lot of big airports, but nobody has
mentioned the most important airport in the country, and that
is the Altoona-Blair County Airport.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shuster. So for those of you that don't know it, it is
a great little airport. And I mention that because it is my
favorite airport, number one. But, number two, it is a small,
rural airport. So some of you may have heard I want to do some
reforming of the FAA. I would call it transformation. But I
want to make sure everybody knows that I am not going to forget
about small airports and medium-sized airports, all the
airports. They are important to the system, and are an
important piece of infrastructure that we have got to pay
attention to.
Now, the second most important airport is here today,
represented by Christina Cassotis. I have been practicing.
Christina hasn't been on the job long--2 years--but just--I
guess it was--was it last month? Yes, last month Pittsburgh was
named the Airport of the Year by the Air Transport World
magazine. So it is a great airport--number two in my heart, but
still in my heart.
I appreciate the fact that we are holding these hearings
because aviation is so vital to this country. And I, for one,
believe the FAA needs to be reformed significantly, not only
from the air traffic control system, but the certification
process that is so important to manufacturing in this country.
But having these hearings, bringing people from around the
country together to talk about their piece of the
infrastructure is incredibly important.
I can't be more pleased than coming off last night's speech
by the President. He talked about a lot of things that I agree
with, but he talked about infrastructure. As I have mentioned
before, it is the first President that I can look back into
history that used the word ``infrastructure'' in his inaugural
address. And, as you know, he flies around in an airplane. Now
he has got a Government airplane, Government-issue, which I
think might be a step down for him, but he uses the airspace,
he knows about the airspace. And I have talked to him on a
number of occasions about the need to transform aviation--
again, across the spectrum.
But it is important we have these hearings to educate the
Members. We have got a couple of new members on the committee,
but some come to us with a lot of experience in the air. A
couple of them own their own planes, or fly their own planes,
or do something with their own planes. So again, I really
appreciate the opportunity to have you folks here in front of
us to talk about, again, a critical piece of infrastructure,
and look forward to working with each and every one of you, and
all the committee members, as we move forward.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Shuster. And now I would like
to recognize Mr. DeFazio.
Peter, it is all yours.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. I was the--you know, I am vitally interested in the
needs of the airports, particularly their unmet needs, their
projections into the future to provide a better travel
experience for all Americans, shortened security lines with
redesign to accommodate new security measures, et cetera.
But in the numerous conversations I have had, a lot of
airports are bonded out, they are tapped out, they need a way
to finance bonds for the investment they need to make. So I am
pleased today to announce that, along with our colleague, Mr.
Massie, we have introduced a bill to lift the cap on the
passenger facility charge.
I have a long history with this. I was the original
Democratic sponsor here in the committee. We fenced it, so that
the abuses of the previous PFC, which had--Congress had
repealed couldn't happen, which was generating revenues for
off-airport activities that didn't go directly to benefit those
who used the system. And there have been no scandals, and it is
a good system. Those who don't fly, they don't have to pay, it
is not coming out of the general fund. Those who do fly benefit
from the improvements, and they pay a little bit for a better
experience.
Now, I know that already I can hear the screams from A4A
[Airlines for America] downtown about how this will cause
people to just--no one will ever get on an airplane again if
you raise the PFC $2. Now, it is interesting. My staff did a
little math. Last year, with bag fees--and you average out
among every person who flew--$8.50 per passenger for everybody
who flew last year in bag fees. But that doesn't deter anybody
from flying.
Fifty bucks to put your bag in the overhead? Oh, thank you
very much. I love the experience. What they are really worried
about is that you might build more gates and expand your
terminals and we might have some more competition. That is what
they are really worried about. And it is time to get past this
and get real and allow the airports to fund. You know, the
President has said he wants to rebuild our airports, they are
horrible. They are, in many cases. I talked in particular about
LaGuardia. But he also had reservations about fees. But what is
better than a user fee for the users of the system to pay?
So, I am not going to go into great depths. Already my
colleague from Washington State has mentioned it. But, you
know, we can do everything--you know, the chairman and I have
some agreement over reforms that need to be made. Not the form
of the reforms, but--at the FAA. But as former Administrator
Randy Babbitt said, let's do everything we can with NextGen.
But if you look at LaGuardia, you can't land more than one
plane on a single runway every 54 seconds. So unless we do
things to actually enhance the ground capacity of the system to
move people through the airports, and a better experience more
quickly to provide more gates at airports, to provide more
runways, it doesn't matter what you do with putting planes any
way you want in the sky. They have got to go someplace.
I mean, gee, you get there and, oh, there is the Greyhound
bus station that I am going to stumble through. You know, it is
not a comprehensive way of approaching the problem.
So, yes, let's do what we need to do to make the FAA better
with procurement, personnel, and other issues. But let's also
allow the critical component of the system to grow into a 21st-
century form to accommodate current and future needs of
passengers.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. At this time I would
like to recognize Congresswoman Johnson to introduce one of our
guests.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and thanks to you for calling the hearing.
As we convene this morning to discuss the state of American
airports, I can think of no better witness to testify than Mr.
Sean Donohue, the chief executive officer at DFW Airport--that
is Dallas Fort Worth International Airport.
Mr. Donohue is a great partner, and I am very appreciative
of his willingness to testify before the committee today. He
brings with him more than three decades of experience in the
airline industry. He has previously served as the chief
operating officer of Virgin Australia Airlines. And prior to
that he climbed the ranks of a 25-year career at United
Airlines, first as an accounting clerk and ending as a senior
vice president of operations.
Today we are extremely fortunate to have Mr. Donohue
oversee all the operations of the greatest airport in the
country, Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, as CEO. The
airport--and, you know, Texas always--we should know, we have
the best.
The airport itself is a massive complex, sprawled over
nearly 30 square miles and five terminals. DFW ranks as the
10th-busiest airport in the world by passenger traffic, and the
3d-busiest airport in the world by aircraft movement. Last year
alone, DFW Airport achieved another record by serving more than
65 million passengers. We are extremely fortunate to have Mr.
Donohue at the helm to continue DFW's legacy as a premier
large-hub airport.
With that, I am proud to introduce Mr. Sean Donohue to the
committee, with full confidence in his testimony insight today.
I yield back the balance of my time. But before I do I want
to say that I truly support the passenger facility fee. We can
use it. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Our next witnesses are Mr. Lance Lyttle, managing director
of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport; Ms. Christina
Cassotis, who is the chief executive officer of the Allegheny
County Airport Authority; and Mr. Lew Bleiweis, who is the
executive director of the Greater Asheville Regional Airport
Authority.
And now I would like to recognize Ms. Brownley to introduce
one of our guests.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the proud
representative of Ventura County, California, I am very, very
pleased to introduce my constituent, Todd McNamee. Todd
currently serves as director of airports for Ventura County,
where he oversees operations at the Camarillo and Oxnard
Airports, two of the greatest airports in the country.
Todd is also a pilot. Todd was elected as secretary-
treasurer of the American Association of Airport Executives for
2016 through 2017. He is also past president of the Southwest
chapter of AAAE. Early in his career, Todd worked on unmanned
aircraft systems for several private-sector companies. Since I
came to Congress, Todd has been an invaluable resource for me,
not only on local issues impacting the general aviation
community, but also on national policy, including unmanned
aerial systems, airport financing, and FAA policy.
Todd really understands aviation issues inside and out, and
I appreciate that he is joining us here today. I am very proud
to represent him and to introduce him. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Ms. Brownley.
I would like to remind all of our witnesses to please try
to limit their opening remarks to no more than 5 minutes.
Mr. Donohue, you are recognized for your opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF SEAN DONOHUE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DALLAS FORT
WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT; LANCE LYTTLE, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT; CHRISTINA CASSOTIS, CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY; LEW
BLEIWEIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREATER ASHEVILLE REGIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY; AND TODD MCNAMEE, A.A.E., C.A.E., DIRECTOR
OF AIRPORTS, COUNTY OF VENTURA DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
Mr. Donohue. Thank you, and, Congresswoman Johnson, I just
want to say thank you for the longstanding support and
partnership with DFW. We are most grateful.
Chairman LoBiondo, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Members Larsen
and DeFazio, and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
good morning. I would like to also recognize another friend of
DFW Airport, Congressman Blake Farenthold, who is a great
supporter, as well.
On behalf of the nearly 2,000 employees who work for DFW
Airport, and the more than 50,000 men and women who work for an
airline, a business, or operational partner, it is my pleasure
to be here today to testify before you on the state of American
airports, specifically the large hubs that are at the heart of
our industry. This hearing is an important step in shaping the
way forward for our Nation's airports, airlines, and, most
importantly, passengers.
There is a saying in our industry: If you have seen one
airport, you have seen one airport. Each airport is a unique
entity with its own benefits, challenges, and characteristics.
As you consider today's testimony, and potentially develop
plans for greater investment in airports, please keep our needs
in mind. While some airports need new runways, others need new
towers or terminals. There is not a one-size-fits-all approach
to addressing aviation infrastructure.
As Congresswoman Johnson mentioned, DFW is the third-
largest airport in the world, in terms of operations, number 10
in terms of passengers. But probably most importantly to the
region, we deliver $37 billion in annual economic activity to
the north Texas region. We connect Dallas Fort Worth
International Airport to 150 cities in the United States and
nearly 60 business centers around the world. Aviation has truly
made the world a smaller place. In the 9 hours it takes to
drive from DFW to El Paso, you can fly across the Atlantic to
London with time to spare.
Large-hub airports like DFW, which account for 73 percent
of total customer traffic in the country, have needs that are
truly supersized. For example, building and improving
terminals, a necessity for the long-term success of an airport,
are not just simple construction projects. They are multiyear
ventures entailing billions of dollars of costs.
Airport financing remains the most significant issue we are
facing today. Airports owned by State or local governments are
required to be as self-sustaining as possible, and receive
little or no taxpayer support. To that end, we must operate
like a business, funding operations from revenue and
strategically planning funding for major improvement projects
which are, to say the least, incredibly expensive.
Airports, capital markets, the airlines, and passengers
provide funds to help pay for these long-term projects.
Utilizing a combination of airline fees, the passenger facility
charge, airport improvement program grants, critical municipal
bonds, and commercial revenues, airports must cobble together
enough funding to build the massive infrastructure needed to
keep our industry moving at peak efficiency.
But even the healthiest of airports have found their
revenues stretched to keep up with the ever-growing needs of
the traveling public in aviation industry. Indeed, as
Congressman Larsen mentioned, we are looking at about $100
billion in the next 4 or 5 years in infrastructure needs
throughout the United States. These are not cosmetic projects
designed to put a new shiny look on our airports, but the
necessary developments required to keep up with an ever-growing
and changing aviation industry.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the
fundamental priority airports place on safety and security when
it comes to infrastructure. DFW operates on 17,000 acres, an
area roughly the size of Manhattan. Any new building, runway,
or even a parking garage can only move ahead when proper
security investments are made. It is a significant part of any
discussion in an equally significant investment.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Donohue. Mr. Lyttle, you are
recognized for your statement.
Mr. Lyttle. Thank you, subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo,
subcommittee Ranking Member Larsen, Chairman Shuster, and
Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee, for
your leadership, and for inviting me to testify today. It is an
honor to be here. I would like to specifically recognize and
thank Representative Larsen for his leadership and support of
Washington State.
My name is Lance Lyttle. I am the managing director,
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. My remarks this morning
are focused on the challenge that we face at Sea-Tac in
creating the needed facilities to support our rapid growth.
Two thousand sixteen marked the sixth year in a row of
record growth at Sea-Tac. We serve 45 million passengers and we
are now the ninth busiest airport in the U.S. At Sea-Tac we are
proud of our growth, because it reflects the increasing
economic vitality and global relevance of the Puget Sound
region and Washington State.
Our essential mission as an airport is to avoid being a
choke point. To achieve this, Sea-Tac is currently investing
more than $3.2 billion over the next 8 years. Concurrently we
are updating our 20-year master plan with a forecast that
indicates Sea-Tac will serve 66 million annual passengers by
2034. At this point we anticipate our capital expenditures to
accommodate this growth will cost at least $10 billion, in
addition to our current capital plan.
I would like to share with the subcommittee how we approach
this massive investment challenge, and how we evaluate the four
available revenue options.
First is airport net operating income. Per FAA guidelines,
aeronautical revenues are set to recover cost. And so,
effectively, all net operating income at Sea-Tac is generated
from nonaeronautical sources. While this is a critical source
of revenue, it is not sufficient to meet our capital needs.
Second is the Federal Airport Improvement Program. While I
am sure all of today's panelists would welcome as much direct
Federal investment as possible, the reality is that few of
these scarce dollars are available, and they are limited to
uses that do not include some of our biggest terminal
investment needs.
Third, the Port of Seattle has limited property taxing
authority, but it would be highly inequitable to require King
County taxpayers, including the majority that never use the
airport, to pay for facilities used by travelers from all over
the world.
The fourth option is the passenger facility charge. The
decision about whether to charge a PFC user fee is truly a
local decision, and impacts only those passengers that utilize
the airport facilities. This allows airport governing bodies to
encourage competition amongst carriers, secure capacity
increases, and support economic growth through passengers'
direct investment in local airport infrastructure.
As public institutions accountable to local voters,
airports balance the very real need to keep costs low, while
ensuring that aviation-specific infrastructure meets regional
demand.
Unfortunately, the outdated Federal cap on the PFC prevents
airports like Sea-Tac from setting a rate that makes the most
sense for our airport. Because our existing capital plan will
essentially use all Sea-Tac's anticipated PFC collections
through 2035, and most PFC collections through 2047, there will
be little available PFC capacity to pay for the billions in
projects identified in our master plan.
Without additional PFC authority, our debt service on the
bonds to fund master plan projects will flow directly into the
airline rate base, likely driving costs to airlines at Sea-Tac
to the highest in the Nation. This would make Sea-Tac less
competitive as a gateway, and put airline service at risk.
While an uncapped PFC would give us the authority to raise the
fee, that decision would have to be balanced with the need to
keep our costs competitive with other U.S. airports, and
subject to the approval of our local elected officials.
I should mention that increased investment flexibility also
allows us to address the greatest challenge facing U.S.
airports: security. Airports have increasingly become targets,
and infrastructure development is a key part of the solution.
Our commissioners and our staff are committed to being the
most efficient and customer service-focused airport in the
country, while being a leader in growing responsibly and
helping our residents benefit from our growth.
In closing, Sea-Tac International Airport sees the Federal
Government and Congress as essential partners. By granting us
local authority on PFCs, greater tools and flexibility on
addressing community impact, and greater investment in
security, you will help us once again make America's airports
the envy of the world.
Finally, I would like to thank Representatives DeFazio and
Massie for introducing legislation to uncap the PFC. Your
leadership is appreciated and essential.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Lyttle, for your testimony.
Ms. Cassotis, you are recognized for your statement.
Ms. Cassotis. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member
Larsen, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members
of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here today; thank you
for inviting me to provide infrastructure needs about the
medium-sized airports, and the funding challenges that we face.
The way the airline industry serves Pittsburgh and many
other medium-sized communities in the U.S. has gone through a
major transformation. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Saint
Louis, Raleigh-Durham, Nashville, Memphis, and Milwaukee are
among the airports that used to carry millions of passengers a
year. And many of those passengers are now gone, because the
hubs are gone. But our infrastructure remains.
None of us got to declare bankruptcy. We have been paying
down the debt on these facilities for more than a decade, and
our current carriers are stuck paying for oversized space. The
Pittsburgh terminal, which was designed in size to accommodate
32 million passengers a year, now accommodates just over 8
million. We have been good stewards of public money, prudently
managing finances to prioritize debt repayment, and we have
done everything we can to stay competitive in a global market.
And yet each of us is left with a large number of capital
projects that we have had to defer, and infrastructure needs
totaling billions. At Pittsburgh International, just in
deferred maintenance we have over $74 million worth of
projects. Saint Louis has $87 million, and Cincinnati $80
million. Our cost structures have radically changed over the
past two decades, but Federal funding mechanisms remain
unchanged.
Medium-sized airports are getting hammered in the current
funding framework. Small airports are funded at the highest AIP
levels, large-hub airports get the least, because what they
don't get in AIP they make up for in PFCs. But we should be in
the middle, and we are not. We are funded at the same
discounted levels as the large-hub airports. In order to
address infrastructure needs at many medium-sized airports, we
need to modernize and upgrade costly, inefficient, oversized,
and out-of-date facilities, none of which is a priority in the
current funding rules.
We see five areas that need to be addressed.
First, the significant contribution requirement should be
eliminated from PFC funding criteria for medium-sized airports.
That requirement prioritizes capacity enhancement, air safety
and security, increasing carrier competition, and reducing
congestion or noise. These are not our issues. It has been
challenging, if not elusive, for large and medium-hub airports,
even with airline support, to convince the FAA that preserving
capacity and infrastructure makes a significant contribution.
Second, medium-sized airports should not be required to
take the same AIP haircut as large airports do. Medium-sized
airports must be grouped differently, because our reality is
different. In 17 years of Pittsburgh's PFC program, we have
foregone $95 million in AIP entitlement grants.
Third, the PFC, which I am happy to hear today, must be
raised or uncapped. It has not kept pace with inflation,
leaving us financially challenged. For Pittsburgh, due to the
legacy airline debt from the abandoned hub, the authority has
dedicated most of its PFC revenue to reduce debt since 2001.
Fourth, the FAA must discontinue its arbitrary restriction
on AIP and PFC-eligible projects. The types of programs that
qualify for funding should be expanded.
And lastly, we would like to see regulations reduced.
Current regulations seek a 30-percent design completion in
order to leverage Federal money, which is an unnecessary and
onerous undertaking for cash-strapped medium-sized airports.
Airports of our size have come a long way on our own, cutting
costs and sweating our assets by increasing nonaeronautical
revenue in creative and innovative ways. But we need your help
to move the needle further.
Investing our fair share of Federal resources back into
medium-sized communities is a game-changer for our airports,
the country's aviation system. Otherwise, we stay stuck in the
catch-22 we are in today. We need to invest in our facilities
to keep them cost-competitive, to attract the type of air
service that allows our communities to grow. But because we
don't meet the capacity enhancement requirement, our airports
don't get funded, and our airline partners and we end up paying
to maintain old, oversized, and underutilized space.
We have had a lot of recent success in Pittsburgh. But
Pittsburgh, and airports like us, can do more and must do more
for our regional economies. By focusing on streamlining
processes, the Federal Government can ensure that we, as
medium-sized airports, can streamline our footprints, stay
competitive, and the communities we serve can prosper.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. LoBiondo. Well, thank you very much. Now we will turn
to Mr. Bleiweis.
Is your microphone on?
Mr. Bleiweis. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking
Member Larsen, and the members of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation.
Thank you for inviting me to participate in this important
hearing.
I am Lew Bleiweis, executive director of the Asheville
Regional Airport in western North Carolina. We served just over
826,000 passengers in 2016, which makes it the third straight
year of record-setting numbers. I am here today representing
the small and nonhub classifications of the country's
commercial service airports, including Asheville Regional
Airport.
While the small and nonhub airports only account for 11.8
percent of the national passenger traffic, we make up 89
percent of the commercial service airports in this country. I
will briefly touch on items that have an overwhelming impact on
the smaller airports.
Based on the Airports Council International, North
America's biannual infrastructure needs survey that will be
officially released next week, airports' infrastructure needs
for 2017 through 2021, adjusted for inflation, is nearly $100
billion. Small and nonhub airports account for approximately 14
percent of this total number. Funding for small and nonhub
airports is critical and, at the same time, limited because AIP
entitlement grants and PFC user revenue is based on passenger
enplanements. The smaller the enplanement numbers, the lower
AIP and PFC funds.
We all know that the expense of a capital project does not
vary because of the size of an airport. Let me briefly tell you
about the major airfield project going on in Asheville. The
airport consists of a single runway 8,000 feet in length, and
serving both commercial and general aviation aircraft. The
original airfield was--is over 50 years old, and it is coming
to the end of its useful life.
We had two safety deficiencies that were out of compliance
with current FAA policies and standards. We presented the
redevelopment project to the FAA 8 years ago, and it took 5
years to program and fund the project. Even with that, the FAA
required us to phase the approximate $79 million project over 4
years.
Capital projects for small airports under AIP are
traditionally funded at 90 percent, with a 10-percent local
match. Currently, our project is only funded at approximately
77 percent, leaving Asheville to fund approximately $18
million. We have been able to increase our fund balance over
several years to cover the project, but it has been at the
expense of deferring other capital aviation projects.
During this same time our parking availability reached
capacity, and we had to move forward several years earlier than
anticipated, with the construction of a $21 million parking
garage. Due to the lack of full funding on the airfield
redevelopment project, the airport was forced to go into debt
for the parking garage. A modernized PFC would allow us to
recoup our costs for the airfield project sooner, and would
have provided us with more of our own funds to apply towards
the garage.
The airlines will tell you they will just pay for it. That
is not the case at small and nonhub airports like Asheville. I
am fighting to keep my costs low to maintain service. And if I
raise my rates too high to cover capital projects like my
airport airfield project, they will just move to other airports
with lower costs.
My story is not dissimilar from the stories of my
colleagues' small communities across the country. The choices
we make, in terms of capital projects and the funding
available, do impact our abilities to truly meet our overall
infrastructure needs.
Congress and the industry must work together to find the
sustainable funding solution for the future. That is why our
leading airport funding issues this year are removing the
outdated Federal cap on PFCs and enhancing the AIP.
Small and nonhub airports have difficulties attracting and
maintaining air service for the communities. Carriers decide
which communities to serve, leaving many communities with
little or no air service. In fact, over the past couple of
years, approximately 50 small communities have lost commercial
service--air service.
During a speech late last month, a recently retired airline
CEO explained that larger airplanes reduced the fuel cost per
seat, meaning that smaller planes servicing smaller airports
are becoming harder to justify the economic feasibility, which
questions the viability of the smaller airports. All
communities, but not specifically smaller communities, benefit
economically from a viable airport.
In an analysis recently conducted, based on FAA's economic
impact study on commercial aviation in the United States, small
and nonhub airports contributed $121 billion economic output,
supporting 1.1 million jobs. Locally in Asheville, the
Asheville regional airport provides 1,700 direct, indirect, and
induced jobs, while providing $556 million of economic output.
The industry must find a way to keep air service inexpensive
and available to the majority of the country.
Lastly, small and nonhub airports, as with all airports,
are required by the FAA to be as self-sufficient as possible.
And yet, the FAA overregulates any airport development on any
parcel of land. These onerous requirements not actually found
in Federal law trigger extensive Federal environmental analysis
which unduly delays projects and often causes developers to
look elsewhere to build their projects. This deprives airports
of the ability to compete for development opportunities to
generate nonaeronautical revenues, bogs down FAA staff in
unnecessary review analysis of project planning, and generates
inefficiencies without benefits.
We believe the Federal Government should only impose
restrictions based on safety concerns, and ensure that fair-
market value is received for nonaeronautical use of the land.
The FAA bureaucracy does not need to get involved in every
local use decision at an airport. Congress should encourage and
mandate the FAA to limit the statutory requirements, so the FAA
has a role only with respect to issues affecting the safety,
efficiency, or utility of the airport for Federal facilities.
Thank you for your leadership on these important issues. I
look forward to working with you all and this subcommittee to
move our airports to the 21st century. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Bleiweis.
Now we will turn to Mr. McNamee for your statement.
Mr. McNamee. First I would like to thank Congresswoman
Brownley for the kind introduction. And also, thank you for
your great work for the country and also for Ventura County.
Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen,
Chairman Shuster, and Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to participate in
today's hearing. It is an honor for me to be with you today.
Ventura County operates two airports, Camarillo and Oxnard.
Camarillo is a general aviation reliever airport that has
between 150,000 and 200,000 takeoffs and landings per year.
Oxnard is classified as a nonhub commercial service airport.
However, after losing commercial air service in 2010, it
functions as a general aviation airport today.
Investing in general aviation airports and promoting the
general aviation industry pays big dividends. The Camarillo and
Oxnard Airports provide $244 million annually in positive
economic benefit to the local community, and supports over
1,400 jobs. Overall, general aviation contributes $219 billion
in total economic activity, and supports 1.1 million jobs. Our
facilities are critical links for our communities to regional
and national economies.
This committee can help general aviation and commercial
service airports build a 21st-century infrastructure by
providing them with the resources they need to repair aging
facilities and advance critical safety, security, and capacity
projects.
As you prepare to consider an FAA reauthorization bill, I
urge you to take two steps that would improve the state of
America's airports.
First, increase Federal funding through the airport
improvement program. AIP is a key source of revenue for all
sizes of airports. Today airports only receive enough Federal
funds to cover half of their eligible projects. An AIP increase
would help airports like ours in Ventura County, where we are
planning to use Federal funds to rehabilitate and reconstruct
runways and taxiways at both airports, with an estimated cost
of $30 million.
Second, and as my colleagues have mentioned, eliminate the
outdated Federal cap on local passenger facility charges.
Eliminating the PFC cap is the easiest way to build critical
airport infrastructure projects at commercial service airports
without putting a heavy burden on the Federal budget, and is
aligned with the administration's plan for infrastructure
spending.
I want to thank Ranking Member DeFazio and Congressman
Massie for introducing legislation earlier today to eliminate
the cap on local PFCs. We look forward to working with you and
the committee in support of this important measure.
Although general aviation airports don't collect PFCs, we
benefit from commercial service airports that do. As mentioned,
large airports that collect PFCs get back a large share of
their AIP entitlements. The FAA then distributes a vast
majority of those funds to general aviation and small
commercial service airports like those in Ventura County.
Eliminating the PFC cap could open the door to focus limited
AIP funds on smaller airports that need Federal assistance the
most.
This committee also has a strong track record of supporting
the contract tower program. I urge you to continue to protect
this valuable program, which allows Oxnard and 252 other
airports to have cost-effective air traffic control services
and enhance aviation safety, while saving the FAA approximately
$200 million per year.
Finally, I would like to thank this committee for
addressing the challenges related to unmanned aircraft systems.
Safely integrating UAS into the National Airspace System will
be a key component of a 21st-century aviation system.
In Ventura County we operate a small UAS on behalf of the
airport under the recently enacted FAA part 1 of 7 regulations.
We hope to be a model example for the rest of the country on
how to safely integrate and operate small UAS on and around the
airport.
Thank you again for inviting me to participate in today's
hearing. I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much. We will now turn to
Chairman Shuster for any questions he may have.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. My line of--I don't think there is
any debate that we need more investment in our infrastructure.
The President put an exclamation point on that last night, and
aviation is no different.
One of the things, though, sometimes I think we lack in
this discussion about funding is how do we reform the system.
How do we make it better so we can build bridges and roads
faster, so we can deploy those dollars when it comes to
rebuilding our airports and expanding them?
I look at the wall there, and there are five people up
there in the last 30 years that have been involved in reforming
the FAA. And I don't want to be too critical, because I know
one may charge the door and take me on, and another one may
call me, so I got to be careful.
So I would rather turn it to you folks at the tables there
today to tell me what--dealing with the FAA--and, Mr. Bleiweis,
you addressed it directly, so I will let you sit out this one.
But dealing with the FAA, how do we reform them so that, when
you are doing those projects, you can get it done faster?
And I have got--there are billions of dollars out there
right now in airports, but pipelines, railroad projects that we
got a Government agency up here that is making it extremely
difficult to move these projects forward. So can you address--
let's start first with Dallas Fort Worth International Airport,
and then we will go to my second-favorite airport, Pittsburgh
International Airport.
So tell me what we can do to make the FAA more responsive
to you, get these projects done. To save you money, I would
assume.
Mr. Donohue. OK. Thank you, Chairman Shuster. When it comes
to the FAA, DFW supports reform and modernization. But before I
comment on that, I think it is critical to talk about the
safety aspect. And sometimes that does not get enough attention
as we talk about the FAA. And from all perspectives, airports,
airlines, the FAA, the controllers, the NTSB, everybody
involved in the safe operation of the FAA does a great job, and
we never want to take our eye off that ball. And I know we all
agree on that.
In terms of modernization, anything we can do as an
aviation industry to drive more efficiency, to drive more
funding certainty DFW would support. And as discussions move
forward, I think it is just critical that airports are at the
table. And we can offer a perspective, I think we can offer a
lot of value. And we would welcome that opportunity.
Mr. Shuster. And, Ms. Cassotis, can you respond to one
thing in particular about certainty? How important is certainty
to your projects?
Ms. Cassotis. It is as important as certainty is to the
airlines in the rates and charges. The last thing that the
airlines want from us is any volatility in their rates and
charges from one year to the next. And, for us, in funding,
certainty is that critical, because we can make plans about
what we need to do in order to better position ourselves to do
what we are supposed to do for these communities.
And listening to Sean talking about reform and
modernization, you know, we are not one of the airport
categories that would necessarily be the most obvious
beneficiaries, but we are the spokes in the hub-and-spoke
systems. And when the hubs get backed up, we are the ones who
suffer. So we are all in favor of the FAA continuing to do what
it does well, which is safety oversight, and having the rest of
the FAA focus on a more streamlined approach to getting work
done.
So, yes, incredibly important, thank you.
Mr. Shuster. And, Mr. McNamee, general aviation airport.
Again, you have to deal with the FAA when you are doing any
sort of projects. Is that accurate?
Mr. McNamee. We do.
Mr. Shuster. And in your experience, has it been difficult?
Easy?
Mr. McNamee. So, you know, in our local region, in the Los
Angeles Airport District Office we have wonderful staff there.
But, you know, whether you are doing a project at a general
aviation airport or at a large hub airport, the time it takes,
the resources, the manpower, and, in some cases, even the
funding, it is the same at my airport that it might be at DFW.
And so, streamlining some of those processes when it comes
to grant funding would certainly be helpful. A bigger picture
moving forward with the implementation of NextGen--one thing
for general aviation airports and smaller commercial service
airports--or, I guess, nonprimary entitlements--at $150,000 you
really can't get that much done. And if you look at some of our
projects, most of those are in the millions.
And so, frequently, when we are competing for dollars, the
limited dollars within the FAA, we are having to just basically
roll over that $150,000 until we can fit in to that limited
funding to fully fund a much-needed project for us.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. My time is almost about to expire.
I just want to--my mother used to tell me when I point my
finger at somebody to blame them, if I point at the FAA there
are three pointing back at me.
So Congress, I believe, is part of the problem, and it is
the uncertainty that we--you know, whether it is sequestration,
whether it is Government shutdowns, whether we do short-term
extensions--so Congress has to look at itself. And like I said,
I got five former chairmen up there on the walls looking at me,
and they were all part of bills that tried to reform FAA, just
nipped around the edges. As far as I can tell, didn't do
anything significant.
So--and I think a big part of that is making sure that,
when you deploy your dollars, you have a process that is steady
with certainty. So again, I appreciate you being here, and I
appreciate you answering our questions and educating us.
Thanks. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Shuster.
Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to get to the
core, I think we have some substantial agreement here on
allowing an enhanced PFC and the needs it would address. But we
do need to address--you know, I did study economics, but it
would be useful to have other people counter the argument of
Airlines for America, which is that there is absolute price
elasticity. Two dollars, three dollars PFC, no one is going to
fly any more. Two hundred dollar ticket change, no problem.
Twenty-five bucks for a bag, no problem. Fifty bucks for a bag
in the overhead, no problem. Two dollars PFC, no one will fly
any more.
Anybody want to kind of address that, refute that? Yes?
Ms. Cassotis. So I think we--there was a GAO study that
said that that is really not going to be an issue. And I would
concur with your comments, that it won't depress demand.
I don't find that the airlines object to raising the PFC as
much as they object to not having any control over what we use
it for. And I think that, in order to move the conversation
forward, it would be helpful to involve them in some sort of
consultative process about what we are going to use our money
for.
Most of the airlines that I talk to, who walk right out of
our airport, are desperate to have infrastructure more
efficient and make more sense. And I am confident that as many
people would fly out of Pittsburgh in the future as they do
today, if not more, if we had a better airport with more air
service that would be possible, because of the locally imposed
PFC.
Mr. DeFazio. And, of course, you identified, in particular,
which the chairman was pointing to in a larger sense, the FAA
that--the requirements for you to increase your PFC are--just
don't work for you, for your needs, I mean, because they are a
criteria----
Ms. Cassotis. Well, not as it is defined today, correct.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
Ms. Cassotis. The--what we can use it for, we need that to
expand.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Ms. Cassotis. Because we have enough capacity for a whole
lot of years. That is not our issue. What we don't have is the
right capacity.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Ms. Cassotis. And we don't have efficient capacity.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. Mr. Massie and I accommodated that in
our bill.
Ms. Cassotis. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. We moved that criteria. Anybody else want to
comment on this?
Mr. Lyttle. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. I did try--I did go to A4A and say, ``How
about if we tier it and they have to show a higher level of
need to go to a higher PFC, or extraordinary need,'' and the
answer was no. They just won't talk about it.
So I would like to think that they would be willing to talk
about something where they could have a little more input. But
I think that some of their members are afraid of the potential
for more competition at certain airports.
Mr. Lyttle?
Mr. Lyttle. I think one way that we can view it is that the
airlines have found a way to offset the cost associated with
baggage or the other change fees that they have, and so they
have found a way to offset it.
So the other way we can look at it is that the airports
need to do the same thing. So we need to find a way to offset
the cost associated with the infrastructure that we need to
keep pace with the growth that's taking place in the industry.
And that means our method of getting that done is through a
PFC, uncapping the PFC. So I think that is one way of doing it,
as well.
Mr. DeFazio. Does anybody--yes, Mr. Donohue?
Mr. Donohue. The other perspective I would offer--I mean
DFW supports a PFC increase for all the reasons my colleagues
mentioned. But when I look selfishly at DFW--we just finished--
we are about to finish a $3 billion capital program, and we
probably have another $5 to $10 billion in capital
requirements, infrastructure requirements, moving forward--and
the PFC is critical to help us, but it is not the silver
bullet. I mean it is a balanced solution.
As an airport, we have got to perform better to generate
more revenues that we put back into the airport.
Infrastructure--I mean I am delighted to hear the
infrastructure discussion going on. Probably I am more
excited--and when I hear it, I finally hear airports mentioned.
And previously, when I heard ``infrastructure,'' I didn't hear
airports. And obviously, I think the airports can add value in
that discussion, moving forward.
P3s are an important vehicle. Obviously, we are going to
continue to hit the bond market. And obviously, the airlines
are going to continue to participate. So we support the
increase in the PFCs. We appreciate the bill. But for an
airport like DFW, it is bigger than just PFCs.
Mr. DeFazio. Sure.
Mr. Donohue. We have got to look at a really balanced
solution.
Mr. DeFazio. No, I get that, and that is like people who
say P3s or private money will solve all our infrastructure
problems. No, there is--a lot of this is public infrastructure
that cannot generate surplus revenues, and needs Federal
investment. And we will continue the AIP program with a slight
reduction under the plan we introduce.
And I am not aware of any other alternative to help people
do additional bonding. I mean, you know, the President has
admitted that, you know, like LaGuardia and other places really
need the investment. But he said he doesn't like fees. Well, I
don't know what the alternative is. Someone has got to pay for
it. I mean, if anyone has an alternative, let me know.
So--but thank you for the--at least the comprehensive
overlay.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. Is Mr. Rokita here?
No? Then we go to Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one--Mr. Donohue,
one quick clarification. This is just semantics. We are not
increasing the PFC. We are giving you the freedom to set--that
is our intent, to set whatever PFC you want. You can lower it,
if you like.
But anyways, what are some of the--I mean we are using
general terms, ``infrastructure.'' What are some of the
specific projects? And I would ask Mr. Lyttle and Ms. Cassotis
that, as well. What are some specific projects that you would
be doing if you could finance them that aren't being done? And
what is the implication or impact on customers and airlines?
Go with you first.
Mr. Donohue. Well, again, I recognize DFW, given our size,
we are in a position where we will find a way, one way or the
other, to fund our infrastructure projects. And again, we would
prefer a more balanced solution than we have today.
But when I look at our 45-year-old airport and the fact
that we have terminals that are that age, and we have a couple
of runways that are that age, and roads and bridges within the
airport, I mean we will have to do those projects. We will find
a way to do those projects. But I think we can do it in a more
balanced approach than we have in the past.
Mr. Massie. So roads, bridges, terminals?
Mr. Donohue. Runways.
Mr. Massie. Runways.
Mr. Donohue. Airfield operations. Correct. But again, I--to
answer your specific question, it is not an issue at DFW that
we won't do them.
Mr. Massie. Understood.
Mr. Donohue. We will find a way of doing them.
Mr. Massie. Understood.
Mr. Lyttle?
Mr. Lyttle. So specific projects: international arrival
facility, $660 million; north satellite facility expansion,
$550 million; baggage handling system, $320 million; satellite
renovation, yet to be determined. And that is just the current
capital development program.
In addition, we are doing a master plan. We have not
finalized that master plan, as yet. But the master plan is
pointing to the need for an additional 34 gates. And so we are
looking at an additional, potentially, $10 billion to complete
that master plan. It could be higher, it could be lower. We
haven't finalized it, as yet.
Now, unlike maybe DFW, we have--I agree that PFC is not the
end all. However, we have less flexibility because of the
footprint that we have, in terms of generating nonaeronautical
revenues. And so the PFC--flexibility, as you said, with the
PFC is extremely important to us so we can--you know, we can
use the PFC at whatever level we think is reasonable for the
projects.
Mr. Massie. And why aren't you funding all that stuff right
now, with AIP?
Mr. Lyttle. Pardon?
Mr. Massie. Why aren't you funding all that right now with
AIP?
Mr. Lyttle. So the--most of the----
Mr. Massie. I suspect I know the answer.
Mr. Lyttle [continuing]. Eligible are our runways and
taxiways and, you know, projects. Most of the projects that we
have in the future are actually gates and terminals. And not
all of those projects are AIP-eligible. And that is one of the
major challenges that we have.
Mr. Massie. Got you.
Mr. Lyttle. We have finished all of our runway projects for
the foreseeable future.
Mr. Massie. Ms. Cassotis?
Ms. Cassotis. Yes. So we--first of all, I have gates, if
you need a couple. We are happy to ship them over.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Cassotis. Yes, can I--can you pay me for them?
Mr. Massie. We have got some spare ones at CVG [Cincinnati/
Northern Kentucky International Airport], too.
Ms. Cassotis. Yes, we are going to work out a deal. We--
right away, we have a deicing pad that needs to be upgraded.
That is $13 million. We have got snow removal equipment that is
25 years old that needs to be replaced. We have got escalators,
moving walkways, a rehab that needs $16 million worth of work.
But in the long term, what a PFC would allow us to do as
part of a mix, as my colleagues have said, would--an increase
in the PFC would allow us to right-size and modernize our
facility, to be an origin and destination airport. We were
built as a large connecting hub. So we have an X design. It is
beautiful, it is brilliant, and I think it is the only one
outside of Abu Dhabi that is as smart as it is.
So that means that, when passengers come off an
international flight and they clear customs, most of those
passengers usually just go to their gate. Well, if you were
coming home, you had to go through TSA because you were
airside, you were on the secure side. So when we became an O&D
airport, origin and destination, and everybody was coming back
into just Pittsburgh, they would line up at TSA to take off
their belts and their shoes to go to the garage. That doesn't
make sense.
We have an inadequate Federal inspection services facility
that needs a major upgrade. Our security checkpoint is too
small, so we have two--so we have a major renovation that has
to take place.
Mr. Massie. So, very quickly, I know you wanted more
flexibility. Probably flexibility for all of the programs.
Ms. Cassotis. All of them.
Mr. Massie. But which gives you more flexibility, PFCs or
AIP?
Ms. Cassotis. Neither. We need----
Mr. Massie. OK.
Ms. Cassotis. We need reforms to both. I need reforms to
both, please.
Mr. Massie. I bet.
Ms. Cassotis. Our projects aren't--we are not capacity-
enhancing projects.
Mr. Massie. My goal was to ask everybody, but I am out of
time, so I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK, thank you. I recognize Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lyttle, can you talk--you talked about--in your
testimony about the four revenue options. You didn't
discussion--and don't go into detail--about how airports
negotiate with airlines to contribute to the capital
facilities.
But do you have estimates? Since every airport is
different, are there estimates of what airlines provide in this
mix? Say for Sea-Tac, as an example.
Mr. Lyttle. Yes. So we have actually done a financial
forecast, just based on the preliminary numbers that we have
for the master plan. Again, we have not selected the preferred
alternative, as yet. But when we look at the alternative, that
would be in about the $10 billion range.
At a $4.50 PFC, if we do not have an increase in the PFC by
2034, the cost per enplanement to the airlines would increase
from approximately $10.15 today to $49, $50. And we think that
would be unacceptable. I know I have heard that the airlines
will pay, but I don't think they will be willing to pay that
much at any airport.
Mr. Larsen. So from $10 estimated to $49 to $50.
Mr. Lyttle. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. Under your current capital plan. OK. And so the
alternative, it is either out of the airline, who presumably
puts that into their fare----
Mr. Lyttle. So if we----
Mr. Larsen. If they increase their fare----
Mr. Lyttle. Yes. If we do not have additional PFCs, and if
we use bond, for example, go to the bond market, all of that
goes into the rates and charges for the airlines.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, yes, OK. So can you talk a little bit
about--and Mr. Donohue, as well, and Mr. Lyttle--Mr. Donohue,
you have--American is largely the big dog at the--at DFW, where
at Sea-Tac you have Delta and Alaska and United, and others, as
well. But largely, Alaska and Delta, so some--multiple
carriers, let's call it. Can you two just briefly talk about
what that means for operations, and how you have to plan at the
airport?
OK, Mr. Lyttle, you go first.
Mr. Lyttle. OK. It is very interesting, because I think in
the last--using these negotiations, the primary airline that
was negotiated with was Alaska Airlines. Now Delta has grown
significantly at airports. So we are actually currently using
this agreement--what we call the SLOA agreement--which expires
at the end of this year. So we are in negotiations right now
with multiple airlines. But, of course, the big players are
Alaska and Delta.
It is very challenging, because we have a gate allocation
methodology that basically favors an airline that is actually
growing at the airport. So it favors one airline over the
other. And the problem is we are constrained. We just do not
have enough gates. During peak time we cannot accommodate all
the airlines at the airport. In fact, we are now doing
hardstand operation, and, as we try to get these CIP [capital
improvement plan] projects that I just mentioned, which will
add additional gates, during that time we will have to continue
doing hardstand operations.
So, gates are our biggest issue, and that is the biggest
challenge that we have negotiation with, not just Alaska and
Delta, but American, Southwest, all the other airlines that we
have at the airport.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. Mr. Donohue?
Mr. Donohue. We are actually in discussions with American
on the future master plan of the airport, and adding a
terminal, and adding gates. And because American dominates
DFW--probably shouldn't use the word ``dominate''--it is the
largest airline at DFW, they tend to invest in DFW, because it
is so important to them.
But I would agree with Mr. Lyttle's point. As we look at
these infrastructure needs in the future, we are not
supportive, nor do we want to see the cost per enplanement for
passengers double or triple as we do these programs, because
the only solution is the bond market. Because I feel that,
then, makes us uncompetitive, as a hub, versus other major hubs
in the U.S.
So that is why I think it is important that we continue to
work with the airlines to find the right solution. As I said,
to find a balanced solution, so that we make the proper
investments, but we have to pay just critical, critical
attention to making sure our costs don't get so out of whack
that it is uncompetitive, either in the U.S. or globally.
Because, as you know, this is becoming more of a global
aviation industry.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Thanks. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Rokita?
Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate you having
this hearing. I appreciate listening to everyone's testimony.
Unfortunately, the electronics here at the committee room
aren't working. The IT is not working well today. I had two
pictures, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to submit for the record. The
first one was a picture of the work of my 6-year-old, who has
turned our basement into airport building. And he found a way
to take my iPad and go on Google Maps and pick a different
airport every week and build it in our basement. And just like
some of the challenges you have, he is running out of space and
is acquiring more land.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rokita. So I wanted to get that in the record. I know
he is only 6, but I would like to get him some work when he is
able, so putting it in early.
One of the issues that has come across my desk recently--
perhaps a little bit off the target of this hearing--is this
idea about general aviation access to airports. Of course,
general aviation pays a gas tax fee, and it--in my opinion, it
certainly pays for what we use of the system. Of course,
airports are part of the system.
I guess first to Mr. Lyttle and Mr. Donohue, do you believe
general aviation has a right to use your particular airports?
Yes or no?
Mr. Donohue. Yes, and they do currently.
Mr. Rokita. Yes. And Mr. Lyttle, for the record?
Mr. Lyttle. Yes, but we have limited GA services at the
airport. But the answer is----
Mr. Rokita. Yes, I saw that. Let me go there. You have at
Sea-Tac something called Aircraft Service International Group,
which is now Signature.
Mr. Lyttle. Yes.
Mr. Rokita. And I just checked, and they have something for
what would be my general aviation airplane--a small, light
twin--a $15 fee that goes to you, and a $50 FBO [fixed-base
operator] fee that is waived if I buy 30 gallons. And that is--
the FBO charges that, and I imagine that FBO Signature pays you
a lease or a rent or something for the space.
Mr. Lyttle. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Rokita. Is that correct?
Mr. Lyttle. Yes.
Mr. Rokita. So they charge me $50. But if I buy 30 gallons,
that fee gets waived. But the 100 low-lead fee at Sea-Tac right
now is $8.43 a gallon, which is more than double--or at least
double what Ms. Cassotis's airport charges, and what Mr.
McNamee's airport charges.
So, my question, I guess, you acknowledge that there is a
right for GA to use the airport. Is there any way to avoid
these fees at Sea-Tac? More like a public park, where if you
paid an admission fee to get in, you can go tie down somewhere
and not be charged $50, $15, or $8.43 a gallon.
Mr. Lyttle. That is something I will have to look into. One
of the big challenges we have at Sea-Tac Airport is--it is not
just only on the terminal side, but on the air side, as well.
Unlike----
Mr. Rokita. What did you say, space? I am sorry.
Mr. Lyttle. Yes, yes, space. We are really constrained,
spacewise. Unlike DFW----
Mr. Rokita. But you acknowledge we have a right to use the
space.
Mr. Lyttle. Yes.
Mr. Rokita. Right? Because we pay into the system. OK.
Mr. Donohue, same set of questions to you. Let's see, with
DFW you only charge $5 a gallon, which I find incredible, until
there is a $75 nonwaivable fee. I don't know if that goes to
the corporate FBO you have. I don't know, do you have a--is
that a Government-run thing, or is that a private entity? What
is that?
Mr. Donohue. We run our own corporate aviation----
Mr. Rokita. Got you, got you. So that probably explains a
lower fuel per gallon fee, but $75 nonwaivable, and then
something for a landing fee, as well.
Same question to you, then. Is there any way that I could
go to DFW and waive these fees, or tie down and not use the FBO
or anything like that, or have any kind of access that doesn't
require these fees?
Mr. Donohue. Well, corporate aviation is a service we
provide, Congressman, and it is not a priority for us, because
there are so many GA airports in the surrounding region. And--
--
Mr. Rokita. But hold on. I just premised this whole
discussion by asking you an initial question, asking you if I
had a right--GA had a right to use your airport, and you said
yes----
Mr. Donohue. Correct, correct. So----
Mr. Rokita. OK. So me using another airport isn't the
question. I have a right to use your airport.
Mr. Donohue. Correct.
Mr. Rokita. But not unless we pay all these fees, correct?
Even though we pay the gas tax.
Mr. Donohue. That is correct.
Mr. Rokita. Got you.
Mr. Donohue. Those are our market--those are the market
rates, in our opinion.
Mr. Rokita. That is the market rate? Market assumes
competition. You don't have two FBOs on the airport, do you?
Mr. Donohue. Well, when I say competition, I am referring
to the other general aviation airports in our region.
Mr. Rokita. Oh, what--OK. But at your airport--I mean a lot
of airports have more than one FBO, so the record understands
that, and the other Members understand. You don't, and the one
FBO you have you, in fact, own. You run for----
Mr. Donohue. Right.
Mr. Rokita [continuing]. As part of the entity, or the
Government. Right?
So, in the 15 seconds I have remaining, I don't know if Mr.
McNamee or--wants to respond to this, but a lot of your
customers are general aviation.
Mr. McNamee. All of our customers are general aviation. We
actually have four FBOs at Camarillo alone, and two at Oxnard.
Mr. Rokita. Do you believe general aviation, your
customers, have a right to go to the big airports?
Mr. McNamee. They do. But, as you know, airports like
Camarillo, they are specifically designated as reliever
airports, to help minimize the congestion at those larger
airports.
Mr. Rokita. Yes.
Mr. McNamee. And----
Mr. Rokita. But this isn't a congestion question, it is not
a safety question. We acknowledge that, I mean, there is a
space issue, and there is an issue of not having so much
gallonage and flowage, and all that.
Mr. McNamee. So, as a general aviation pilot, I enjoy when
I sometimes fly into those larger airports and are greeted with
open arms, yes.
Mr. Rokita. Great, thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. I would like to recognize Mr.
Larsen for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record a letter from the American
Association of Airport Executives, indicating support for the
DeFazio-Massie bill, and a letter from U.S. Travel Association
indicating support for the DeFazio-Massie bill.
Mr. LoBiondo. Without objection, so ordered.
[The letters referenced by Congressman Larsen are on pages 101-
104.]
Mr. LoBiondo. Now we would like to go to Mrs. Bustos.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking
Member Larsen. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few
questions here.
My congressional district in the northwest part of the
State of Illinois has three international airports, and more
than a dozen general aviation facilities. So I certainly
appreciate all the witnesses here today spending time with us
and answering some of our questions. I am going to start with
Mr. Bleiweis.
You mentioned the economic impact of airports on smaller
communities. If you could go into a little more detail on that,
that would be helpful.
Mr. Bleiweis. Thank you, I am happy to. Airports or
communities have to generate economic vitality. And one way
that most companies look for to build up communities is with
air service, or by being able to bring companies in to those
communities to generate jobs. So, in Asheville, for example,
again, 1,700 jobs are based not necessarily at the airport--the
airport only has 450, 460-some-odd jobs--but it is the
influence of everything else that seeps in to the community by
doing so.
We have been told a number of times when businesses are
looking to expand or move to western North Carolina, one of the
first questions they ask is, ``What kind of air service do you
have?'' and ``What is the ability to get in new air service
from the airlines?''
The unfortunate part that we have to deal with, as smaller
communities and smaller airports, is, again, there is limited
air service. There are four legacy carriers carrying almost 85
percent of the traffic in this country. They are looking at
more of the bigger hubs, they are looking at airports as
feeders, but they also don't provide a lot of good service to
those feeders or for those hubs. So it is a limited amount of
how much capacity an airport will take.
The growth that we have had in Asheville has to do with the
ultra-low-cost carriers. They are the ones that are bringing
our travelers to our communities, but those are also the type
of airlines that businesses are not looking to use when they
are growing the community employment base.
Mrs. Bustos. So, just as a followup to that--and maybe this
is probably broad, and maybe I am--get myself in trouble for
asking it this broadly, but what additional resources can
Congress provide to help smaller airports flourish?
Mr. Bleiweis. I think, again, looking at the uncapped PFC
helps the dollars flow from the larger airports down to smaller
airports to expand their facilities. But also, again, as
touched on, some of my things with the regulation of FAA, there
are ways for airports to incentivize airlines to come into the
communities. But the way that the FAA is looking at those rules
and procedures limits what we can do.
There is no reason why an airport shouldn't--if there is--
if they are an economic vitality to that community, they--there
is no reason why they should not be able to put some of their
revenue dollars into incentivizing all airlines that want to
serve and then bring in additional service to those
communities. And right now we can't do that.
There are limiting factors when even in our chambers or our
economic development communities or partners in our small
communities want to attract airlines. Technically, right now,
we are not even allowed to sit in on those conversations and
guide our communities to what service that airport needs or
what service the community needs. Those are some of the
restrictions that the FAA should loosen up on, and let us do
our business as a private enterprise.
Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bleiweis. Thank you.
Mrs. Bustos. Mr. McNamee, I was in your county with
Congresswoman Brownley last summer, and it is lovely there. I
want to ask you. You mentioned the Small Community Air Service
Development Program. In addition to the infrastructure needs
our airports face, attracting and maintaining commercial air
service can be a real challenge.
Can you talk a little bit more about how communities use
the program, and what additional flexibility you would like to
see?
Mr. McNamee. Additional flexibility. So we are--currently
we have in hand a Small Community Air Service Development Grant
in the amount of $500,000 at Oxnard Airport. We lost air
service in 2010. That really was the airlines increasing the
fares to the point where the Navy--we have a large Navy base
there in Ventura County, which made up about one-third of our
customers--stopped using the service. And then, from there, the
fares got even higher for the local businesses, and the
business community traveling, and it basically killed the
service.
And so, we have been trying to restore air service ever
since. Even with that grant package in hand, and great local
community support, including funding--we have got about a $1
million package--that has not been enough to incentivize some
of those regional carriers. We don't have historical data to
our strongest market, which would be the Bay Area. We have
derived data based on traveling passengers: zip codes, things
like that. So we know who is traveling out of LAX in Burbank.
The program is a very good program. You know, it used to be
funded at a much higher level. I think it is currently at $6
million a year. More funding would be nice to have for those
small communities. They can definitely take advantage of it.
In terms of flexibility, as Lew, my colleague next door
here, mentioned, you know, we are often--our hands are tied in
how we can exercise those programs. And so, for instance, we
have a relatively strong reserve fund in our enterprise fund at
the airport, but we are not allowed to spend airport money as
part of that package for the grant. We have to go out and find
it from outside sources, which, fortunately, we are able to do.
But not all airports are in that position.
Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thank you, Mr. McNamee. I have
exhausted my time. Thanks.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
panelists.
One of the issues that has been brought to my attention by
virtually all of the regional airports in and around my
district relates to ensuring continued access to air service.
And in smaller communities, that actually means access to
pilots. Regional airports in the communities I serve, like
Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, and Springfield,
Illinois, enable them to connect globally and have significant
importance to the businesses and institutions in those regions.
But, unfortunately, according to the U.S. Travel
Association, two-thirds of States like Illinois have seen
declines in both the number of flights and the number of routes
since 2007. And since 2013, nearly 40 small airports across the
country have lost commercial service all together.
And since I am not going to massacre your last name, I am
going to call you Mr. Lew. So, Mr. Lew, as an executive
director of a regional airport, what ideas and suggestions do
you have--quickly, because I only have a limited amount of time
and more questions--what can you do, what are your ideas to
halt this trend?
Mr. Bleiweis. I think looking at the regional carriers on
what they are trying to base--you know, as the small airplanes
are being phased out of manufacturing and use, they are
becoming larger airplanes, which makes it difficult to support
a small community with a 70-, 90-, or a 100-seat airplane, when
it is really meant for a 35- to a 50-seat airplane.
We were subject to that this summer. We have a--one of our
legacy carriers decided to stop flying one of our early morning
routes out of our airport, and it was blamed on pilot shortage.
We have no facts, whether that was accurate or not. The flight
came back in September, and we haven't had an issue yet. But it
is a serious issue for airports all around the country, of
whether airlines are really--you know, really have that issue,
whether it is a pilot shortage, whether it is a pay situation,
union situation, whatever.
So we just don't have all the facts and know where it is
going.
Mr. Davis. All right. Any ideas? What can we do to ensure
that we don't lose service, then?
Mr. Bleiweis. Trying--and again, being able to work with
your communities, trying to work with airlines to bring in
different types of services, different airlines--there are
smaller airlines that are coming into play. The legacies don't
necessarily want to do it, but there are other types of
carriers out there to do that. So it is just a matter of,
again, having FAA loosen up some of the abilities for us to use
incentive dollars or other type of marketing dollars to be able
to, you know, be able to work with airlines and bring them in
to your communities.
Mr. Davis. All right. My next question is going to be like
a ``Jeopardy'' game. Whoever hits the button first can get to
answer this.
Language in the FAA Authorization Act of 1994 sought to
limit the diversion of revenues generated at airports.
Unfortunately, a loophole in that law has been used to get
around our congressional intent. So, last Congress, during the
debate of the AIRR Act, I cosponsored an amendment that would
have ensured that that revenue raised at an airport remain at
the airport and is used for airport purposes.
I will open it up. Do you believe ensuring that these taxes
remain at the airport is fair? And would it help you do a
better job of investing in your aviation infrastructure if that
were the case?
Ms. Cassotis. Yes.
Mr. McNamee. Yes.
Mr. Davis. Ms. Cassotis?
Mr. Bleiweis. Yes.
Mr. Davis. Yeses?
Mr. Donohue. Definitely, yes.
Mr. Davis. Anybody want to care to explain why?
Ms. Cassotis. We are already struggling to take care of the
infrastructure needs that we have. If there were any revenue
diversion--and we are one of the three airports in the United
States, along with DFW and Denver, where we have an agreement
with--the ability to pull gas out of the ground. Right? We sit
on a large tract of land, and we have the ability for revenue
that a lot of other airports don't have. And we are putting all
of it towards debt repayment and infrastructure. That is where
it goes.
Mr. Davis. So what are some of the expenses that this
revenue is used for, rather than reinvesting in airport
infrastructure?
Ms. Cassotis. Oh, for me, it is about paying down the debt.
Mr. Davis. OK.
Ms. Cassotis. That is it.
Mr. Davis. All right.
Mr. Donohue. And at DFW we reinvest everything back into
infrastructure at the airport.
Mr. Davis. OK. Are there any of you that service
municipalities that maybe take that money and use it for other
purposes?
[No response.]
Mr. Davis. All right. I yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you all.
Mr. LoBiondo. Ms. Norton? You are recognized.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate this series of hearings you have been holding. I am
a new cochair of something called the Quiet Skies Caucus. That
name may convey the self-evident understanding that airplane
noise has become a national issue. And it is a bipartisan issue
here in the Congress. Of course, my own airport is Reagan
National Airport.
I also am aware that there are a number of contributing
factors. For example, we had manufacturers here, and they
discussed quieter planes just--I believe it was--last week.
And, of course, there is the controversy over NextGen, or the
new flight procedures. And then there is early morning and late
night planes. I would call those the three major causes of the
concern of Members, from coast to coast, I must tell you, about
airplane noise.
I wonder, Mr. Donohue, because I read in your testimony--
and I commend you, because there is a line in your testimony
that says outboard runways are typically closed from 11 p.m. to
6 a.m. That is a much more reasonable hour than, for example,
we have at Reagan National, where as late as 1 a.m. planes can
go, and before 5 a.m., because you can imagine what that must
mean in some neighborhoods.
Did you only--when did you go to 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.? And
have--has that timeframe had any negative effects on airplane
operations? Was the FAA involved, how you decided to go to
those hours?
Mr. Donohue. OK. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the
question.
Just to clarify, we do not have a curfew at DFW Airport.
What we have is the luxury of seven runways. So the fact----
Ms. Norton. You don't have a curfew. So 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.
is because of what?
Mr. Donohue. That is just an operational decision we have
made, because----
Ms. Norton. You have always had that?
Mr. Donohue. I will have to let you know. I have only been
at DFW 3 years, but----
Ms. Norton. I wish you would.
Mr. Donohue. I will let you know. But we have the
flexibility, because of seven runways, to use our inboard
runways for overnight operations, and we just think that is the
right thing to do, from a community perspective----
Ms. Norton. Well, does that mean that you do have late-
night flights?
Mr. Donohue. Absolutely.
Ms. Norton. And you don't have complaints from your
community?
Mr. Donohue. Because we are on a footprint that is about
17,000 acres, we have about 800,000 operations a year at DFW.
And I think we had maybe 400 to 500 noise complaints. So we
average less----
Ms. Norton. So it is the size of the airport that helps
you.
Mr. Donohue. It does. It does. The size and the flexibility
we have with the runways.
Ms. Norton. Of course this is a major airport that you
represent.
I have one more question on the so-called DBE program, and
that is the inclusion of minorities and women in the
construction of and renovation of airports. I think this is
for--probably best for Mr. Donohue and Mr. Lyttle. This
committee has only recently reaffirmed in its reauthorization
of the FAA its commitment to the inclusion of minorities and
women in this work.
Now, the inspector general, in his report, cited the
bundling of major construction and concession contracts to a
single contractor as a barrier to women and minorities becoming
a part of airport construction. So I would like to ask you if
you have had any experience with this approach. That is to say
bundling. Do you understand how that would almost, per se,
automatically exclude small business and minority and women-
owned business? And what do you think can be done about it?
Mr. Donohue. We do not bundle, Congresswoman, at DFW. And
we have a very, very strong commitment to our minority and
women-owned partners in the community. Last year, on the
expenditure or construction side, we had about $200 million to
minority and women-owned businesses. And on the concessions, or
revenue side, we had about $150 million.
So, we have a very strong program, we are committed to it,
we work with our partners in the community, and we will
continue to focus on those programs.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. My goodness.
Mr. Lyttle?
Mr. Lyttle. Yes, I think one of the things that we have
been discussing with--because we have specific challenges in
Washington State, with I-200----
Ms. Norton. You have specific challenges?
Mr. Lyttle. Challenges with I-200----
Ms. Norton. With DBEs, in particular?
Mr. Lyttle. Well, if the--if we have a project that has
grants associated with it, then we can set DBE goals. If not,
we can't, based on State laws.
But one of the things we have----
Ms. Norton. I am sorry, you will have to explain that.
Mr. Lyttle. There is a State law that we have in Washington
State called I-200, which prevents us from setting those goals.
It is specific to the State of Washington.
Ms. Norton. Could he just complete his answer, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. LoBiondo. Have you completed your answer?
Mr. Lyttle. No, I am not finished.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Try to wrap it up, please.
Mr. Lyttle. OK. I will stop there.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis?
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would concur with the
ranking member, Mr. Larsen, that Arthur Hailey's ``Airport,'' a
1968 novel, was a great read. But the movie in 1970 filmed at
Minneapolis-St. Paul was even better. So if you don't know by
now, I represent Minnesota.
And MSP, which is a great airport, like many of yours, does
have capital infrastructure needs. They estimate $1.7 billion
needed over the next 7 years to keep up with operational needs.
The fees they have collected over the past 4 years--$80 million
from PFCs, $4 million only in Federal grants--obviously, they
have other revenue streams. But you start to see the task ahead
for MSP and the country, and what is needed on infrastructure
in our airports.
So, my question on the PFCs--and we will start with Mr.
Donohue here--so we have raised the cap. Obviously, we are
going to get more revenue. But one justification has been it
will promote more competition. Can you tell me, or get more
specific on how it would, as opposed to the airlines currently
serving your cities just getting a bigger market share?
Mr. Donohue. Well, again, while we support the increase in
PFCs, we have a situation at DFW similar to Minneapolis,
Congressman, that you have a carrier that probably has--at DFW,
American has 80 percent-plus of our traffic.
So, to argue from a DFW perspective that a PFC increase
would drive more competition at DFW would be difficult to make
that argument, given just the market situation at our airport.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lyttle?
Mr. Lyttle. Yes. I think it--well, I know it definitely
will. We are extremely gate-constrained. We are out of gates.
We have no more gates. And during peak we just cannot
accommodate, whether it is domestic or international airlines
that wants to operate at the airport.
And so, with the additional funding sources from an
increase in the PFC, we can build these additional gates, both
domestic gates and international gates.
Mr. Lewis. You think it would go to newer----
Mr. Lyttle. Oh, definitely, without a doubt. We have
airlines that would like to come to the airport now, but the
time that they would want to come to the airport they can't,
because there are no gates available.
Mr. Lewis. And what about Pittsburgh?
Ms. Cassotis. We have plenty of gates available, and we
would welcome anybody who can serve our community. That is not
our issue. I mean, if anything, it is--we have got 75 gates,
and 25 of them on any given day are sitting idle. That is 25
gates that we are not using that are going to be obsolete soon
and would have to go through--I mean even if we wanted to
preserve that infrastructure, it wouldn't be useful by the time
the airlines wanted to use it.
Mr. Lewis. There does seem to be unanimity of opinion--and
certainly my view--that--I am kind of a user fee guy anyway, so
I like this idea, to some degree. But, clearly, more revenue is
needed for infrastructure. That is why we are here, that is why
we are holding these hearings.
But I am wondering if there are other methods of getting at
some of the revenue. And this one is near and dear to my heart.
There is a study that shows that the ticket tax, obviously,
does not apply to baggage now. So, naturally, the flights are
just more fun than ever. Such fees, if you went back to the old
model, where it is embedded in the ticket, might raise about
$264 million, nationwide.
Now, you know, given our needs, that isn't much. But is it
worth considering? Anybody?
Yes, Mr. Bleiweis?
Mr. Bleiweis. Congressman, I think all funding sources are
important, depending on where they come from. Increase of the
PFC does multiple things. But you have got to remember that
airports, just like airlines, somewhat are limited to
competition.
I know when you get a little further out West you have
further distances between airports. But on the east coast there
are choices that passengers can make. So by--uncapping a PFC
provides opportunities for airports to have infrastructure
dollars. We have to be careful of what we do with those PFC
dollars, because we can't set those at a rate that would drive
our--you know, our community to other airports to use those to
save money.
Mr. Lewis. Well, what about the ticket tax on ancillary
charges?
Mr. Bleiweis. And I think, you know, since the airlines
have unbundled, I think any way to put money into the trust
fund, including those, is just additional funding opportunities
to help support the infrastructure needs to the airports in
this country.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. I yield back my time.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Ms. Brownley?
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to shift
the conversation a little bit towards UAS integration. And
obviously, UAS integration into our national airspace has
become a major issue over the last decade.
I know, Mr. McNamee, in our county we have been--you have
been undertaking a lot in this area. And if you could, just
talk a little bit about what you are doing and the progress you
are making.
Mr. McNamee. Yes. So it is a dilemma that the FAA has been
wrestling with, proliferation of UAS. The technology is so good
and it is so inexpensive, that just about everybody and anybody
owns a small drone nowadays. And so the concern, of course, is
operating those around airports, in particular for this panel
here.
And so, the FAA has stood up what is called the Drone
Advisory Committee that is a working committee. They have met
twice now, and they have some subcommittees working primarily
on establishing responsible yet reasonable regulations and
policies.
And then also trying to define the responsibilities of the
different levels of Government. For instance, you may not be
able to expect local law enforcement to enforce a Federal
aviation regulation. So those are some of the things we are
dealing with. We have been involved in that conversation in
Ventura County for a long time.
Our sheriff operates a UAS to supplement their other
aviation assets. And out at the airport, again, we want to be a
model on how to safely integrate those around airports. And we
have been now, for 6 months or so, operating a small UAS
simultaneously with general aviation traffic--we are not
closing the Class Delta airspace to do it--and it is working
very well.
Ms. Brownley. Is that with the county sheriffs, or----
Mr. McNamee. No, that is on behalf of the airport. We are
using a small UAS now to increase our efficiencies on the
ground, in terms of facility inspection, perimeter security,
wildlife monitoring, things like that.
Ms. Brownley. Very good. Thank you very much. And last
year, you know, our committee spent a great deal of time
considering legislation that would have created a private
corporation to manage our air traffic control system. So could
you talk a little bit about what you think privatization would
have on our contract tower program and also on general aviation
airports?
Mr. McNamee. Certainly there is a concern for small
airports. The concern would be that if it is a Government
corporation, that there may be profit motive, and that smaller
airports might be in jeopardy, particularly their towers,
representation on the board, making sure that an airport has a
seat on the board.
But really, what is the concern, is that the airlines would
have a much larger say in how the air transportation system
works, the network in the sky, and it potentially jeopardizes
small airports.
The drafts I have seen seem to provide some good
protections for small airports, which I very much appreciate.
Ms. Brownley. Very good, thank you. And one last question
is do you know the average pilot pay for regional airline
pilots, nationwide and locally? Do you believe that paying
entry-level pilots more would or could mitigate the pilot
shortage?
Mr. McNamee. It will certainly help. I think what you have
found--and this is what we have experienced at Oxnard Airport,
and it was mentioned by one of my colleagues, but the reduction
in fleet at the regional-size aircraft, and then workforce
development to generate the number of pilots that we need going
into the future. You have a large wave of retirements coming,
based on that mandatory, 65-year age retirement for pilots.
And so, we do a lot of workforce development locally there,
in Ventura County. Our flight schools have partnerships with
some of the regional carriers, to help develop pilots and feed
that line.
But certainly pay seems to be one of those issues where you
normally or traditionally have a feeder system going through
the regionals into the mainlines. Pilots that now qualify to
fly for either tend to jump that regional feeder and go right
to the mainlines, because they can be paid more there.
Ms. Brownley. Any other solutions that you have for----
Mr. McNamee. Again, we facilitate and collaborate with our
local partners in Ventura County. We are now teaching high
school kids on operating UAS and providing ground school as--
the office of education there at the airport is doing. So
workforce development efforts to try and increase that number
of pilots for the future of aviation is something that we hold
dear to our heart.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, panel, for
being here.
So I am a little interested in the conversation you all
were having with Mr. Davis next to me here, in the context of
PFCs and AIP. Now, each of you, from the looks of it, or sounds
of it--I am just looking at where you each represent. I am
thinking--certainly, Mr. Donohue, you have a very different
experience. I have been to your airport, but I am from around
south-central Pennsylvania, and we have got Harrisburg
International, which struggles, and probably--I am thinking we
could probably fit maybe 6 or 10 of them in your terminal
footprint, I am not sure, and it includes the runway.
But that having been said, you know, this conversation
about PFCs, AIP, and how we fund some of the projects and the
infrastructure, maintenance, et cetera, that we have, and
potential changes, I think, you know, our local airport there
struggles, obviously, to bring in carriers and maintain them.
Yet people that live in the area don't want to have to travel
to this area to fly.
And I am wondering, especially Mr.--is it Bleiweis? Is that
how you pronounce that? And maybe Mr.--probably Ventura County
is probably fairly large, too, but maybe--well, Allegheny, that
is--and Sea-Tac, that is like--that is out of the program for
us, too. But I am looking for some perspective on a smaller
airport, how these changes--if you can kind of envision that.
And maybe it is asking you to stick up for your competition,
right, to a certain extent, but how they would affect--how
changes would affect some of our smaller airports and their
ability to stay in business and provide that service.
I am trying to get out of the perspective where we
continually subsidize and fund them, and--which also draws
money away from the bigger airports that need it, as well. So
just give me some thoughts on that.
Mr. Bleiweis. Great question, Congressman. I think allowing
airports, again, to look at their nonaeronautical land, looking
at being able to develop and bring in other types of businesses
that will fund revenue into the airport, will help relieve some
of the lacking of AIP or the current PFC levels. It is just a
matter of how much land an airport has. But again----
Mr. Perry. Are there currently prohibitions?
Mr. Bleiweis. No, but there are a lot of hurdles, so to
speak, to be able to develop land at an airport. Whether it is
federally obligated, or not, you still have to go through the
FAA process to be able to develop that land and get the
permission----
Mr. Perry. And that has nothing to do with, like, the clear
zone, or anything like that.
Mr. Bleiweis. Not at all.
Mr. Perry. That is just an airport----
Mr. Bleiweis. Not at all. I recently in the last few years
put a gas station/convenience store on my property. It is
bringing revenue to the airport. And I had to go through the
FAA to get permission to do that before I could even have a
conversation with them about moving the lease forward.
So just--again, it is not federally obligated land, but yet
they still dictate how we control it. Understand the safety
aspects, and----
Mr. Perry. Sure.
Mr. Bleiweis [continuing]. They are very important. But
some of the properties that are not near the airfield or not
near, you know, anything that has an aeronautical purpose
should be left up to the airport to run the business like a
private business, and be able to generate revenue, as we are
required to do to be self-sufficient as possible.
Mr. Perry. And I would concur, and maybe we could look at
that in any modifications we do.
Ms. Cassotis, do you have any----
Ms. Cassotis. We have about 3,800 acres of land to be
developed, and fortunately we have a great relationship with
Harrisburg, with the ADO. And so we move our projects through
quickly, but it does take time. And there is quite a bit of
work to be done to demonstrate that you are at fair market
value, and that the use is, frankly, concurrent with something
that the FAA would approve for the land. So anything we can do
to streamline that process helps.
Mr. Perry. I mean just skipping around here a little bit to
a different topic, with a little bit of time left--and Ms.
Brownley brought it up--I am trying to do some work on the UAS
industry. We are worried--or maybe ``concerned'' is a better
word--that, without some of the infrastructure in place, that
the development and manufacturing of that keeps on being pushed
out of the country because we are just not up to speed.
Now, this is probably more an issue for the people doing
the flying, the traffic management system. But from your
perspective--she asked you your concerns as facilities
managers. And, Mr. McNamee, you talked about that a little bit.
But I would suspect you would support some type of an
integrated system for all UAS variants? Because, you know,
everybody wants to fly them, but they want to be the only one
doing it, and don't let anybody else do it, right?
But I just wanted to get--if there is any other perspective
I am missing from a facilities standpoint that you guys would
have.
Mr. McNamee. So I will field that one. So, really, you do
have the Drone Advisory Committee working closely with the FAA,
and I believe they are going to help provide some solutions.
You have other great minds in NASA looking to implement
unmanned traffic management systems. And so you do have UAS of
all sizes.
Honestly, now, most of the large UAS, they fly very much
like a manned aircraft. They file an IFR flight plan, an
instrument flight plan, and go off and do their work. And there
just aren't that many of them. It is the proliferation of the
small guys at low altitude, especially around airports where
aircraft are arriving and departing, that is of most concern to
us. And you have got some great minds working to find ways to,
through policy, create safe zones around airports and
technology coming online to help with that, with the detect and
avoid, and things like that.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me see.
To the panel, I am sure, you know, history, and a long
history, of discrimination in contracting at airports has been
obvious, especially in construction and the concessions.
Airports are asking, you know, Congress to raise the PFC. But
these funds are not required to meet DOT's DBE requirements.
Since the PFC funds don't have this requirement, how are we
to be sure that DBE businesses will have a fair shot at the
lucrative contracts that will likely spring up from our raising
of the PFC? Mr. Donohue?
Mr. Donohue. Well, from a DFW Airport perspective, we have
policies in place that dictate and provide what we are going to
do to continue to support our minority and women-owned
businesses. We set goals every year that our board of directors
have to approve. We report out to our board of directors on a
frequent basis on how we are doing in terms of minority and
women-owned participation. And, as I said before, we have a
very strong program, and we want to continue to strengthen it.
But the biggest issue--or, I think, to answer your
question, it is the oversight of our board of directors.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Lyttle?
Mr. Lyttle. So we are setting more and more aggressive DBE
small business targets. But to answer the question directly, if
you look at the trend and what we are asking for, more of the
dollars associated with construction projects, if we are
successful in getting the PFC cap raised, will be associated
with PFC versus AIP.
And you are correct, currently there are no DBE
requirements associated with the PFC, because it is not Federal
dollars, it is local dollars that is being collected. And I
think that is something we should take a look at.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Ms. Cassotis. So we, like DFW, our board of directors every
year approves our DBE, WBE, and MBE plans. And we monitor that,
we do a lot of work in diversity outreach to our community in
order to get more participation.
But we have aggressive goals. And on every single project
we monitor and often exceed them.
Mr. Bleiweis. Congressman, we also approve and look at our
goals every year. But with smaller airports, the PFC is
basically--is combined with Federal AIP dollars. So we are
pretty much--even though we are not--most of our PFC dollars
are put into projects that we have used with Federal grants, so
we would still be obligated to the DBE requirements because it
is a combination of funding, not just using PFC dollars for
stand-alone projects.
Mr. Payne. Let's see. Newark Liberty International Airport
is in my district, and has some of the highest average ticket
prices in the country. No doubt this is due in part to the
constraints on facilities. That is a lack of gates or slots, I
guess they are called.
Can the panel speak to how the lack of slots translates to
higher ticket prices, those of you that have the issue? Would
you say that raising the PFC could possibly lead to decreases
in ticket prices, due to more competition?
Mr. Donohue. From a DFW perspective, we do not have any
slot constraints. The other competitive dynamic we have at DFW
is Love Field. And the Wright amendment was just repealed about
2 years ago, which has created more competition, which has also
created lower fares. So, from the DFW region perspective, we
don't have that issue, in terms of slot constraints and what
they could do to pricing.
Mr. Lyttle. As I said, one of our major challenges that we
have at Sea-Tac is gates. And so we have airlines that would
like to provide service at our airport, but we just can't
accommodate them, especially during peak, because we do not
have the gates.
And so, the answer to your question is yes. I think there
is a possibility that if we can add these additional gates and
we have additional airlines, then the prices may very well go
down.
Mr. Payne. OK. Well, I guess my time is up, and I yield
back.
Mr. LoBiondo. I would like to recognize that--we are going
to go to Mr. Sanford. But before we do that, Mr. Larsen for a
unanimous consent request.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record a letter from Airports Council
International representing its support for the DeFazio-Massie
bill.
Mr. LoBiondo. Without objection, so ordered.
[The letter referenced by Congressman Larsen is on page 105.]
Mr. LoBiondo. And you have a couple of questions for the
record?
Mr. Larsen. And second, yes, I will be entering two
questions for the record, one on NextGen for DFW and one for
Sea-Tac regarding the work it has done on its environmental
footprint. But I will enter those into the record and expect
answers back. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Sanford?
Mr. Sanford. I thank the chairman. And I will be brief in
deference to my colleague from California. I had come in late
and, unfortunately, I had another hearing I had to attend. So I
apologize I wasn't here for the bulk of your testimony. I
appreciate you all's time.
You know, I would probably be, at least by way of
philosophy, on the dissenting view on increasing any tax fee or
other. And I would just like to explore, just for a little
bit--for instance, at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport,
if you look at your alternatives--let's say the fee wasn't
raised. What would you then do? What would be the next step, in
terms of where you would look, in terms of capital markets or
other in supplanting those needs?
Mr. Donohue. Sure. In terms of DFW, Congressman, if the PFC
was not raised, as we look at future infrastructure needs, the
airlines would wind up paying the majority of it through our
bond issuances, and the airlines pay the debt on those bond
issuances.
Now, again, from an airport perspective, we are fortunate
that nonaeronautical revenues are a strong----
Mr. Sanford. Can I respectfully--what I would argue is
ultimately airlines don't pay it. I mean, at the end of the
day, it is the consumer that pays all this stuff, because the
cost is not borne by the airline, and it is not borne by the
local municipality. It is ultimately passed on to the consumer.
So--but I hear you. Keep going, I am sorry.
Mr. Donohue. And I understand what you are saying.
Mr. Sanford. Yes, yes, sure.
Mr. Donohue. I am just saying the mechanism within the
airport is they would pay higher fees.
In terms of our performance from a nonaeronautical
perspective, where we gain revenues not from the airlines but
other sources, we would have to step up our performance there,
because all of those revenues we invest back into the airport.
As we discussed earlier, I think any discussions around
infrastructure and any type of opportunities there would afford
us an opportunity. P3s----
Mr. Sanford. I guess, again, in just a couple minutes that
I have, maybe somebody else has an illumination on this front.
I mean there is no closed system that doesn't have inefficiency
built into it. And I would guess, what, it is less than 20
percent of your revenue source? Probably much less than that.
What is PFC right now for you all?
Mr. Donohue. PFC at DFW is about $130 million a year.
Mr. Sanford. And percentage of total would be what?
Mr. Donohue. Out of $900 million in revenues.
Mr. Sanford. So it is--brain dead at this point in the
day--so 5 percent, is that right? One hundred--no, no----
Mr. Donohue. No, it would be----
Mr. Sanford. Twenty percent.
Mr. Donohue [continuing]. Ten to fifteen percent.
Mr. Sanford. Yes. So it is shy of the 20-percent number.
So, somehow you are able to navigate the other--for the
other 80 percent. Again, what are other alternatives to raising
that fee that might be viable? Maybe something that has been
done in another country, where they have looked at some other
creative alternative financing vehicle to getting at the needs
that you are after without ultimately raising the--you know,
yet another tax on airlines that is borne by the consumer.
Is there anybody else out there that has, hey, yes, I heard
of this, they do this in Australia, or they do this in Canada,
or they do this in Europe? Is there something else out there?
Mr. Donohue. Well, from a global perspective, Congressman,
certainly there are examples of other countries who, from a
Government perspective, support their aviation industry. I
don't think you are going down that path, but that happens,
clearly happens in other parts of the world.
And again, I think infrastructure, whatever happens from an
infrastructure perspective moving forward, I think offers us an
opportunity and--but I am not aware of any other examples that
U.S. airports have not----
Mr. Sanford. I guess what I am getting at is doesn't it
always--I mean it just strikes me that, you know, different--to
your point, in Pittsburgh different local areas will choose
enhancements or growth or to be a hub. They will go about
competition for that. And--because it plays to that local
region or that local area's advantage. We want to add all kinds
of different bells and whistles, but we want to pass it on to
the general flying public though, you know, they may or may not
go in and out of that airport.
I mean--and some of this is--it is local development borne
by the general traveling public. Is that not the case, or you
would take exception to that?
Ms. Cassotis. I would take exception to that. I would say
that the----
Mr. Sanford. I am sure you would.
Ms. Cassotis. Yes, because the people that are paying that
PFC or contributing to the program are people coming into and
out of Pittsburgh. They are not connecting. We don't have a
choice. The airlines made that choice. And it was the right
choice for their business model.
But, you know, I think that the people who----
Mr. Sanford. I will be rude and cut you off, just because I
don't want to--or could she finish the question?
Mr. LoBiondo. Well, I don't want to cut off in the middle,
but we----
Mr. Sanford. Yes. In fairness to my colleague----
Mr. LoBiondo. The gentleman----
Mr. Sanford. Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. LoBiondo. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies
for another committee commitment earlier, too. So I am pleased
to be able to take part.
Mr. McNamee, I am from the northern part of the State. We
have--two of our main hub airports are Chico and Redding, and
so we probably face similar circumstances to smaller to mid-
sized airports with keeping passenger service, as well. So
Redding has been doing OK. They have managed to maintain
lately. Chico has been without commercial service since August
of 2014, even though they had 16,000 boardings in that most
recent year.
So, I guess what I am getting at is what more--you know,
you have worked with Oxnard there with trying to get that back
in place, as well. And so, with the access to the small
community air surface grant program, the commercial service has
still eluded you in Oxnard. So what kind of strategies could--
do you apply to trying to get that service back? I mean is all
the--is it really the way the airport operates, the
improvements to the airport, or does it just flat come down to
the economics and passenger convenience? Do passengers want to
buy the tickets there----
Mr. McNamee. No, it is----
Mr. LaMalfa. What kind of things are really the most
helpful to get that back in place?
Mr. McNamee. Thank you, Congressman. So at Oxnard we are
uniquely situated, just under 60 miles from LAX and from
Burbank and from Santa Barbara to the north.
Mr. LaMalfa. How far is Santa Barbara?
Mr. McNamee. About 50 miles, 46 miles, I think, from
Oxnard. Ventura County is a county of approximately 1 million
people. I would say about 600,000 of those folks should be
using Oxnard Airport. It is a smaller runway, it is 5,500 feet
for landing, and only 100 feet wide. So we are not looking to
bring mainline carrier-size aircraft. So we are really focused
on the regional fleet. And the regional fleet is retiring more
aircraft than they are bringing in new aircraft.
And so, it is difficult to find an airline with aircraft
that are available to serve new routes, particularly ones that
are not proven--such as Oxnard--to the Bay Area, which, based
on data, on market data, shows to be our strongest market if
you combine San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco.
Mr. LaMalfa. Let me ask on that. Is it the newer type of
commuter jets are having a bigger challenge than, say, the
turbo props from before? Is that an aspect that you were just--
--
Mr. McNamee. Most of your regional carriers are now
retiring the twin engine turbo props, which are what used to
serve Oxnard. And the 50-seat regional jets are less efficient.
So, as fuel prices go up, they tend to use those less.
And, frankly, when you are feeding in to a major hub
airport--say, San Francisco--when you have to occupy a gate
with a 50-passenger jet versus a 200-passenger jet, it just
doesn't work as well for that airport. And so Oxnard is open
for 70- and 90-seat-sized aircraft. We could accommodate that.
But again, the airlines are risk averse, and so they are very
careful where they put the limited number of aircraft they have
available into which markets. So it has been a real challenge
for us.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. So that--without that service, you must be
having a very difficult time maintaining the facilities at a
position to----
Mr. McNamee. So, luckily, we operate a system of two
airports in Ventura County, and so we are able to move funds
from Camarillo Airport, where we have a large business park, as
well--and the business park alone generates about 35 percent of
our revenue for the two airports. And so we do have the money
to meet local match on Federal grants for those infrastructure
projects needed at both airports.
And then we do have money in the bank when we do those
projects that are noneligible to enhance the facility.
Mr. LaMalfa. The airport improvement program can be quite
helpful for smaller airports like that. But the $150,000-per-
year cap, how much of a hindrance is that, especially if there
is more revenue available to spread around? How important is
that cap in hindering what you might do to become more----
Mr. McNamee. So, if you were to look at some of the
documents I submitted, and in particular to the grants that
have been awarded to Ventura County, we have rolled over that
$150,000 for 2 years at Camarillo and at least 1 year at
Oxnard, and probably another year coming. Because, frankly, it
is just not enough money to do a meaningful project. And----
Mr. LaMalfa. They at least allow you to roll it over and
accrue it, then, though.
Mr. McNamee. We do. And the biggest problem is competing
with other airports in the region for the limited AIP funding
that is there. So we actually stagger some of our projects to
fit in--you know, we had a big push with the FAA and the runway
safety areas in 2015. That gobbled up tens of millions of
dollars in our region. And so those turned out to be rather
lean years for Camarillo and Oxnard.
As we get past that now, we have a substantial project this
year with some new underground infrastructure and taxi lanes,
but then we have got major runway rehabilitations coming for
both airports. And I think that is something you are going to
see at a lot of airports that--our older facilities, where it
is just that cycle. The runways are at the end of their useful
life. So I think in small general aviation and small commercial
service airports you are going to see more and more runway
reconstruction coming in the near years.
Mr. LaMalfa. So the cap is an issue. Yes or no?
Mr. McNamee. It is.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK.
Mr. McNamee. Short answer is yes, it is an issue.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you. Time is up. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. I have one question for anyone on
the panel.
Many airport safety research programs are conducted at the
FAA's flagship technical center, which is in my district. Are
there any safety issues at our airports or in the National
Airspace System that you can think of that the committee should
be aware of? And, if so, how are they being addressed by the
aviation community and the FAA?
This is for anybody who may choose to take it.
[No response.]
Mr. LoBiondo. They are all jumping up at once.
Mr. Bleiweis. Chairman, I think the FAA does a tremendous
job with the safety side of aviation. And I am not aware of any
safety issues that are not being addressed appropriately.
Mr. LoBiondo. Everybody else feels--yes, sir?
Mr. McNamee. Certainly on the general aviation side of
things, I think you are finding the certification process for
general aviation aircraft, avionics, things like that,
streamlining that process while still maintaining a level of
safety, I think, is very important for general aviation and its
future.
Mr. LoBiondo. Yes, that is high up on our list to address
with this reauthorization.
Mr. Donohue. I would just say, Chairman, that the FAA
continues to do an excellent job, from a safety perspective.
I--you know, having worked overseas, we do have the safest
aviation system in the world. No doubt about it. But, most
importantly, I think we all agree that we are not complacent
about that, and we know we can continue to do better, and
invest in better use of technology.
But they are a very good partner, from a safety
perspective.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. I would like to thank our witnesses very
much. I think this was very helpful for us. We appreciate your
time and energy and your contribution to our effort here. And
the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]