[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION
ACT OF 2009
=======================================================================
(111-8)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
FEBRUARY 11, 2009
----------
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009
THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION
ACT OF 2009
=======================================================================
(111-8)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 11, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-411 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi Carolina
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa SAM GRAVES, Missouri
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
RICK LARSEN, Washington SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts Virginia
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CONNIE MACK, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
JOHN J. HALL, New York AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin PETE OLSON, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
PHIL HARE, Illinois
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
DINA TITUS, Nevada
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
(ii)
Subcommittee on Aviation
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
Columbia JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania Virginia
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii CONNIE MACK, Florida
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JOHN J. HALL, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
TESTIMONY
Bolen, Ed, President and CEO, National Business Aviation
Association.................................................... 32
Brantley, Tom, President, Professional Aviation Safety
Specialists, AFL-CIO........................................... 56
Cohen, Roger, President, Regional Airline Association............ 32
Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 7
Elwood, James P., A.A.E., Airport Director, Aspen/Pitkin County
Airport........................................................ 32
Forrey, Patrick, President, National Air Traffic Controllers
Association.................................................... 56
Friend, Patricia, International President, Association of Flight
Attendants, CWA................................................ 56
Fuller, Craig, President, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. 32
Gless, Robert, Assistant Director, Air Transport Division,
Transport Workers' Association of America, AFL-CIO............. 56
Hanni, Kate, President, Flyersrights.org......................... 56
Jones, Clayton M., Chairman, President and CEO, Rockwell Collins. 32
LoBue, Hon. Nancy, Acting Assistant Administrator, Aviation
Policy, Planning and Environment, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 7
May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association...... 32
Prater, Captain John, President, Air Line Pilots Association,
International.................................................. 56
Principato, Gregory, President, Airports Council International-
North America.................................................. 32
Roach, Jr., Robert, General Vice President, International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers................ 56
Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Transportation.............................................. 7
Thompson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.................................................. 5
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 74
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 77
Cohen, Hon. Steve, of Tennessee.................................. 78
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 80
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 90
Mica, Hon. John L., of Florida................................... 94
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 102
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 103
Petri, Hon. Thomas E., of Wisconsin.............................. 108
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., of West Virginia........................... 115
Thompson, Hon. Mike, of California............................... 121
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Bolen, Ed........................................................ 123
Brantley, Tom.................................................... 130
Cohen, Roger..................................................... 142
Dillingham, Dr. Gerald........................................... 147
Elwood, James P.................................................. 180
Forrey, Patrick.................................................. 197
Friend, Patricia................................................. 209
Fuller, Craig.................................................... 236
Gless, Robert.................................................... 243
Hanni, Kate...................................................... 250
Jones, Clayton M................................................. 265
LoBue, Hon. Nancy, delivered by Lynne Osmus, Acting
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration................. 271
May, James C..................................................... 293
Prater, Captain John............................................. 311
Principato, Gregory.............................................. 325
Roach, Jr., Robert............................................... 345
Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L....................................... 353
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Schauer, Hon. Mark H., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, letter to Rep. Costello..................... 118
Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
U.S. Government Accountability Office, responses to questions
from the Subcommittee.......................................... 164
LoBue, Hon. Nancy, Acting Assistant Administrator, Aviation
Policy, Planning and Environment, Federal Aviation
Administration, responses to questions from the Subcommittee... 278
Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Transportation, responses to questions from the Subcommittee 386
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Letters to the Secretary of Transporation in support of the
pending Star alliance application.............................. 398
Aeronautical Repair Station Association, Marshall S. Filler,
Managing Director and General Counsel, written statement....... 456
Airport Minority Advisory Council:
Written statement.............................................. 462
Testimony of Anthony W. Brown, Chairman of the Government
Affairs Committee, before the Subcommittee on Information
Policy, Census, and National Archives of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of
Representatives, September 24, 2008.......................... 473
Testimony of Don T. O'Bannon, Esq., Chairman, before the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, U.S.
Senate, September 11, 2008................................... 479
Gene Roth, Executive Director, before the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, January 22, 2009............................ 483
``Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the City of
Austin,'' Final Report Prepared for the City of Austin, Texas
by the National Economic Research Associates, Inc., May 15,
2008......................................................... 488
Disparity Study for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Final Draft
Report....................................................... 506
``The Utilization of Minority Business Enterprises by the State
of Maryland,'' Prepared for the State of Maryland Department
of Transportation by the National Economic Research
Associates, Inc., January 8, 2001............................ 533
``Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from Memphis,
Tennessee, Prepared for the Memphis-Shelby County Airport
Authority by the National Economic Research Associates, Inc.,
December 18, 2008............................................ 548
``Race, Sex, and Business Enterprise: Evidence from the State
of Minnesota,'' Prepared for the Minnesota Department of
Transportation by the National Economic Research Associates,
Inc. and Colette Holt & Associates, September 27, 2005....... 568
The Boeing Company, Kevin Brown, Vice President, Air Traffic
Management, written statement.................................. 573
Continental Airlines, Inc., written statement.................... 578
Gebhardt & Associates, LLP, Joseph D. Gebhardt, letter to the
Subcommittee................................................... 584
Helicopter Association International, Matthew Zuccaro, President,
letter to the Subcommittee..................................... 586
National Air Transportation Association, written statement....... 588
The National Association of Counties, written statement.......... 594
National Pest Management Association, Gene Harrington, Director,
Government Affairs, written statement.......................... 597
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HEARING ON THE FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009
----------
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry
F. Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order.
The Chair will ask all Members, staff and everyone in the
room to turn electronic devices either off or on vibrate.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.
The Chair intends to give an opening statement, to call on
Mr. Petri to give an opening statement or brief remarks, and
then we will immediately go to our panel of first witnesses.
Mr. Mica. I had a little commentary if you would yield.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Mica has asked if he can make a few
comments. So I will revise my remarks and say that we will
recognize him for comments as well.
Let me advise everyone, we have a total of 18 witnesses
that we will hear from today. So I would inform our witnesses
that their statements will be entered into the record, and we
would ask them to summarize their statements as they are called
upon.
I want to welcome everyone to the Subcommittee hearing
today on the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.
Earlier this week, Chairman Oberstar and I introduced H.R.
915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. H.R. 915 is almost
identical to the H.R. 2881 legislation that was produced after
many hearings, in-depth analysis and a continued dialogue with
the FAA, our colleagues and other stakeholders, and then
passed, of course, the Full Committee and the full House of
Representatives in September of 2007.
We have made a few modifications in the new introduced
bill:
One, we have deleted provisions in our original bill that
were already enacted through the legislative or regulatory
process.
We included H.R. 5788, the HANG UP Act legislation
introduced by Mr. DeFazio to prohibit the use of cell phones on
commercial flight. H.R. 5788 was reported favorably from this
Committee last September.
And, we included the Aviation Safety Enhancement Act which
was passed by the House on July 22, 2008.
It is our intention to move forward on reauthorizing the
FAA as quickly as possible, given that we are already two years
behind schedule because of the inaction by the United States
Senate. As witnesses will testify this afternoon, short-term
funding extensions and continuing resolutions are delaying key
NextGen and airport development capital projects. We need to
get the FAA authorized as soon as possible in this session of
Congress.
The total number of passengers carried in the U.S. airspace
is approaching 800 million a year, and the FAA forecasts that
airlines are expected to carry more than 1 billion passengers
in the next 7 to 12 years.
To deal with this growth, strengthening our economy and
create jobs, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 provides
historic funding levels for the FAA's capital programs. This
includes $16.2 billion for the Airport Improvement Program,
nearly $13.4 billion for the FAA Facility and Equipment Account
and $1.35 billion for research and engineering and development.
The bill also provides $38.9 billion for the FAA operations
over the next 4 years.
The historic funding levels authorized for the FAA's F&E
account will accelerate the implementation of NextGen, enable
the FAA to replace and repair existing facilities and equipment
and provide for the implementation of high priority safety-
related systems.
To increase the authority and visibility of the FAA's Joint
Planning and Development Office, H.R. 915 elevates the Director
of the JPDO to the status of Associate Administrator for
NextGen within the FAA, to be appointed by and reporting
directly to the FAA Administrator.
To increase accountability and coordination of NextGen
planning and implementation, H.R. 915 requires that JPDO
develop a work plan that details, on a year to year basis,
specific NextGen-related deliverables and milestones required
by the FAA and its partner agencies.
To help airports meet increasing capital needs, we have
included an increase of the cap from $4.50 to $7.00 on the PFC
charges. That is exactly identical to what we did in H.R. 2881.
So the increase for the PFCs would be $4.50 to $7.00.
According to the FAA, if every airport currently collecting
a $4.00 or $4.50 PFC and if you raise that to $7.00, it would
generate approximately $1.1 billion in additional revenue for
airport development each year.
H.R. 915 also provides significant increases for AIP
funding for smaller airports that rely on AIP for capital
financing. Further, the bill increases funding for improvements
in the Essential Air Service Program and authorizes a Small
Community Air Service Development Program through 2012 at the
current authorized funding level of $35 million per year.
The traveling public saw firsthand serious problems that
our current system has with congestion and delays which, at
times, led to a breakdown in customer service. We have enacted
in this legislation a similar Passenger Bill of Rights or
consumer protection provisions in H.R. 915. In addition to a
number of things that we provide under that section of the
legislation, it also provides for civil penalties for
violations by the airlines.
We have included in H.R. 915 the CLEEN Engine and Airframe
Technology Partnership and Green Tower program which was
modeled after what is currently being done at O'Hare
International Airport.
We have the safest air transportation system in the world,
but we must not become complacent. In order to keep proper
oversight over the FAA and the safety program, H.R. 915 directs
the FAA to increase the number of aviation safety inspectors,
initiate studies on fatigue and requires the FAA to inspect
Part 145 certificated foreign repair stations at least twice a
year.
There are a number of other issues that we have addressed
in the bill that were the same as in H.R. 2881 including labor
provisions that affect labor negotiations with NATCA and the
FAA. The language is identical in this bill as the last bill as
well as the FedEx provision that was debated and included in
H.R. 2881.
Before I conclude my remarks--my statement is more
detailed, I will submit it for the record in the interest of
time--let me congratulate the men and women of JetBlue Airways.
Today is their ninth anniversary of flight, and I want to make
note of that and congratulate them.
With that, again, I welcome all of our witnesses here
today. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Before I recognize Mr. Petri for his opening statement, I
ask unanimous consent to allow for two weeks for Members to
revise and extend their remarks and to permit the submission of
additional statements and materials by Members and witnesses.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I will put my full statement in the record. I know we have
a full agenda and would like to get right to the witnesses.
But let me just say that I regret that we are moving quite
this quickly here. It is important we get a new reauthorization
in place, but it is also important that we do it in an orderly
fashion, and acting before the Administration has a chance to
submit its bill or its ideas or comments may actually prolong
the process toward final passage rather than speed it up.
Our new Administration does take a little while to get in
order, but I think they are owed a certain amount of deference
and respect from this Congress, and I regret that we are, in
effect, acting before we get their input.
With that, I would yield to the Ranking Minority Member of
the Full Committee, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Just for the record, I will submit a statement and make
some brief comments.
Well, first of all, I want to thank Mr. Costello and Mr.
Petri for moving forward.
Chairman Oberstar is helping. He would be here. We just
left trying to get some money for the Committee through House
Administration, together. I don't know what we are going to
get. We may have to eliminate staff and Members, but we should
do okay other than that.
Ray LaHood--I know we have all met with the new Secretary--
asked me what some of the priorities are. And I said, we have
to get an FAA bill, and we have to also get an FAA
Administrator.
It is absolutely incomprehensible that we haven't had an
FAA reauthorization since, what, September of 2007. And now I
hear the Senate is looking at an extension that might go into
the fall. That is totally unacceptable. So I pledged with Mr.
Oberstar to work to pass comprehensive FAA reauthorization
which should have been done in the last two years.
Trying to deal with an agency, and I chaired Aviation for
six years. We did some very good things. It is difficult enough
when you have an administrator or chief executive at an agency
in place. It is difficult, if not impossible, when you don't
have one or you have one acting who is being held hostage for
political reasons, which is totally unacceptable.
This bill could and should be conferenced, and we could do
it in two hours. There is no reason that it shouldn't have been
done.
First, we know one of the big elephants in the room is the
NATCA provisions, and I think we have to be fair to the men and
women who serve us as air traffic controllers.
I am glad this is tossed to the new Administration and to
the new greater majority. I just would counsel them against
unleashing a dam, and again I think that they are entitled to
some compensation and additional compensation, particularly new
entrants. And I did everything I could to bring parties
together for the last two years to resolve that issue, but that
has to be resolved. That is the two-ton elephant in the room.
I have no problem with the provisions for compulsory
arbitration, and I would hope to the good Lord that we never
again bring to Congress the personnel and salary issues of any
of our agencies at that level and then put every Member of
Congress in the middle of a ping-pong contest to resolve it. It
is horrible, and I think we have a solution. We need to adopt
that.
That is a big, serious issue that you have to resolve, and
I will be glad to sit down at anytime and get that behind us.
The financing issue is another big elephant, and that does
need to be resolved. I think Mr. Oberstar and I came to some
conclusions, and I hope we don't have to revisit that too much.
Finally, there are, and I have been quoted in the press
saying there are, some half-baked proposals in here that need
to come out. Everybody knows what they are. I don't want to go
over all of them.
They will hurt our airliners, the airline industry which is
already on its third. I was going to say its second time on its
knees. It is the third. But we don't want them down and out for
the count.
We have to have some reasonable provisions, whether it is
the foreign repair stations, the insect notification--I see,
thankfully, Mr. DeFazio is gone--the OSHA standards and some of
the other issues. You know what I am talking about.
Finally, we have to do something, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Ranking Member and Mr. Oberstar, as soon as we get an FAA
Administrator in place, about getting airspace redesign in the
New York City area. They tell me now that 83 percent of our
chronically delayed flights emanate from the Northeast Corridor
and the New York City area, and I have done hearings and
meetings from Philadelphia to Connecticut. That has to be
resolved.
It has to be resolved. So whether it is in FAA
reauthorization along with NextGen, which is also important, it
must be resolved.
So those are my comments, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Costello. You have no time left, Mr. Mica.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Costello. Let me say, just comment quickly because we
are down to five minutes to get to the floor, and we do have
three votes. We will come back immediately.
Let me comment on a few of Mr. Mica's comments. I think we
are in agreement on several things. One is the reauthorization
bill that passed the House in September, 2007. Unfortunately,
we had no control over its destiny because the Senate didn't
act as they didn't act on a lot of bills.
On getting a new Administrator in place, we had a meeting
yesterday with Secretary LaHood. I have met with him three
times in the last weeks and stressing the importance of several
things. The Administration has only been in office 21 days, and
they have already made an offer, and they are negotiating with
the person they want to see become the Administrator. So I
think they are moving with due speed and due diligence.
Last but not least, my friend, Mr. Mica, says there are
some half-baked ideas in here. That may or may not be true. It
depends on who the cook is and who is doing the baking. But
those are things that we will have an opportunity to discuss
and talk about during the markup when we bring this legislation
to the Committee for a markup.
With that, I thank Members.
There are three votes on the floor. We will come back
immediately right after the third vote.
I would ask Mr. Miller and others to get our first panel of
witnesses up to the witness table, and we will begin
immediately upon return, and the Subcommittee will stand in
recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order.
We will hear from our first witness, Congressman Mike
Thompson, a Congressman representing the First District of
California, who has been a very strong advocate for a Passenger
Bill of Rights.
Congressman Thompson.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MIKE THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Petri and other Members of the Committee. Thanks for the
opportunity to provide testimony at your hearing today on the
FAA Reauthorization Act.
I am here again today regarding the airline passenger
rights almost 2 years after my first appearance at this
Subcommittee on this very same topic and more than 10 years
since Congress first examined the problem of extended delays
after hundreds of passengers were stuck in planes on snow-
congested Detroit tarmacs in January of 1999, and I believe it
is time for Congress to act to protect the flying public.
Americans should not be held without food, water and other
necessities when they set foot on an airplane. Since 1999 and
despite countless industry promises, little or no progress has
been made toward ensuring that airline passengers have some
basic rights during excessive ground delays.
It took nearly a year for then Secretary of Transportation
Mary Peters' Tarmac Delay Task Force to issue a report this
past November on how airlines, if so inclined and only when
practical, might improve onboard conditions for stranded
passengers. None of the improvements recommended in that report
were mandated and yet again relied entirely upon voluntary
action by the airlines.
Secretary Peters' report did nothing to help solve the
problems of excessive delays. As the New York Times editorial
staff opined after its released, this report was tantamount to
telling passengers, ``Suck it up and sit there on America's
unfriendly tarmacs for as long as it might take.''
The lack of voluntary action by airlines for the past 10
years only underscores the absolute necessity of including the
same passenger rights provisions passed as part of the FAA
Reauthorization Bill during the 110th Congress in this version
that you are considering today.
These provisions would finally require air carriers and
airports to submit an emergency contingency plan in the event
of excessive delays to the Secretary of Transportation for
approval. These plans must detail how the air carrier will
provide food, drinkable water, working restroom facilities,
adequate cabin ventilation and access to medical treatment.
I recently introduced legislation. It is H.R. 624, the
Passenger Bill of Rights for 2009 which includes the passenger
rights provisions that you are considering here today as part
of this reauthorization measure but with one important
difference. Instead of requiring deplanement after ``excessive
delays,'' my bill calls for deplanement after three hours. By
not defining what excessive delays actually means in the
current legislation, Congress is yet again leaving it to the
airlines to self-regulate, an approach that has failed
miserably over the past 10 years.
I urge the Committee during the markup of this legislation
to adopt the language included in my bill which sets for the
three-hour standard along with important exceptions to be used
at the discretion of the pilots.
Mr. Chairman, after 10 years, it has finally come time to
pass these basic passenger protections. Thank you for your past
assistance. You have been on great on this and on this issue
and continued support by including these provisions in the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2009 Act.
Furthermore, if history repeats itself and this bill is
passed by the House but becomes excessively delayed on the
Senate tarmac, I respectfully request that you support my
efforts to take these passenger rights provisions as a
standalone bill to the House floor for immediate consideration.
Again, I appreciate the work of the Subcommittee and your
support on this issue over the course of the last couple of
years. I hope that this year we can finally bring this issue to
resolve, and thank you for allowing me to testify today.
Mr. Costello. We thank you for testifying here today,
taking time out of your schedule. We know how strongly you feel
about the issue, and I think we are all in agreement that if we
leave up to the airlines as we have in the past to self-
regulate, it won't happen.
So we look forward to working with you between now and the
markup and continuing working with you on this and other
important issues.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair will ask the second panel of
witnesses to come forward please. Actually, it is the first
public panel. It is the Honorable Nancy LoBue, Acting Assistant
Administrator, Aviation Policy, Planning and Environment with
the FAA; Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director of Physical
Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office;
The Honorable Calvin Scovel, III, the Inspector General of the
U.S. Department of Transportation.
I would remind all of our witnesses that your entire
statement will appear in the record. We would ask you to
summarize your statement in five minutes or less.
And with that, Ms. LoBue, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE NANCY LOBUE, ACTING ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, AVIATION POLICY, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; DR. GERALD DILLINGHAM,
DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III,
INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. LoBue. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri
and Members of the Subcommittee.
As the Chair said, my name is Nancy LoBue, and I am the
FAA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Aviation Policy,
Planning and Environment.
Unfortunately, our Acting Administrator was ill today and
unable to appear with you, so I am appearing in her place.
I would like to thank you for inviting us here today to be
part of your discussion about the reauthorization of the FAA.
We look forward to working with this Committee and the new
Congress on achieving a robust multi-year bill that will help
ensure the safety of the flying public and the efficiency of
the National Airspace System.
There is a consensus in the aviation community, including
the FAA, that multiple short-term extensions, as we have had in
the last 18 months, are burdensome and disruptive and do not
permit the careful planning and efficient execution that is
necessary for successful infrastructure and technology
programs.
We appreciate the hard work and efforts that this Committee
has put into H.R. 915. As the new Administration settles in and
continues to get its policy team in place, the bill will be an
immediate focus as we work to develop an administrative
position. In the meantime, please accept my gratitude on behalf
of the Administration for your efforts in moving FAA's
reauthorization forward.
Secretary LaHood has made his safety goals for all of DOT
and especially FAA quite clear. At the FAA, our highest
priority is always safety. We are currently in the safest
period in commercial aviation history, and every day, every
hour we are doing everything we can to make sure that that
continues.
For example, the FAA is making it a priority to reduce the
number of runway incursions, and we are seeing results. There
were no serious runway incursions in the first quarter of
fiscal 2009. Not a single Category A or B event during 12.8
million aircraft operations.
We have also accelerated our runway status lights program,
and the systems are scheduled to be installed at 22 of the
Nation's busiest airports by 2011.
The Secretary has indicated several times that one of his
immediate goals is to fill the position of the FAA
Administrator. He has expressed that the new Administrator will
be one who can advance NextGen and be someone with the people
skills to resolve outstanding labor issues, something which I
know many of the Members of this Committee are also committed
to.
We are also pleased that just two weeks the GAO removed the
FAA's Air Traffic Control Modernization Program from the high
risk list for the first time in 14 years. GAO noted that
management focus and willingness to attack and rectify our
shortcomings and our plan for continued improvements were the
reasons that it felt comfortable removing FAA modernization
from their high risk list.
Finally, no organization is successful without its most
valuable asset, its workforce. Controller hiring is up. We have
exceeded our hiring goals for fiscal year 2008, and we are on
track to meet our end of year hiring goal in fiscal 2009.
The new controllers are completing their training faster.
In fact, we anticipate 1,000 new hires will complete training
to reach full certification this year compared to 762 last
year.
Controller retirements have also leveled out and are
trending below what we had projected for this year.
As you can see, we are still actively moving forward on all
key areas. The FAA is a growing, learning organization
dedicated to the safety of the traveling public and the
efficient operation of the National Airspace System.
We look forward to supporting President Obama and Secretary
LaHood's agenda for aviation, the new FAA Administrator, and to
working with this Committee and the rest of Congress on FAA
Reauthorization. In the meantime, we remain focused on our
duties to ensure aviation safety and efficiency.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Petri and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. Thank you for your testimony, and the Chair
now recognizes Dr. Dillingham who has testified before this
Subcommittee many times.
Mr. Dillingham. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Petri.
Thank you for the opportunity to again appear before this
Subcommittee.
My testimony this afternoon identifies some key
reauthorization issues that will need to be addressed to
maintain the safety and efficiency of the current National
Airspace System and to move expeditiously towards NextGen. I
will also offer some general observations on the
reauthorization.
First, with regard to the current system, the first issue
is safety. FAA must enhance its ability to monitor and manage
risk by collecting complete and accurate safety data from all
segments of the industry.
Such data include information that is currently provided
through FAA's voluntary reporting program as well as
operational data from industry sectors such as air ambulances,
cargo aviation and general aviation. This information is not
generally collected or tracked on a system-wide level.
The ability to collect and analyze these types of data is
particularly important as the Agency transitions to a data-
driven, risk-based safety management system approach for
aviation.
Another reauthorization issue is related to the existing
ATC facilities and systems. Some of these facilities and
systems will continue to form the core of the National Airspace
System for a number of years and, in some cases, will become a
part of NextGen. Continued reliance on these facilities and
systems will require the Agency to identify the necessary
resources and skilled personnel to implement both a robust
facility renovation plan and a system maintenance strategy.
As you know, H.R. 915 contains a provision for FAA to
develop a Facility Reconfiguration Plan. Until FAA develops
such a plan which considers both safety and cost effectiveness,
the facility configurations needed for NextGen cannot be
implemented. In addition, potential savings that could help
offset NextGen costs cannot be identified.
Another reauthorization issue is critical workforce
concerns. Specifically, FAA will have to continue to hire and
train thousands of air traffic controllers and other technical
professionals. It will also need to work to improve relations
with its labor unions.
Turning to NextGen, to its credit, FAA has taken important
steps such as forming partnerships with industry and planning
for a mid-term implementation to accelerate the availability of
NextGen capabilities by 2018.
FAA will also need to work with stakeholders to explore a
range of potential incentives for aircraft operators to
purchase NextGen avionics and for suppliers to develop those
avionics.
Additionally, FAA will need to acquire staff with technical
skills, such as systems engineers, and contract management
expertise to implement of NextGen. FAA estimates it will need
to hire about 350 additional staff over the next 2 years to
obtain these needed skills.
Mr. Chairman, it is worth noting that our work has shown
that even with the full implementation of NextGen there will
still be a need to build infrastructure projects such as
runways and taxiways to accommodate anticipated future travel
demands.
Building runways is often a long-term effort that involves
a resolution of some difficult environmental concerns. Adequate
funding is critical for aviation research and development
initiatives aimed at addressing environmental concerns. The
CLEEN initiative and other environmental provisions that are
contained in H.R. 915 would begin to provide such funding.
Mr. Chairman, the last issue I would like to highlight is
the importance of enacting a multi-year reauthorization.
Additional short-term funding extensions and continuing
resolutions could hamper the planning and development of
airport infrastructure projects, particularly those that are
funded through the AIP program, and in fact increase the cost
of those projects. It could also delay critical NextGen
decision points and, maybe most importantly, it could postpone
the achievement of the mid-term NextGen goals for operational
capabilities and improvements for the National Airspace System.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham.
General Scovel.
Mr. Scovel. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri,
Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to
discuss the key issues for reauthorizing FAA.
We understand that the Committee's reauthorization bill,
H.R. 915, was introduced in the House on Monday.
The aviation landscape has changed significantly since
Congress last debated proposals for reauthorizing and financing
FAA. U.S. airlines have been buffeted by the softening economy
and volatile fuel costs. As a result, they have reduced
capacity and grounded hundreds of aircraft although load
factors remain high.
The decline in traffic has also impacted the Aviation Trust
Fund, the largest source of revenue for FAA's $15 billion
annual budget. Trust Fund revenues declined by more than 11
percent during the first quarter of 2009. Given the drop in
traffic and the resulting decline in passenger taxes, Trust
Fund tax revenues will likely decrease significantly during the
balance of fiscal 2009 and perhaps in fiscal 2010 as well.
Notwithstanding the uncertainties facing the industry and
FAA, this situation provides FAA with opportunities to
strategically position itself for an industry rebound.
We see four overarching areas for FAA's efforts:
First, maintain public confidence in FAA's ability to
provide oversight of a dynamic industry.
The Southwest Airlines incident last spring disclosed
multiple weaknesses in FAA's oversight of that carrier's
maintenance program. One of the troubling findings was that FAA
missed numerous inspections of the carrier's maintenance
program, allowing safety directive compliance issues to go
undetected for years. Our ongoing review has found similar
missed inspections at seven other major carriers.
FAA must bolster the integrity of its oversight by
establishing mechanisms at the national level to provide
effective oversight of field efforts.
FAA must also follow through on longstanding commitments to
improve oversight of external repair facilities. FAA's risk-
based oversight system does not yet include critical repairs
performed by non-certificated repair facilities. It also does
not require that air carriers report all repair stations
performing repairs to critical components.
FAA must advance risk-based oversight of outsourced
maintenance providers by implementing a system for determining
how much and where aircraft maintenance is performed.
Runway incidents also continue to be a substantial threat
to safety. Many see new technology as the solution, but our
work on three major technologies for improving runway safety
has raised concerns about what can be effectively deployed
within the next several years. FAA and industry must implement
airport-specific infrastructure and procedural changes and
reinvigorate national FAA programs to improve runway safety in
the near term.
Second, set expectations and budget priorities for NextGen,
a high-risk effort involving billion-dollar investments.
After more than 4 years of planning, FAA must now shift
NextGen to implementation. FAA has focused its attention on
mid-term objectives, but fundamental issues must be addressed.
These include:
First, completing a gap analysis of today's system and
NextGen and refining the NextGen mid-term architecture.
Second, establishing priorities with stakeholders and
reflecting them in budget requests and plans, so decision
makers can determine what to invest in first.
Third, managing NextGen initiatives as portfolios and
establishing clear lines of responsibility, authority and
accountability. This is needed because new systems must be
combined with procedural and airspace changes to deliver
benefits.
Finally, identifying the number and types of facilities
that will be needed to support NextGen. FAA must address the
technology and security prerequisites and cost drivers
associated with facility consolidation for decision makers to
know what can be reasonably accomplished.
Third, bolster key safety workforces. FAA continues to face
significant attrition in two critical safety workforces: air
traffic controllers and aviation safety inspectors.
Through 2017, FAA will hire and train nearly 17,000 new
controllers to replace those who were hired after the 1981
strike and are now retiring. A major challenge will be training
and certifying the huge surge of new controllers at their
assigned locations, a process that currently takes up to 3
years.
Controllers in training now represent 26 percent of the
workforce, up from 15 percent in 2004. However, many key
facilities, such as the Southern California TRACON, which
expects to have nearly 100 controllers in training this year or
over 40 percent of its workforce, already exceed the national
level.
FAA must also ensure that it has a sufficient number of
properly placed safety inspectors. It is not reasonable to
expect FAA to have an inspector workforce large enough to
oversee all aspects of a dynamic aviation industry. Therefore,
it is critical that FAA ensure its inspectors are placed where
they are most needed. Delivery of FAA's new staffing model this
year remains an important watch item.
Finally, finance and establish controls over future airport
development. Airline service reductions and capacity cuts have
significantly impacted airports, especially in small
communities, some of which have lost commercial service
entirely. At large airports, declining revenues have led to
concerns that some infrastructure projects will be delayed.
The economic stimulus packages proposed in the House and
Senate contain significant funding amounts for the AIP that
will help to revitalize airport development this year and next.
However, such a large, rapid infusion of new funds could create
significant oversight challenges for FAA, including pressure to
begin projects quickly.
FAA must prepare for the potential risks and take steps to
mitigate them. My staff is working with FAA and the Department
to identify risks, oversight challenges, and best practices
associated with the stimulus funding for the AIP.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, General Scovel.
Let me just make a few comments.
Ms. LoBue, as a I said earlier in the opening statements,
we had a good meeting with the Secretary, Secretary LaHood,
yesterday. We understand that the process is moving forward on
a fast track as far as a new Administrator is concerned. And
we, of course, hope that that happens sooner, rather than
later, so that we can begin the process of doing things that
need to be done over at the FAA.
Secondly, Dr. Dillingham, I couldn't agree with you more.
The labor issue needs to get behind us. We expressed that to
the Secretary and have expressed that to others as well. It is
having an effect on morale throughout the Agency, and it is
having an effect on the implementation of NextGen. So we
appreciate your making note of that in your testimony.
At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr.
Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have a number of questions which I will submit for
written response in light of the lengthy panel agenda we have
today and the need to get the testimony of all the witnesses
and would yield my time to the two Members who have requested
an opportunity to ask questions on this side, Mr. LoBiondo and
Mr. Coble, starting with Mr. Coble.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Ranking Member. I will be very brief in view of the time frame.
Ms. LoBue, what impact have the short-term extensions had
on the FAA's ability to issue grants to airports.
Ms. LoBue. We have had some problems with having short-term
extensions, meaning that those kinds of grants and those
projects with letters of intent that over a long period are
disrupted with the kind of on and off nature of having
extensions. You have to treat an extension as if it is the only
time period that you are allowed to do the work. So that can be
disruptive in the AIP program, very much so.
Mr. Coble. Well, how will the proposed stimulus package
complicate or improve the situation or will it have either
effect on it?
Ms. LoBue. My understanding of the stimulus package is that
FAA stands ready to implement the funding numbers, the type of
numbers that have been talked about in both the House and the
Senate over a two-year period of time. Such a more extended
period of time gives us a better chance for implementation than
when we have had six-month extensions or three-month
extensions.
So I think we actually feel the stimulus, in the way it is
set up, although there are some issues with workforce
implementation, we do believe we will be able to follow through
on what Congress has talked about putting in place.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, ma'am.
Dr. Dillingham, let me put the same question to you. What
impact, in your opinion, has the short-term extensions had on
the FAA's ability to issue grants to airports?
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Coble, in the same vein as Ms. LoBue
talked about, when grants are issued in sort of spurts, the
airports can only commit a certain amount to construction, and
one of the things that happens is that the construction crews
will pack up and go to another job. When the money becomes
available again, they come back. But what that does is extends
the time as well as extends the cost of a project when they
come back in place again.
So when you don't have a situation where you know that the
money is coming and the amount that is coming, it makes it very
difficult especially for medium-size airports. Big airports and
little airports, it is less of a problem. But the medium
airports, that affects them more.
Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir.
And, finally, Mr. Scovel, with the recent disclosure of a
security breach of one of the FAA's servers, do you have
concern about the FAA's ability to protect critical systems
from cyber attacks?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Coble.
Yes, we do, but I would like to note first that FAA has
taken steps to improve its cyber protection program in recent
years, and my office has been working with FAA and the
Department along those lines.
Some of the concerns that I have with FAA are unique to
FAA, and some extend to all agencies across Government; I will
cite three specifically.
The first has to do with technology changes. FAA has moved
increasingly, as have many agencies, to an internet protocol-
based technology in modernizing its systems. This is in marked
contrast to previous practice some time ago when agencies would
develop proprietary software and operate it in a closed network
environment, which greatly limited the opportunity, of course,
for hackers to gain access. With an internet-based system,
hackers' access is a much greater risk.
The second point I would raise is system interconnectivity.
Unlike most Government systems, FAA systems are highly
connected to each other. They must be in order to operate the
NAS. But security, as we all know, is only as strong as the
weakest link. So, if a hacker is able to gain access to even
one system, then potentially other systems are at risk as well.
Finally, outsourcing. FAA, like other agencies, has turned
increasingly to outsourcing. It has forfeited some aspect of
direct control over information security, and that remains a
concern for us.
We have two ongoing audits within the FAA on this, both
performed in response to requests from this Committee. One has
to do with web application security in air traffic control
systems, and the second involves information security and
privacy protection of medical records of hundreds of thousands
of airmen. Both of those topics have been of concern to the
Committee, and we are responding to the Committee's requests.
Mr. Coble. Thank you all.
I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. I will let him
reclaim.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
I would yield to Mr. LoBiondo. I know you are trying to
juggle a couple of balls and we want to let you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
To our panel, thank you for being here.
Ms. LoBue, just a matter of point of reference, I represent
the FAA Technical Facility in Egg Harbor Township. And, of
course, I, along with many others, am very concerned with the
news that we got yesterday about the personnel records of some
45,000 FAA employees including probably more 1,500 that are in
my district. We understand that the hackers were able to access
employee names, addresses and social security numbers along
with some other information.
Of course, I think I probably share everyone's
disappointment that in the wake of the breaches of information
that occurred with the VA where we thought, Members of Congress
believed, that agencies were going to take steps to do
something, that this actually occurred. For whatever reason, it
didn't, and I am sure you will have more information on that in
the future.
What I would like to know is that does the FAA intend to
help protect the employees from identity fraud? Do you have any
measures that you are planning on doing?
Ms. LoBue. The answer to that is yes. Frankly, as one of
the employees whose personal information is at risk--I am one
of those 45,000 people--I am very concerned about this event.
FAA has taken both some short-term and some long-term
measures for the immediate future to make sure this doesn't
happen again while we buttress, and obviously we will be
working with the OIG on how we can buttress, our systems.
There is some discussion as to how much we can do to
protect the employees, and we will be coming out with
information on that pretty quickly, but we are committed to do
something, yes.
Mr. LoBiondo. Have you had any discussions if you are
prepared to offer employees free credit monitoring like the VA
did?
Ms. LoBue. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. LoBiondo. That you will be doing that?
Ms. LoBue. Yes.
Mr. LoBiondo. And you will be briefing us or at least the
Chairman on what steps actually will be involved to help
protect those employees and what you will do to keep this from
happening in the future?
Ms. LoBue. Yes, sir. We will come up. Like I said, we are
doing some short-term and some long-term things. I think we are
still getting all of our plan together. We would be more than
willing to come up and brief the Committee in detail.
Mr. LoBiondo. Would you expect that you would be prepared
to share with us what your plans would be for the employees and
for future protections and what time period?
Ms. LoBue. That would be part of the briefing, yes, sir.
Mr. LoBiondo. I mean are we talking about six months, a
month?
Ms. LoBue. Until we will be ready? No. I think we could
come up within the next week or two.
Mr. LoBiondo. In the next week or two.
Ms. LoBue. Yes.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Chairman, hopefully, you will follow up
with them and let us know.
Mr. Costello. We will indeed, and we would ask you to
contact the staff when you are ready to come up and to brief
us.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. LoBue.
Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and now
recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just
have one question, and it would be directed to Ms. LoBue.
As you may know, Dr. Dillingham I think was questioned and
said that FAA management's and the unions' poor relationship
could slow the implementation of NextGen. So the core of that
poor relationship has to do with the imposition of what I
consider to be an unfair contract. Can you tell me what is
going on at the FAA in terms of reopening negotiations for the
contract?
Ms. LoBue. The Secretary has indicated that his priority is
getting on board an Administrator who will be willing to work
through the workplace issues and the union issues and get that
behind us. As I understand it, he has had conversations with
the Committee to indicate that that is going to be in the
pretty immediate future, and that is one of his highest
priorities.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay. So we would revisit the imposed contract
and work conditions is the position as you understand it.
Ms. LoBue. My understanding is this is one of the highest
priorities of the Secretary.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman from Oregon and now
recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. LoBue, Dr. Dillingham has made a statement in his
written statement that the strained relationship between the
FAA management and unions could slow the implementation of
NextGen. What is your response to that?
Ms. LoBue. I think we believe that the new Administration
has made it very clear that they intend to work through the
workforce issues. While we have had some input from controllers
involved in the past, I think we all recognize that the
workforce is a critical piece of getting NextGen on board, and
the new Administration has that as one of its highest
priorities.
Mr. Boswell. Dr. Dillingham, any comment on that?
Mr. Dillingham. Yes, Mr. Boswell. I think there are many
elements to sort of working out the relationship, the labor-
management relationship, but one of the things that we sort of
want to highlight is the fact that not only NATCA but the other
union Members need to be active participants in the
development, the design of NextGen.
I mean there are other labor-management issues, but what we
have seen in the past is unless the stakeholders are intimately
involved it tends to make things cost more and take longer to
get them done. So, hopefully, that will be a part of bringing
things together is bringing the stakeholders on board.
Mr. Boswell. I think that is historical.
Ms. LoBue, just to continue a little bit, what steps are
you taking to ensure that you have the staff you need to meet
the needs of the NextGen?
Ms. LoBue. This Committee has been very generous in helping
us hire inspectors. So, as I said, safety is always first and
foremost.
I think from the point of getting NextGen in place, we have
just issued at the end of January our NextGen implementation
plan which focuses more on the mid-term. I think we have come
forward previously with a fairly concerted effort on what the
next five years looks like.
Mr. Boswell. So you think you have the contract management
expertise? You think you have the systems engineering you need
and staff with the technical skills?
Ms. LoBue. I think we are concerned about staff with
technical skills. We see a shortage coming just as do all
technical-oriented businesses. That said, I think GAO
recognizing and taking us off the high risk list shows that we
have really put a premium on putting in place systems that will
manage contracts in a better and more effective, cost-effective
manner.
So, yes, sir.
Mr. Boswell. Dr. Dillingham, your comment?
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Boswell, FAA does recognize that it has
a need. Some of the things that it needs for NextGen are
different than what it needed for the previous ATC
modernization program. What we are concerned about is the need
for those highly skilled technical people that are going to be
desired across the whole spectrum of the economy.
On the plus side, because of the nature of the economy, it
might be easier for FAA to attract those kinds of people, but
what we are talking about is the timing. These people will have
to be brought into FAA, integrated into FAA, familiarized with
NextGen. And so, we are talking about something that could
throw the schedule off if we don't move immediately to address
this issue.
Mr. Boswell. General Scovel, would you comment, please?
Maybe, do you think we are doing enough? Is FAA doing
enough to address the attrition of air traffic controllers to
start?
Mr. Scovel. FAA has done what I can only say is a
remarkable job in hiring replacements for air traffic
controllers who have decided to leave the workforce.
The attrition over the last 3 to 4 years has amounted to
almost 5,000 controllers, and 2,657 have been retirements.
FAA's projections have been a little bit low, by about 16
percent, in determining what that attrition rate would be.
Mr. Boswell. What percent did you say?
Mr. Scovel. Sixteen percent low over the years. However,
FAA has managed to increase hiring efforts and, in fact, now
has some 270 more controllers onboard than it did in 2004.
Mr. Boswell. Is that adequate?
Mr. Scovel. We do have concerns, not over the total size of
the workforce, sir, but mostly over the skill level, the
training level of the controllers who are currently Members of
the workforce.
The number of certified professional controllers, those who
are fully capable of operating on their own in their
facilities, has diminished as the controllers in training
numbers have greatly increased. At some facilities, controllers
in training amount to upwards of 40 percent of the workforce at
that facility, and that can be a problem in terms of training
those new controller because each new controller requires a
certified professional controller to walk them through the
steps.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up, but I think we are
going to have to give some more continued attention to this.
Mr. Costello. Well, let me just follow up and make a
comment to your question to General Scovel. I was, not too long
ago, in the air traffic control tower in Orlando, and at the
time there were 10 controllers on duty. Only one had one year
of experience. The rest of them had been on the job less than
one year.
So when I think of what happened with U.S. Airways in the
Hudson River, I think about the experience that was involved
with everyone from the flight attendants to the pilots to the
air traffic controller to the responders and the level of
experience that they had.
One has to wonder that with an air traffic control force
where we are losing the most experienced controllers at the
rapid pace that we are losing them, it does make one concerned
about a lack of experience in a very critical position.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms.
Hirono.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have some questions for Ms. LoBue, and I note that your
testimony focused on safety and efficiency of aviation as prime
concerns. So I have two questions relating to safety.
I have learned recently that thousands of corporate
aircraft as well as the craft used by the Secretaries of
Transportation and Homeland Security, senior military leaders
and the FAA personnel have technology on this aircraft that
enable pilots to see under conditions of unstoppable blinding
smoke in the cockpit. I was surprised to learn, however, that
there is no FAA requirement that passenger airliners or
military aircraft have equivalent systems to ensure that pilots
can see in the cockpit under these kinds of conditions.
The technology in question costs approximately $25,000 to
$30,000 per aircraft which equates to a penny or so per ticket
over the life of the system.
As I understand it, the FAA's minimum safety standard is
that any failure of systems or components that result in
catastrophic consequences must be extremely improbable, and
there is a definition for extreme improbability.
But according to information that I have and if you Google,
for example, smoke in cockpits, you will see dozens and dozens
of incidents where smoke was in the cockpit, resulted in
emergency landings of aircraft. There have also been numerous
catastrophic fatal airliner incidents in which smoke in the
cockpit has been a cause or a factor of that incident.
When we are talking about emergency situations dealing with
airlines, seconds count. As was the case in the U.S. Airways
Flight 1549, seconds count.
So I would like to know why the FAA should not mandate
emergency vision technology to enable pilots to see their
controls and to land safely during in-flight emergencies with
unstoppable blinding smoke in the cockpit, especially as these
systems and this technology is utilized on the planes that are
used by the Secretaries of Transportation and Homeland
Security, senior military leaders and thousands of corporate
aircraft.
Ms. LoBue. Thank you. I am not personally able to answer
this question for you, but I would offer that we will get the
people that know at FAA to come up and brief you very quickly.
Ms. Hirono. Well, I know that smoke in the cockpit is
something that occurs, as I mentioned, relatively frequently
and that this is an issue that has been around for decades.
I am a new Member to the Committee, so I have recently been
apprised of this, and I would really urge FAA too. Because you
are focusing on safety and nothing could be more important than
the safety of aviation passengers, that since the technology is
there, it is utilized, it doesn't cost very much, I would
encourage FAA to make that requirement.
The second question I have is in the 1990s the FAA
contracted operations of a number of Level I airport towers
operating under visual flight rules--these are Class D
airports--to private operators, and one such tower is in the
Kona International Airport which is in my district on the
Island of Hawaii. This airport is currently classified as a
Class D airspace and therefore does not have approach control
run by the FAA. However, we know that over the past 15 years
Kona Airport is one of the busier airports and it more than
qualifies for Class C status. They have over 1.3 million
passengers compared with the minimum of 250,000 for a Class C
airspace. And Class C airspace requires FAA approach control.
I have been told by some flight professionals, pilots, air
traffic controllers, and they have expressed concerns of safety
issues at the Kona Airport.
The contract, private contract is about to expire, and I
think that this is a really good time for the FAA to review the
safety needs at this airport with the idea that it should. The
question as to whether or not this airport should return to FAA
control is, one, definitely timely and I think really important
for the safety of the passengers going to that airport.
I would ask you to look into it and if you could respond to
me, but if you can't right now, then later.
Ms. LoBue. So, yes, I would absolutely commit to you that
we will look into that and get back to you very quickly.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you.
I yield back the rest of my time.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. McMahon.
Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Chairman Costello and Ranking
Member Petri for organizing this important meeting on the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2009.
As aviation is a critical mode of transportation for our
Nation and for our world, to all the witnesses from the FAA,
the airlines and, most importantly, to the hardworking air
traffic controllers, pilots, flight attendants, ground crews
and countless other airline and airport employees, I thank you
for keeping air travel the safest form of travel in the United
States.
As the Chairman mentioned, all we have to do is look at the
heroic crew from the U.S. Airways Flight 1549 which happened
right in the Harbor of New York from which I come. You may have
noticed that on the accent. How important it is to have
experienced and dedicated people flying our planes in our air
transport system.
Mr. Chairman, I am excited about joining this Subcommittee,
and I look forward to a rigorous discussion of this
reauthorization bill. I know that this Committee and our great
Subcommittee staff have put together a good package over the
last few years, and I am looking forward to working with you to
address a number of concerns.
Of course, I support the creation of the NextGen air
transportation system, and I encourage the use of the most
cutting-edge satellite and GPS technology available for our
network.
As you know, my district includes Staten Island and the
western portion of Brooklyn, New York, the gateway to New York
Harbor. The New York area airports provide a critical link to
our national aviation network, but they also are some of the
busiest airports in the Nation, and we must work to build a
system capacity in a way that makes sense to New York and our
Country as a whole.
That is why I applaud the efforts of my colleagues last
year to oppose the Bush Administration's plan to auction off
the air slots through congestion pricing at JFK and LaGuardia
and, eventually, Newark. That plan was unworkable, and I am
glad that it will not be included in this year's bill.
Also, Newark Airport is just over the Goethals Bridge from
Staten Island. Airplane and helicopter noise continues to be a
big problem for my district. I hope we can work to include in
this bill ways to study the noise around New York airports.
Finally, all of us have heard countless horror stories
about air delays and being stuck on the tarmac, and we need to
make sure that the traveling public is treated with respect by
adopting a strong passengers' bill of rights.
With that said and your permission, Mr. Chairman, I just
have two questions to Ms. LoBue.
Our air traffic controllers are often the eyes and ears of
our airplanes and are the backbone of our safety network. It
has already been brought up by the Chairman how their training
is so important.
What type of outreach is going on with the FAA to reach out
to the air traffic controllers about the airspace redesign and
staffing issues across the Country as their experience is so
important and how are they being included in this process?
Ms. LoBue. My understanding is that there was some outreach
during the development of the New York airspace redesign to the
controller workforce. We can get you specifics on that and have
someone come up and brief you on all the outreach that was
done.
Mr. McMahon. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms.
Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for kicking off this very important series of hearings.
I want to identify myself with the remarks of the Chairman
and others concerning the necessity to acquire an Administrator
who knows how to settle disputes with the labor force, which is
stunting all we have to do in this Agency.
First, let me ask Ms. LoBue if you would spell out in
greater detail the relationship between the upcoming stimulus
and the Airport Improvement Program, or perhaps Mr. Dillingham.
We understand from your testimony that it gets you somewhat
beyond the six-month extensions, but would you put on the
record how the use of these funds will move your own mandate
for an improvement program?
Ms. LoBue. So let me be clear, there is a core set of
programs that needs to be reauthorized and that this
Committee's bill would work toward.
For the stimulus program, we have a series of projects in
the pipeline that we believe would create jobs fairly
immediately, and those particular items would be the project
types that would be done under the stimulus package. And the
stimulus, since it is----
Ms. Norton. What types of items, for example?
Ms. LoBue. It can be resurfacing runways. It can be putting
in landing lights.
We have a system of safety projects, that under the system
called the NPIAS, we put them in priority order. Those that
would rise to the next highest are the types of items that we
would choose that are traditional items done under the Airport
Improvement Program. It would just advance them from 2010 to
2009, from 2011 to 2010.
Ms. Norton. Well, every Committee feels an urgent need to
make sure that these funds are used, used quickly, efficiently.
When can you get to the Chairman of this Subcommittee and the
Chairman of the Full Committee a list of what those projects
will be and their readiness for implementation?
Ms. LoBue. I would have to go back and check that, and we
will get back to you with information.
Ms. Norton. I think you should get back to the Chairman of
this Subcommittee within 10 days on that information. This is a
lot of money, $3 billion.
Ms. LoBue. My understanding is we have the list. I am just
not familiar enough with it myself, personally.
Ms. Norton. Yes. All right. If you would just submit that
to the Subcommittee Chairman within 10 days, so that we can be
aware of it, I think it would be helpful to us all.
I have a question that is very troubling. In this region,
we appear to be going backwards on matters of security. The
only public service helicopter located in this region, we have
been informed is in danger of closing. That, of course, puts
into jeopardy security in this high-profile, highly-targeted
region.
It is used, of course, by public entities: the Metropolitan
Police Air Support Unit, the U.S. Park Police, et cetera.
Moreover, it is this heliport, the one at South Capitol Street,
is a part of the Department of Defense Nightingale Program. It
is the point of departure of a number of Federal officials
including the Supreme Court. And, on 9/11, this heliport in
fact became the air control command tower when the airport here
was evacuated.
There seemed to have been some understanding of the
importance of this helicopter because despite what was done
with general aviation, which is essentially closing it down and
then opening it in a way so that virtually nobody can use it,
for two years after 9/11, the heliport continued to serve
public service clients and corporate clients as well as news-
gathering helicopters. An agreement was reached, as you might
expect, with the Secret Service and actually adopted by TSA.
For reasons that I would like you to explain, since
October, 2003, the commercial operators whose funding is
necessary to keep the heliport open and why they have informed
us that they are on the brink of closing, they have been
restricted from using the heliport.
Now understand who pilots the commercial helicopters. These
are all people who are or have been military or police
helicopter pilots. That is what they have to be in order to
come into this airport.
Now they are to the point where they cannot generate enough
revenue to keep the heliport open without going back to what
they had two years after 9/11. Could you explain to this
Subcommittee why, with all of these safeguards, without
explanation, this vital security defense service was abruptly
cut off and what you intend to do about it?
Ms. LoBue. I am not personally familiar with this issue. So
I will have to get someone who is come up and brief you. We
commit to do that within the next week.
Mr. Costello. Ms. Norton, Ms. LoBue is here because Ms.
Osmus, who was scheduled to be here, is ill today. So she is
sitting in.
Let me suggest on that issue--and we recently discussed
this issue--we need the Department over, someone who knows and
can answer the question. We will set up a meeting with you and
with the appropriate people within the Agency to discuss the
matter.
Ms. Norton. I so appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. It is a
matter of some urgency, I believe.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, may I ask?
Mr. Costello. If it is quick. We are already a few minutes
over time.
Ms. Norton. Just let me ask. I am not asking a question. I
am asking you if you would provide a similar briefing from
whoever are the responsible officials--I appreciate that we
made this witness a sitting duck for the entire Department--to
explain whether they have reviewed the virtual exclusion of
general aviation from the airport of the Nation's Capital even
though just a few days after 9/11 it was up and running in the
city of skyscrapers, New York City, and only because this
Committee threatened contempt did we get it opened at all, and
then we have such onerous requirements, people with shotguns
onboard and the like.
That it continues to be virtual exclusion, I would like to
ask for an explanation and review of that policy as well.
Mr. Costello. We will be in touch with your staff, and we
will set up a meeting.
Chairman Oberstar had a meeting yesterday with the
Subcommittee Chairs and Secretary LaHood, and I think another
meeting is going to happen sometime in the not too distant
future. But we will set that meeting.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask first, and I just haven't had time to look, and
I don't know who the appropriate person to answer this question
might be. Is there anything in the bill or is there anything
that we already have in the way of help to help airports clear
away fowl from the area so they don't cause disturbances with
airplanes as we saw in New York?
Is there any program that we have? Noisemakers? Whatever?
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. LoBue. The FAA does, through its airport organization,
have guidance and programs for wildlife and bird hazard
mitigation and works actively with most of the airports
throughout the United States.
It does remain a big concern, sir. You are correct.
Mr. Cohen. Well, obviously, it does.
Was the problem in New York that these birds were just
lucky or unlucky? They didn't get observed by your deterrent
effects or your monitoring system and then they ran into the
plane or vice-versa or what?
Ms. LoBue. My understanding is the monitoring systems are
mostly down at a lower level and these were at a higher level.
I am not familiar enough.
Obviously, they are still going through all the facts, and
the NTSB has not come out with all of its reports yet. But,
that said, we do work the issue particularly through the
airports, at the lowest altitude levels.
Mr. Cohen. What gets geese to go the other way except for
the weather?
Ms. LoBue. I can get you more information on the program.
They have deterrents whether it is through actively working to
replace water hazards or other things like that.
New York is complicated in that the airport is right on the
water, and there is a wildlife refuge there. So they actually
have a considerable problem that they do try and mitigate.
Mr. Cohen. But it is on your radar, so to speak?
Ms. LoBue. Absolutely.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
Let me ask all three of you : Could you safely say that you
are all in favor of the passage of this bill?
I see one nod.
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Cohen, we are definitely in favor of
the passage of the bill. We have worked with the Committee to
help provide some of the background information that is behind
the bill. So we are definitely in favor of it.
Mr. Cohen. Let me ask you this: There is a provision in
here that deals with labor laws and deals with Federal Express
which is the number one carrier of cargo in this Country, and
it would require them to be under the National Labor Relations
Act rather than the Railway Labor Act. The courts have ruled
that is appropriate legislatively and also in courts,
judicially, that that is the proper place for labor disputes to
be determined for the good of the Country because if there is a
strike there in some remote section of the Federal Express
system and FedEx is halted in this particularly recessionary
time, if not at all times, commerce comes to a halt.
Are you all familiar with that provision? Are any of you
familiar with it?
Nobody is familiar with it?
Well, and you endorse the bill.
My question to you is this: In my opinion, and I come from
Memphis. That is maybe considered provincial. But Federal
Express covers the entire United States, the entire globe, and
this issue has the potential to stop this bill.
I am in favor of the bill as you are and think it is real
important, as does my airport authority, that we have the Next
Generation, that we have runway improvements, that we have all
the provisions in the bill to help move us forward.
But this one labor provision is not germane and that the
three of you all aren't even familiar with. And yet you are
experts on the field--the pros from Dover, as they would say in
MASH--and aren't even familiar with it could hold up this bill.
And I think that is a serious problem and especially in the
Senate because they have, effectively, hijacked the stimulus
bill with three individuals, and I suspect that the same thing
could happen over there on this bill. I would hate to see us
not get this bill passed because of a provision that is very
important to the future of this Country's economy and that is
not necessarily germane to runways, extensions and NextGen and
other safety features.
So, with that as a statement, if anybody wants to comment,
I would appreciate it. Mr. Scovel, do you have a thought?
Mr. Scovel. I do not, sir. The topic is really beyond the
purview of my office, and we are happy to leave it within the
sound judgment of the Congress.
Mr. Costello. I think the gentleman from Tennessee has
sufficiently made his point on the issue. I don't think you are
going to get a comment out of any one of the witnesses here,
but your point is well taken and noted.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
recognizing me because I have a meeting in the Tennessee
delegation, and I absolutely, positively wanted to be here for
this particular moment. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Boswell.
Mr. Boozman. You have forgotten my name.
Mr. Costello. Or Mr. Boozman. I just had a conversation
with Mr. Boswell. Mr. Boozman.
And let me remind Members that we have 14 more witnesses to
hear from. So I would ask Members to stay within the five-
minute time limit.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will cooperate even
though you forgot my name.
Thank you all for being here, and we appreciate the
testimony.
Dr. Dillingham, EAS is an important entity in many of our
districts throughout the Country, many Members of Congress. Can
you give us some options and alternatives that perhaps Congress
might explore to enhance or supplement EAS?
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
We currently have a study underway for this Subcommittee
that looks at those exact questions. What we can say at this
early stage is that clearly looking at the criteria and
requirements associated with EAS is well overdue. Since the
program was started some 30 years ago, there have not been
major changes or adjustments in the program in spite of changes
in population, demography, in spite of changes in the aviation
industry.
I think part of what we are going to try and report out is
not only how to enhance EAS but also options that will provide
the sort of connectivity for small and rural communities to
that national transportation network. And it may be rail, and
it may be bus or other surface things, but we propose to report
those options to the Committee as soon as we are finished
analyzing the data.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much, sir.
I yield back.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson.
Ms. Richardson. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having
this meeting and welcome back to all of you of seeing you on
our new year and new session.
I have two very quick questions. One, I want to build upon
the Chairman regarding air traffic controllers.
I notice, Ms. LoBue, that in your very extensive testimony
it is only until the last paragraph do you talk about air
traffic controllers.
And, Mr. Dillingham, in your presentation, you talk about
that you agree that they are somewhat on track.
However, all you got to do is come to my State, and I am
sure you have read the headlines of both of my Senators. We are
extremely concerned of what is happening with air traffic
controllers. So I would like to know where are we here because
your documentation says we are on track, things are going fine,
yet in our communities, as the Chairman has shared as well, we
have a lot of inexperienced people in there where it is a
disaster waiting to happen?
Essentially, the recommendation I believe from Mr.
Dillingham's report is not only hiring, but what are you doing
to resolve the labor conflict which I think has been going on
for several years and what is the Secretary's commitment to
resolving that conflict?
Because we are projecting what is going to happen of hiring
people of seven years, but I believe if we continue to
disrespect working people and not resolve the contract issues,
you may find that the pattern is not at the same. So what are
we going to do to address that?
Ms. LoBue. If I could.
Ms. Richardson. Please.
Ms. LoBue. The Secretary, the new Secretary, Mr. LaHood,
has committed that with his first hire, a new FAA
Administrator, one of the things he is going to have him tackle
is the workforce issues. He is looking for a person that will
be willing to, and able to, work with labor and get some of
these issues behind us. I think we have that commitment from
the Secretary, and I believe the Chairman has mentioned that we
should look forward to that in the very near future.
That will be one of the items tackled by this
Administration pretty quickly.
As to the concern about the proportion of trainees versus
experienced controllers, that is something obviously that we
have concerns about. We do have a lot of controllers who we are
hiring. We are following the plan, but there are in fact places
that we understand the ratio of trainees is higher than we
would like. We are actively keeping an eye on those, and we
have processes in place to get those controllers checked out
and to work through some of the experience issues on a more
effective and faster way.
So I can tell you that we understand the problem and we are
working it, although we do understand there will be some
transition issues as we move forward.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. In the sense of time that the
Chairman has said, could you please forward to the Committee a
report, I would say, on your major airports? I know LAX has to
be top on the list.
Not what we are preparing and we are working on but what
specifically is happening because it is of great concern. Both
of the Senators in my State have expressed the concern, and it
is just not to our satisfaction at this point.
I would also urge the Secretary, and I hope to meet with
him soon, and I am sure our Chairman will share the thoughts of
this Committee. But resolving that labor agreement has to be a
top priority, not the last paragraph in your report because I
believe it hinges upon many of the other problems that we have.
Finally, I wanted to talk about noise mitigation. In
addition to LAX, I have the Long Beach Airport in my district.
Mr. Dillingham, you talked about that local government
decisions that allow communities to expand near airports may,
however, erode some of the gains in these reductions of noise.
The FAA has issued guidance that discourages incompatible land
uses such as residences, schools, hospitals and in areas with
significant noise, aviation noise.
In my area, we just, when I was on the council there,
approved a major project of over 2,000 homes to go right up
under the airport, the plane of landing. And so, my question is
what would you advise to Members on Committees?
This isn't saying don't build any more. But for those of us
who are there, how can we take advantage of other pilot
programs or how could you recommend better addressing it for
the neighborhoods that are clearly along those paths?
Mr. Dillingham. Ms. Richardson, as you have said, land use
is strictly a local jurisdiction matter, and what FAA has done
is there is a Part 150 program that allows for noise mitigation
to try and mitigate some of the noise where you have this
close-up usage of land.
Also, we are currently doing work for this Committee, and
LAX is a big part of it. We are doing a study looking to see
what airports have been doing to mitigate all kinds of
environmental issues, noise and emissions. We are hoping to
bring to the Committee some answers and options that we have
learned from a national study of airports, and hopefully that
will be of some help in the LAX area.
Ms. Richardson. If you would consider my area as evaluating
as you move forward, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Dillingham. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have extended my
time.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I just arrived due
to a delay, and I don't feel qualified to ask a question of
this August panel.
Mr. Costello. Would you like to yield your time to Mr.
Dent?
Mr. Ehlers. I would be happy to yield my time to Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers, for yielding.
My question to you is this: What benefits have been
achieved by moving the Joint Planning and Development Office
within the bureaucracy of the Air Traffic Organization, Ms.
LoBue?
Ms. LoBue. That move was made to better work what we
generally call ``stovepipes'' and work some of the horizontal
integration in the Agency. So the point was to have those
things that the JPDO had done work on that would qualify in the
short and the mid-term be put into implementation and worked
immediately. Those things in the longer term, JPDO is still
actively working and has the outreach and has the
responsibility to coordinate with all the other agencies.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
Now what is the biggest safety priority for the Agency?
Ms. LoBue. I don't know that I am qualified to offer a
single safety priority. We have many.
Mr. Dent. Okay. With the downturn in the economy too, it
seems to me that Federal jobs may look better than ever for
many people. Should this help the FAA's recruitment of highly
qualified people with systems engineering and contract
management expertise?
Ms. LoBue. I think we believe that it will. I think we
remain concerned that across all technical industries, that
there is a shortage. But I think the economic downturn should
help us, yes.
Mr. Dent. I guess my final question I have for you then is
why does the FAA not keep any safety data on air ambulances,
cargo aircraft and general aviation?
Ms. LoBue. I am not qualified to answer that, sir, but I
can get someone who is to come up and brief you.
Mr. Dent. I appreciate that.
I will yield back my time to Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. No one seems to be seeking time on our side, so
I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to first thank the panel and direct my question to
Inspector General Scovel.
In a report that came out last April for DOT, you stated
that fewer veteran controllers were transferring from lower
level, less complicated facilities to higher level, busier
locations. The impact has been to put less experienced
controllers into situations they may not be as ready for as
some of their counterparts. Is that still the case nearly a
year later and are there any updated data that we could see
regarding that?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan.
We finished our report on air traffic controller facility
level training as of the end of fiscal year 2008. So my data
are current as of September 30, 2008.
At that point, we had determined that fewer veteran
controllers than FAA had hoped were indeed taking up the Agency
on its offer to move them, with a bonus, to facilities where
veterans were needed.
As a result, controllers in training were found in
increasing numbers at a number of facilities across the
Country. This is a concern both for the Agency and for my
office because, of course, controllers in training require much
closer supervision and are not qualified to operate at all
positions across the facility.
Mr. Carnahan. What role has the Agency's contract had on
this drop in incentives for the more experienced controllers to
move up the ranks to these busier facilities?
Mr. Scovel. I am not aware that our audit covered that
particular question. When you talk about the contract, you are
talking about the labor contract between the Agency and NATCA,
sir?
Mr. Carnahan. Yes.
Mr. Scovel. Right. We did not address that.
What we attempted to address, at least in part, was whether
the absence of a full contract might be leading to more
retirements on the part of veteran controllers.
Mr. Carnahan. And what were your findings in that regard?
Mr. Scovel. We found certainly that the absence of a full
contract was a significant morale issue. However, we could not
identify the absence of a contract as, in most cases, the sole
driving factor leading an individual to decide to retire. There
were just too many factors, both personal and professional,
that were leading veteran controllers to retire.
Perhaps in some cases the absence of a contract was one of
those factors, but it was expressed more generally in terms of
the morale of the workforce.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate
the opportunity to hear these witnesses read their testimony in
this case and hear the next panel.
The economic downturn, Ms. LoBue, what is the current state
of the Aviation Trust Fund and its effect upon the FAA's
budget?
Ms. LoBue. Right now, the Trust Fund for the end of 2009,
and this goes back to the mid-term projections we did last
July, we project that Trust Fund receipts will be $12.2 billion
at the end of 2009 and $13.1 billion in 2010. This says
basically that for the cash balance, there is not a problem
right now.
We are concerned about the low uncommitted balance which
shows a mismatch of receipts and spending because, as we have
all seen, traffic continues to trend downward as much as
perhaps 10 percent. So that is an issue that we will have to
look at.
Mr. Moran. When you say the cash balances are not a problem
right now, how would you define right now? What time frame?
Are there expectations? What does your crystal ball
foretell?
Ms. LoBue. At the end of 2009, we are expecting a $9.1
billion cash balance.
Obviously, all of these numbers will be updated as the new
Administration comes forward with its budget request. I believe
that is at the end of February. So they would have, I think, in
that budget request much more articulation of how they see the
problem.
Mr. Moran. Is there an understanding at the FAA what the
Administration's plans are to fill the long vacant position of
Administrator?
Ms. LoBue. The Secretary has met both with the FAA
executives and has had a couple of town hall meetings open to
all FAA staff and reiterated several times that one of his
highest priorities is getting an Administrator who will both be
able to tackle NextGen and be able to work through the
workforce issues that we have seen.
I understand from the Chairman that in fact they have
identified someone and are hoping to get that person on soon.
Mr. Moran. That is encouraging. It has been discouraging
for the amount of time that the position has been vacant, and I
would just publicly encourage the Secretary, the Administration
to actively engage in finding a leader at the Federal Aviation
Administration.
I thank the Chairman and yield back my time.
Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman and just would comment
that in a recent meeting with the Secretary and others the
Administration has identified someone that they are speaking to
right now. The Administration has only been in office 21 days.
So it seems to me like it is pretty fast action and that they
are moving forward.
We hope that the person is appointed and moves through the
process quickly. We think it is important for NextGen and a
number of the other programs.
Mr. Moran. If the Chairman would yield, I did not mean to
infer that 21 days was necessarily a long period of time, but
it has been a long time since we have had the position
occupied. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we have a
long hearing today, so I will work on keeping this short.
I want to thank Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri
for their work in putting together this bill last year and also
working with Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica.
There are a couple of things that I had worked with the
Chairmen and Ranking Members, getting the provision legislation
to continue and enhance R&D for avgas alternatives, which I
think is important, as well as the provision that would
establish a new FAA center of excellence focused on alternative
jet fuel research.
So I thank the Chairman for including this in the bill that
we have before us now and that we are moving very quickly on
this. I think it is very important that we move quickly, and
hopefully the Senate will move this time on the FAA
reauthorization.
So, in order to keep this short for the rest of the
witnesses, I just wanted to ask one question right now of Ms.
LoBue about Chicago Midway International Airport which is in my
district. It has been important to me, and I have been working
to increase the safety and efficiency of the airport and
working with the FAA on this.
I am not sure what you can provide for me right, but I
certainly would like to get further elaboration on what
measures the FAA is taking right now to ensure the safety and
efficiency at Midway Airport remain a priority because this is
very important to, of course, everyone who uses the airport and
certainly the people who live in the vicinity of the airport.
Ms. LoBue. Are you talking about while this privatization
effort is going on?
Mr. Lipinski. Yes.
Ms. LoBue. So, as we speak, nothing has changed.
We have an applicant under the privatization pilot program.
FAA has not yet approved that. We are still awaiting some of
the financial documents and some of the exact safety assurances
and workings that you are talking about. So, when we get that
from the city, we will proceed as soon as we can.
Mr. Lipinski. As we go through this, whether or not the
airport is leased, is there anything specific, anything more
that the FAA is looking at right now?
I know that in the last few years there have been additions
at the end of the runways for arrestor beds and was wondering
where we are look at moving forward with anymore safety
improvements at Midway Airport?
Ms. LoBue. I would have to have someone get back to you
with the specifics for Midway and what they are doing there. I
am not familiar myself, but we can do that.
Mr. Lipinski. I appreciate that and appreciate working with
the FAA and working with the new Administrator on making sure
that all of our airports, but certainly, also importantly,
Midway Airport and O'Hare Airport continue to be vital if we
improve the safety and work on improving the efficiency of
those airports.
So, with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee,
Chairman Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, thank you very much, Chairman. I thank
you and Mr. Petri for moving ahead quickly on this
reauthorization. It is the highest priority for us after the
stimulus.
The stimulus may need a lot more work than the aviation
bill. I don't know.
Ms. LoBue, runway status lights program, I am not familiar
with that. What do you mean by runway status lights?
Ms. LoBue. As part of our Runway Safety Call to Action
program, we have put in place runway status lights. I believe
it is eligible for AIP funding, and it is one of a number of
efforts to improve visibility and make sure that----
Mr. Oberstar. What do you mean by status lights? That is
one I want to understand, what you mean by status lights.
Ms. LoBue. It goes to the status of whether the particular
runway is occupied, not open, closed. That is what it refers
to, the status of the runway itself.
For instance, we had the instance where a crew pulled onto
an unused runway, and that was inappropriate. Now that would be
marked specifically, so that they could see from these lights
that that was not an appropriate place to go.
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Oberstar. Is this a program or initiative you are
instituting at all airports, only the major airports or more
critical airports or what?
Ms. LoBue. I would have to get back to you on more of the
specifics of the program. My understanding is that there is a
program to put them in. I believe by 2011, the top 22 airports
will all have them.
Mr. Oberstar. Dr. Dillingham, you were going to comment?
Mr. Dillingham. I was just going to say that basically they
work like stop lights, so that the pilot can tell it is red,
sort of red and green. If it is red, it is a visible sign that
you shouldn't go onto that runway. So that is, essentially,
runway status lights.
And FAA has a program, as Ms. LoBue said, that they have
already started. I think they have been installed in something
greater than 20 airports at this point, and I think the idea is
that eventually all of the airports will have that kind of
safety or at least certainly the major airports, the OEP
airports and the other.
Mr. Oberstar. We certainly need that. That is the first
time I have heard of this initiative, not that I have been
following with as much diligence as I used to do.
But I know that further on in Ms. LoBue's testimony she
discusses increased runway safety training and awareness of
pilots and air traffic controllers and vehicles.
I see an increasing number of vehicular traffic on the air
side of airports, and it really troubles me that we have so
much movement in that space. I am really concerned we are going
to have an on-the-ground incident. I know we do have some
lesser ones, but a major incursion that would result in
aircraft damage, injury or even fatality.
So describe this training and the frequency of which it is
occurring and the intensity and the type of training.
Ms. LoBue. FAA has had a pretty intensive program to try
and tackle runway incursions over the last year and a half.
Former Administrator Marion Blakey did a Runway Call to Action
in which we talked with both the major carriers and ALPA, as
well as the major airports on what were the types of things we
could do to bring the number of runway incursions down because
I think we also believe that that is one of the most important
areas that we look at in safety.
As of late in 2008, we instituted a Runway Safety Council
which is co-chaired by ALPA to continue to look at the types of
training, et cetera, that we can do.
I would have to get someone to come and give you a briefing
with more specificity on exactly all the training we have been
doing. But in fact we went out with guidance to the airlines on
runway safety training, and particularly on the runway safety
lights, all the major carriers have done training of their
workforces over the last year.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you. I will take you up on that offer
and won't delay any further with questions.
This is a vitally important hearing, all the witnesses and
all the organizations in one shot at this. We did this bill
last year or two years ago actually, a year and a half ago. We
are now polishing for readiness for markup to the House floor
and on a tough time line to get this bill through the House.
Hopefully, the other body gets the message and gets off
their delaying tactics that they have done for the last few
years and move a bill through because the authorization runs
out at the end of next month.
And we are dead serious about getting this bill through. So
anybody who has any questions, issues, raise now or forever
keep your peace.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar. Well said.
We thank all three of you for being here today and offering
your testimony and answering our questions.
The Chair now would ask the next panel of witnesses to come
forward. I will make the introductions while you are finding
your chair: Mr. Greg Principato, who is the Airports Council
International-North America President; Mr. James Elwood,
Airport Director of Aspen/Pitkin County Airport; Mr. James May,
the President and CEO of the Air Transport Association; Mr. Ed
Bolen, the President and CEO, National Business Aviation
Association; Mr. Roger Cohen, President of the Regional Airline
Association; Mr. Craig Fuller, President, Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association; Mr. Clayton Jones who is Chairman,
President and CEO of Rockwell Collins.
We would ask all of you to be seated.
As you heard me announce at the beginning of the hearing,
we have all of your statements. They will be submitted in their
entirety in the record. We would ask that you summarize your
testimony in five minutes or less which will give Members the
opportunity to ask questions.
And we will lead off with Mr. Principato.
TESTIMONY OF GREGORY PRINCIPATO, PRESIDENT, AIRPORTS COUNCIL
INTERNATIONAL-NORTH AMERICA; JAMES P. ELWOOD, A.A.E., AIRPORT
DIRECTOR, ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT; JAMES C. MAY, PRESIDENT
AND CEO, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION; ED BOLEN, PRESIDENT AND
CEO, NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION; ROGER COHEN,
PRESIDENT, REGIONAL AIRLINE ASSOCIATION; CRAIG FULLER,
PRESIDENT, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION; AND CLAYTON
M. JONES, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ROCKWELL COLLINS
Mr. Principato. Thank you for allowing Airports Council
International-North America the opportunity to participate in
this important hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Let me start by thanking you and the Subcommittee for your
support of airports in H.R. 915. Your assistance in providing
tools to improve our infrastructure while creating thousands of
jobs highlights the important role of airports in our Nation's
transportation network.
We also appreciate your continued recognition of the
success of the Airport Improvement Program in the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2009. Whether one plane or a hundred use
an airport in a given day, we need to maintain our
infrastructure to provide safe and secure facilities for the
traveling public.
Under this Committee's leadership, airports were given a
financial tool that has proved to be a model for Federal-local
partnerships and a lifeline for airport finance, the Passenger
Facility Charge. By granting airports the ability to generate
local funding through the PFC user fee, all who use the system
have a voice in infrastructure development in consultation with
the FAA. This financing tool has allowed local communities to
determine needs and map out a plan for improvements and
development at the airport in coordination with the airport
users.
ACI-North America strongly supports an increase in the
ceiling of this local user fee to at least $7.50 with future
indexes to match construction cost inflation.
The purchasing power of the PFC has been greatly diminished
by skyrocketing construction costs. The current maximum PFC of
$4.50 is worth only $2.46 today. Fully adjusting the PFC to
account for construction cost inflation would place the fee
this year at $8.33.
Without your continued support of increasing the PFC,
airports will not have the ability to keep up with the
inflationary cost of construction and provide facilities that
meet passenger demand.
History has shown that airports carefully evaluate the need
for infrastructure projects. History has also shown that if you
wait until your infrastructure is inadequate, you have waited
too long. Traffic may be down now, but we did not have the
infrastructure to meet demand just last summer.
Can anyone remember the last time we had enough
infrastructure to serve our passengers?
How can we expect to prevent passenger delays and
inconvenience when passenger traffic returns?
ACI-North America, in its just completed capital needs
survey, found that airports, both commercial and general
aviation, have $94.4 billion in total projects over the next 5
years that are considered essential by the airport and airport
users to meet forecasted passenger and cargo growth. Not
surprisingly, over half of these projects are at large hub
airports that continue to experience congestion and flight
delays.
And, yes, our survey found that many airports of all sizes
have delayed or cancelled the construction of billions of
dollars of projects. Even so, the needs are great and costs are
rising.
We expect the PFC to play a more prominent role in airport
finance as trust fund revenue declines from reduced traffic and
from the new a la carte ticket pricing system embraced by most
U.S. airlines since these airline fees are not subject to the
ticket tax.
It is ironic that the airlines continue to not only wrongly
label the PFC user fee a tax but fail to mention that they have
received $87 million in fiscal year 2007 to collect and remit
it.
It is amusing, frankly, that airlines claim the increase in
the PFC user fee proposed by this Subcommittee last Congress
will ultimately reduce passenger traffic when the a la carte
pricing imposes fees that greatly exceed the PFC for services
from checking a bag to making a seat reservation to using a
pillow.
Thank you also for your support as airports work to reduce
our environmental footprint, reduce emissions and improve
energy efficiency. The environmental provisions support by ACI
in this bill are highlighted in my written testimony.
Additionally, we commend the Committee for proposing
critical funding for important air service programs including
SCASD and EAS. We are especially grateful for your efforts to
authorize a significant increase in SCASD as the program has
helped small communities enhance their air service on a self-
sufficient long-term basis.
In addition, my written testimony addresses the role
airports would like to play in this Committee's continued work
on NextGen, an issue on which I have personally worked for 16
years now.
One final note, we remain very concerned about proposals to
mandate specific airport rescue and firefighting standards. In
December, we conducted a survey of our Members on how much it
would cost to comply with the proposed NFPA standards. We found
the capital cost for compliance would average $6.5 million and
annual operating costs would add $2.5 million, forcing many
smaller airports to consider closing down.
The FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, which
included airports, firefighters and other stakeholders,
prepared a report on the proposed ARFF requirements and has
recommended a rulemaking on many of these critical issues. We
support initiating the rulemaking process to carefully evaluate
the costs and benefits of any change in the regulation.
And with that, I will conclude and thank you for inviting
me here, and I look forward to working with you on getting this
bill passed.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman for your
testimony and now recognizes Mr. Elwood.
Mr. Elwood. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri,
Members of the Aviation Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me
to participate in this hearing on FAA reauthorization.
My message today is very simple. Airports deeply appreciate
the good work that this Committee did on an FAA reauthorization
in the last Congress. We are particularly grateful that the
previous bill and the legislation introduced earlier this week
would raise the PFC cap to $7.00.
We hope this Committee will guide the multi-year FAA bill
through Congress early this year that raises the PFC cap,
increases AIP funding and helps small communities.
The past year has been a difficult one for the aviation
industry. Oil prices skyrocketed to nearly $150 per barrel, and
airlines responded by reducing capacity throughout the system.
The declining economy has also been taking its toll.
Despite this temporary downturn, our aviation system is
expected to rebound again as it did after 9/11. Enplanements
are expected to increase from 765 million in 2007 to more than
1 billion in the next 10 years.
In November, we saw new runways open here in Washington as
well as Chicago and Seattle. Airports don't build those
improvements and increase capacity overnight. As a matter of
fact, Seattle started planning that capacity increase
approximately 20 years ago.
While airports prepare for the future, they are squeezed by
increasing construction costs. Costs have increased
approximately 27 percent in the last 5 years, eroding the value
of PFCs and AIP.
Airports are grateful that the new reauthorization bill
calls for raising the PFC cap to $7.00 and urge this Committee
to consider raising it to $7.50. That would be almost enough to
offset the impact of the construction cost inflation in 2008.
To prevent erosion, we also ask you to index the PFCs to
the construction cost index.
AIP is another important source of funding for airports of
all sizes. Airports are also pleased that the new bill would
increase AIP funding by $100 million per year.
And regarding small airports that rely so heavily on Small
Community Air Service and Essential Air Service programs, we
appreciate your continued support of these critical programs
and your proposals to reform EAS.
Mr. Chairman, safety is always the most important
consideration of airports across this Country. The proposal by
the International Association of Fire Fighters is very onerous
and is difficult for airports to manage.
At my small airport, we have 26 employees who do virtually
everything on the airport, from maintenance at facilities to
customer service, the entire gamut. Of those 26 employees, 8 of
those are firefighters. The proposal to increase us to NFPA
standards would require us to hire an additional 19 employees
to accomplish that task.
When I speak to my colleagues around the Country about what
this proposal might do to impact their operation, it is
substantial. And it is a real risk that we will lose commercial
air service at some airports in this country because they
simply cannot pass along the additional costs that these
proposals might incur onto the airlines. It would make their
routes unprofitable, and they would leave our communities.
So I hope that the Members of this Committee will work with
us to find an acceptable solution as we move forward.
In closing, I would like to thank the Committee again,
Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri and Members of the
Aviation Subcommittee for inviting me to testify. I look
forward to working with you on this FAA reauthorization and a
quick passage through both sides of the Capitol and on to the
President.
Mr. Costello. We thank you for your testimony, and the
Chair now recognizes Mr. May.
Mr. May. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the
opportunity to appear today, and also it is a pleasure to be
here with my esteemed colleagues.
Unlike last time around, we are really on the same page on
a number of issues. We know that continuing to play the blame
game is not going to get us very far, and we have listened to
our new President and agree that it is time for change.
All of us--commercial, business, general aviation--are 100
percent committed to working with you, the Administration and,
most importantly I think, each other to reach our mutual goal
which is reauthorization of FAA's program and funding to ensure
ATC modernization will be done early, will be done right and in
a way that transforms air travel in this Country and keeps the
U.S. competitive on the world stage.
If we do it right, modernization will allow planes to fly
more direct, efficient routes, significantly reducing fuel burn
and CO2 emissions, reduce congestion, open up access, improve
safety and security through precise tracking on the runway as
well as in the air, reduce flight delays and inconvenience to
passengers and ensure the United States remains a global leader
in safety, security and environment.
We realize it is necessary to put, however, the FAA
reauthorization in context. U.S. and world economies are in
crisis. Credit has evaporated. People are spending less.
Consumer confidence is at a record low point. That means travel
is down and down significantly.
President Obama and others are championing and $790
stimulus package, a dramatic, unprecedented pressure on the
overall Federal budget. Massive infrastructure enhancements
from highways to the internet are in play.
This Committee knows that modernization of the Nation's air
transportation network cannot wait. It is the only certain way
to achieve the environmental, commercial, customer service
improvements and a competitive boost to our overall economy
that we want and the Nation demands.
The Committee also knows the current plan for NextGen
deployment is woefully underfunded in our view and far, far too
slow. In this regard, I feel compelled to share with the
Committee our disappointment, quite frankly, with the missed
opportunity in the stimulus package to jumpstart NextGen, turn
it into NowGen, saving or creating 77,000 jobs, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, reducing passengers' delays, and it
would have been a step that truly would have been
transformational to our economy.
So what is different today from the last time we were here?
First, as I mentioned earlier, the stakeholders are the
same, on the same page as to what needs to be done with NextGen
or NowGen which is accelerate development of RNP, RNAV, ADS-B
and data communication, offer aircraft equipage incentives--and
we appreciate the endorsement from GAO on that point, focus FAA
and operator efforts on areas of the Country where we get the
most bang for the buck.
Second, preliminary data and common sense tells us that
trust fund revenues are not going to be what we expected. I
brought a chart along that is on the screen. They are going to
be between a billion and a billion and a half less this year
and going forward.
Why? Because there is reduced capacity, fewer flights,
lower fares, far less revenue coming in and over half a
million, as an example, fewer flights this January than January
a year ago.
With substantial ongoing program commitments and less
revenue coming in, some predict the trust fund balance will
zero out by 2010. In addition, general fund contributions have
dropped from an average of 38 percent to 16 percent over the
last 25 years.
So what is the same for decades and must change?
Commercial airlines and their customers--this will come as
no surprise to this Committee--contribute 90 percent of the
trust fund revenue and impose less than 70 percent of the
costs. We paid $11 billion in 2008 to the trust fund. There has
to be a way to true up revenues with costs imposed.
In addition, airlines and customers through PFCs, AIP rates
and charges combined, all three, spend nearly $13 billion
annually underwriting airport expenses. That means that
airlines and customers spend over $20 billion on an annualized
basis underwriting the trust fund and airports.
I am not questioning the value of public need for our
partners, the airports. But in this economic environment, the
airports' continued push for higher PFC and AIP funds should be
subjected to a reality check. Instead of asking for more money,
airports should be doing what all Americans are doing today
which is cutting costs, delaying investments and holding the
line.
This is a spending issue, not a funding issue.
To recap, we have an economic crisis, significantly
declining trust fund revenues and so forth.
Let's accept the President's challenge to look at things
differently, look at innovative funding sources, bonding
authority, look at a national infrastructure bank, eliminate
AMTs which is what my friend, Mr. Principato, wants.
And, finally, I think we want to make it known that we are
happy to work together with this Committee to find new
constructive solutions, but continuing to look to the airlines
for more money is not an appropriate answer.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. May.
Before recognizing Mr. Bolen, let me, on behalf of the
Members of the Subcommittee, wish you a happy birthday and
thank you for spending a good part of your birthday with us.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bolen.
Mr. Bolen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no place
I would rather spend my birthday than right here with this
Subcommittee.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bolen. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to be back
representing the National Business Aviation Association.
As everyone on this Committee well knows, business aviation
is an FAA-defined term. It is the use of any general aviation
aircraft for a business purpose.
And business aviation is clearly an important part of the
general aviation community. Business aviation is also an
important engine for our Nation's economy and a vital link in
our air transportation system.
Business aviation is about jobs. Over 1.2 million jobs in
the United States, good manufacturing jobs, service jobs, jobs
that we can keep in the United States in the 21st Century.
Business aviation is also about a lifeline to our Nation's
small towns and rural communities. As this Committee knows,
there have been a number of communities that have lost
commercial airline service over the past year and a half. For
those communities, business aviation has never been more
important.
Business aviation is about making our companies more
productive, more nimble, helping them communicate and survive
in a very harsh economic environment. As this Committee knows,
business aviation operators are primarily small and mid-size
companies. They need the benefits of business aviation to
survive.
It has already been discussed today that our economy is
suffering. And when our economy suffers, business aviation
suffers.
Like commercial airlines, business aviation follows market
cycles. So when the economy expands, our operations expand.
When it contracts, we contract as well. Clearly, this recession
is forcing a very painful contraction.
Flight operations are down over 30 percent. General
aviation manufacturing jobs are being lost. Pilot jobs are
being lost. Service jobs are being lost. Fuelers are losing.
Our general aviation airports are hurting as well. It is a very
difficult time.
Having said that, we continue to believe in the future. We
know aviation will recover, our economy will return, and our
air transportation system will be critically challenged as it
moves forward. That is why we have always supported moving
forward with NextGen.
General aviation is not only supporting NextGen with
rhetoric. We are supporting it with dollars.
We commend this Subcommittee for the tremendous work it has
done over a two-year process, immersing itself into the FAA
funding issue, identifying the needs and the challenges and
coming forward with a plan that we believe makes NextGen a
reality.
We also support the approach that the Senate brought
forward to the Senate floor last spring. This is a process that
builds on the general aviation fuel taxes and allows us to
adjust those taxes to support NextGen. We continue to support
this approach. We will not back away from it.
We look forward to working with you on making NextGen a
reality.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. We thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee.
I am President of the Regional Airline Association. RAA
represents the interests of more than 30 regional airlines and
nearly 300 industry suppliers, and we want to thank you for
this opportunity today.
America's regional airlines have become a fundamental
cornerstone of our air transportation industry and a critical
part of the Nation's economy. Today, we carry 160 million
passengers a year. That is more than one out of every five on a
commercial airliner. We fly 40 percent of the Nation's
passenger fleet and 50 percent--50 percent--one half of the
scheduled flights.
But most notably, regional airlines serve more than 600
airports across the U.S. And in 476 of these communities, that
is 75 percent, regional airlines provide the only scheduled
service.
As you all know, it was a very different aviation and
economic landscape when we had the honor of testifying before
you back in the Spring of 2007, but the principles that we
outlined to you on behalf of our RAA's board of directors
remain valid and may be even more critical today.
First, most importantly, do no harm. Preserve the network
of air service to small and medium-size communities. Today,
most passengers are normally just one stop away from any point
in the U.S. and many points across the globe.
Two, transition quickly and efficiently to a modernized
satellite-based national airspace system.
Three, that funding for the system should reflect a more
balanced splitting of the check, if you will, amongst all the
users of the system.
Four, restore the balance of the 1990 ANCA law under which
airport fees would be spent primarily on expanding and
improving the Nation's airways and airport infrastructure,
runways and taxiways.
And, five, and something near and dear to us at RAA, is
fulfill the promise made by Congress under the 1978
deregulation act that Essential Air Service communities would
not fall off the airline map without adequate protections. On
that point, we want to specifically thank you for proposing to
raise the cap for EAS funding to $200 million, for addressing
other EAS reforms. And on that point and your bill in great
measure addresses these principles and it is why we supported
and helped advance the measure to the Senate floor in the
previous Congress.
But that was then, and this is now, and we are in a
different place. Last year's speculative, driven run-up in fuel
costs and the tanking of the world economy have created a much
tougher challenge.
Just look at the numbers. Between December, 2006 and
December, 2007, regional airlines gained a net gain of 77 new
nonstop markets. But last year, regional airlines had to cut
back, and there was a net loss of 243 nonstop regional markets.
That was compared to a net loss of about 100 main line routes.
In other words, communities served exclusively by regionals
suffered flight cutbacks last year at more than twice the rate
of the main line served airports.
Even more troubling, some 31 airports lost all their
scheduled service last year, potentially worsening the burden
of an already overstressed and underfunded Essential Air
Service program.
But like those infomercial business gurus and my old high
school football coach used to say, sometimes problems are just
opportunities in disguise.
These, hopefully, temporary setbacks, temporary cutbacks in
flights have perhaps provided some breathing room, maybe a
timeout from the headlines about flight delays so that we can
make the kind of real progress towards NextGen that this
Congress, the FAA and so many people in this room have been
working towards for decades.
Our Member regional airlines have much riding and already
much invested in this effort. The hub and spoke networks that
have provided the benefits of safe, seamless service to
passengers from small and medium-size communities, regional
airlines have become, through this network, the main providers
at many of the Nation's business airports. We operate more than
one half of the flights at O'Hare and Philadelphia, Dulles,
Houston, Detroit, Minneapolis-St. Paul and about a third at
places like Denver and JFK, LaGuardia and even Boston's Logan.
This is why regional airlines have committed substantial
resources to be the leaders in the transition to NextGen.
Four RAA members are pioneers in installing electronic
flight bags on their aircraft to help prevent the kind of
runway incursions that you all were discussing earlier today at
the busiest airports: SkyWest at LAX, Shuttle America and
Piedmont at Philadelphia and New York and CommutAir in my home
town of Cleveland.
Another NextGen pioneer was Horizon Air, second airline in
the Country approved for RNP approaches.
DataCom, WASS, RNP, RNAV, ADS-B, EFB, the whole alphabet of
modernizations, regional airlines have become essential parts
of NextGen.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Cohen, we would ask you to wrap it up.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, while flights and
delays are down, flight cutbacks far more than to our liking
and the reduction in delays much less than we prefer, the need
for action is greater now than it was even two years ago.
Towards that end, we look forward to working with you. Our
member airlines look forward to working with you, all of
Congress, your staff, the Administration, FAA to make it
happen.
Mr. Costello. We thank you for your testimony, and now the
Chair recognizes Mr. Fuller.
Mr. Fuller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Petri, Members of the Committee.
My name is Craig Fuller. I am the President of the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association. I have held that position now
for just about six weeks.
I have been a pilot, an active pilot for just about 42
years. I have flown in the system from California to the East
Coast.
As some of you know, I came here in 1981 with a new
administration. What is not so well known is I came here in a
Cessna Cutlass and I now fly a Bonanza aircraft about 200, 220
hours a year.
I have been a member of AOPA since 1973. So the issues that
you have dealt with are also very familiar to me.
I want to start by taking note of something Jim May said
because I do think it is important and impressive, that we are
here today with you in agreement on the FAA reauthorization.
There are members, important organizations in the aviation
community that are also in agreement that could not be here
today.
But I think it is worth noting that we are unified, all
believing from our unique perspectives that the FAA
reauthorization needs to go forward. It needs to go forward for
a four-year period to give certainty not only to the Agency but
to give certainty to all of us who fly in the system, who
invest in the system, from the airports to people throughout
the aviation community. That four-year period is in fact vital.
I also would mention I think the question was asked about
delaying this or extending this for temporary periods of time.
A four-year authorization really allows the Agency to spend
money wisely. You get a better bargain today than you are going
to get a year from now, two years from now, three years from
now. So this four-year extension serves the interest of the
aviation community very well.
The bottom line for us--I know you are tight on time. The
bottom line for us is we support the measure. We support the
use of aviation fuel taxes as a means of providing support from
our segment of the aviation community, and we do think that
increase is something that our members will live with.
We now have 416,000 members as of the end of January. It is
a privilege for me to represent them here today. I look forward
to representing them again here in the future.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. [Presiding.] Thank you.
Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Ranking Member Petri and Chairman
Costello as he comes in the room. I want to thank you for
inviting me to testify today not only on behalf of the 20,000
employees of Rockwell Collins but also the member companies of
ARSA, AIA and GAMA.
As this Committee well knows, the civil aviation industry
plays a critical role in the health of the domestic economy,
employing nearly 11 million workers in all 50 States and
contributing more than $1.2 trillion annually to the U.S.
economy.
Despite these laudable figures, these are challenging
times, you have heard from the panel today. In order to adjust
to the financial realities of today, companies have been forced
to ground or liquidate business and commercial aircraft they
can no longer afford.
This sharp reduction in utilization coupled with a rapidly
increasing inventory of used aircraft is further depressing
already slumping demand for new planes. Subsequently, as
aircraft order backlogs shrink, manufacturers of both general
aviation and commercial aircraft and their suppliers have been
forced to take painful steps and lay off thousands of
hardworking employees from coast to coast.
Now while this Committee is well aware of the benefits this
industry providers, I respectfully request that you remind your
colleagues of these benefits and ensure they avoid any
legislation that would further damage this vital industry such
as preventing corporate ownership of aircraft.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, smoldering beneath today's
immediate economic crisis is a much longer-term challenge that
everyone in this room is aware of, a challenge that has the
potential to inflict significant future economic damage to the
United States. Today, we are operating on an aviation
infrastructure based on radars and controlled processes
designed in the 1940s. We must advance from this 20th Century
to a 21st Century system, taking advantage of the advances in
information management, satellite-based flight tracking and
navigation to yield the safety, efficiency and environmental
sustainability benefits that we know NextGen will offer.
Now, to be clear, NextGen is not a mere modernization
program but rather a transformation program, one capable of
accommodating the future growth while avoiding billions of
dollars of lost productivity and unnecessary environmental
impact.
Regarding environmental impact, the civil aviation industry
understand the importance of this issue and its potential
impact on our future growth. While we have made great strides
in minimizing the impact through our products and technology
developments and operational practices, much more work remains
to be done, and I think NextGen offers the promise of getting
us closer to carbon neutrality.
Now in order to accommodate projects that serve the public
good like NextGen and that achieve the related congestion and
environmental benefits, appropriations from the general fund
should return to the levels of the 1990s when funding averaged
29 percent per year. In hopes of returning to this sensible
level of government funding, I believe it is reasonable and
appropriate for Congress to increase the general fund share of
FAA operations to 25 percent per year through the life of this
pending legislation.
With such an increase, Congress can then take the next bold
step in aerospace modernization and authorize and appropriate
$3 billion general fund dollars over the next 4 years to fund
the equipage of Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast or
ADS-B. This funding would allow the vast majority of commercial
and general aviation fleets to be equipped with this important
technology at a far earlier date than would be achieve in the
current time frame of 2020 by FAA rule.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress the aviation
industry's commitment to safety and security, particularly at
our manufacturing and repair stations around the world. As you
know, aviation is a global industry, and, as such, it requires
an international network of safe and secure stations to repair
and maintain aircraft.
Although Section 304 of H.R. 2881 was, no doubt, designed
to improve safety oversight of foreign repair stations, I
believe it could ultimately undermine the very safety systems
we are trying to improve.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify before
your Committee.
I look forward to passage of a long-term reauthorization
bill that will provide critical direction from Congress along
with a new FAA Administrator to focus attention on managing
these challenges.
But, to be clear, that responsibility is not on the
shoulders of just one person and, clearly, Congress in the
House and the Senate, but it also falls on the shoulders of
industry. Consequently, I call on my industry partners to focus
on the broader aspects of this legislation and recommit to work
together for its safe passage.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to answer your
questions.
Mr. Costello. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Mr. May, as we have discussed in the past, both in this
hearing room and privately, to a great degree, the success of
NextGen, though there is a lot of things that have to happen to
make it successful but one is equipage, that the airplanes have
to be equipped with the necessary equipment. Where is ATA and
the airlines in working with the FAA regarding equipage of
aircraft?
Mr. May. Mr. Chairman, we are aggressively supporting
accelerated equipage of aircraft. We have about half of our
fleet that is RNAV equipped, not quite as much for RNP. We have
some GPS in the aircraft. But we think that if there is a nexus
between the ground operations for NextGen, which we would
prefer to call NowGen, and the fleet it is going to rest on the
equipage.
So they have to finish getting the standards out, and then
they have to do something that we are not satisfied they have
done just yet, and that is give us the business case--and I am
sure Mr. Jones would underscore this--for spending the kind of
dollars that are necessary.
We have to know that there will be reduced separation. We
know that we have to be able to use that equipment, and FAA
will permit closely spaced parallel operations, things of that
sort to make the business case for us to spend that money.
Ideally, I think the best way to do it is what we suggested
be included in the stimulus package, which Mr. Jones just
referred to and we all signed up to, which is a $4 billion
investment in equipage across not just the civil fleet but GA,
private aviation, the military and others so that we know we
have the tools to be able to deploy this technology as
aggressively as possible.
Mr. Costello. The issue that Mr. Jones mentioned and you
mentioned in your testimony, the general fund contribution to
the trust fund as during the nineties was in the high 28, 29
percent range. It is down to 16 percent now.
Mr. May. That is correct.
Mr. Costello. You have heard me say many times that we need
a robust number from the general fund. Do you have a number in
mind? In looking at, you put a chart up here earlier, what
should the contribution from the general fund to the trust fund
be?
Mr. May. Mr. Jones used the number, 25 percent. I certainly
wouldn't disagree with that.
We recognize that the trust fund has a significantly
declining balance. We recognize that the general fund is paying
in less and less every year, and that contributes to the
contretemps that we have had over user funding of the trust
fund.
I think the more general fund opportunities that we can
address in the ATTF the better off we will all be. If it could
be 30 percent, I would be all in favor of it.
Mr. Costello. We look forward to receiving the budget from
the new Administration and have been encouraging them to look
very hard at increasing the number over what it is now.
Mr. May. As do we.
Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member,
Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, with the growing economic insecurity around the
world, there is ever to do everything we can to protect jobs
and bring jobs back home to America and all that.
In that connection, I wonder if Mr. Jones could address
some provisions of this bill that probably are well intended,
but then there is this law of unintended consequences. We try
to bring jobs or do work here in the United States, other
companies try to do the same, and the net result can be that we
all lose or we shoot ourselves in the foot.
We have had an agreement with the E.U. for many years of
reciprocal basis. Has that tended to work toward our advantage?
Is more work done here in the United States than in the E.U.?
If they were to retaliate if we were to take the initiative
in slowing that down or putting up barriers to that, would we
gain jobs or lose jobs? How would that really work?
Mr. Jones. Well, let me try to address that, Mr. Petri,
because you raise a very good point that I referred to in my
testimony.
Today, there are about 1,200 repair stations in the United
States that repair not only United States built aircraft but
also E.U. aircraft that come in our space. So those are 1,200
repair stations that have a lot of good, high quality jobs that
are serving those aircraft. There are about 425 in Europe.
And so, as you can see by just that ratio, if this
legislation should precipitate trade barriers and a trade war
and a retaliation by the Europeans, we stand to lose a far
greater volume of work given the footprint that we have in the
United States than we might gain if we were to gain extra work
that we do in Europe.
I think the other thing to point out relative to this
legislation is that we are not opposed to inspections and to
safety. That is not the issue at all. The issue is are the
dollars spent and the amount of labor and manpower that FAA has
to do these inspections available and will they be deployed in
the right way?
We may find that some repair stations only need the once a
year inspection that is mandated today. Others may need more
than that. And so, the risk-based approach that I believe FAA
has strongly endorsed is one that we would endorse as well as a
better bang for the buck to create the safety that we are both
in favor of.
Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have another question for most of the panelists that I
will submit for them to respond in writing, which really would
be how you are doing and what steps you are taking to prepare
for NextGen and the importance of us getting our act together
to maximize the investment that you and your members or your
associates are doing in this whole area.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr.
Boswell.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It seemed like I maybe expected a little discussion about
who is paying for what. But, Mr. Bolen, would you respond? The
airlines claim that business aviation is not paying its fair
share in the trust fund. How do you respond?
Mr. Bolen. Well, the FAA's own numbers indicate that
business aviation, which is part of the general aviation
community, the entire general aviation community is currently
paying about 8.5 percent of the revenues going into the trust
fund.
If general aviation were grounded tomorrow, I believe that
the system may be 7 to 9 percent less expensive than it is
today. That is based on a 1997 cost allocation study done by
the FAA. So I think we are in the ballpark.
I also would say that Mr. May referenced the FAA's cost
allocation study, and, as this Subcommittee knows, questions
have been raised about the methodology and some of the
applications that were used in that. Cost allocation is
certainly not an exact science, but reputable groups have
raised concerns, and I think those should be explored.
Mr. Boswell. Mr. Jones, do you think your proposal for us
to raise to the level, historic level on the general fund, do
you think you set your figure high enough?
Mr. Jones. I am not exactly sure, sir. I think there are a
lot of other inputs into the budget that probably I am not an
expert to talk to, but 25 is a heck of a lot higher than 16,
and it is a great place to start.
I would supplement my comments and support what Mr. May
said in that if you are looking at infrastructure and targeted
incentives to try to create economic activity, I think that
this proposal to put this increased funding, not only from the
general fund but targeted toward the acceleration of NextGen
which we are all in raging agreement on, is the right thing to
do.
I think it is intolerable to think that we will not have
ADS-B built out to another 11 years from now, 2020, and we will
be sitting here for many years, begrudging that fact. We have a
moment with billions of dollars going into stimulus activity,
and this would be targeted at a specific need.
This would be temporary because, once equipped, that would
go away. And, obviously, it is timely because we are ready to
move.
We believe that the ADS-B regulations will be ready at the
end of this year at the latest, 2010, and with your
encouragement I am sure the FAA could get them out.
Then the industry would be ready to produce equipment
within six to twelve months after that. So we have engineers
and workers that would be ready to move on this if Congress can
support that.
Mr. Boswell. I am not so sure Congress can't support it.
But I would guess this, Mr. Chairman, it is going to take all
of these folks as well as us to try to make this point,
understanding what the situation is and the economic side of
it.
I personally think, Mr. Chairman, and I would guess we are
probably in agreement, that the whole Country benefits if we
could get that done. It is an investment with a known return.
Mr. Costello. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boswell. And I believe that as well. So let's see what
we can do.
By the way, Mr. Jones, I have used some of your equipment
probably more than anybody else in the room. I don't know. I am
looking around. Maybe not, but likely. Possibly.
But I am curious. How did you arrive in Washington today?
How did you get here?
Mr. Jones. Sir, I took a business aircraft into Washington,
and I am pleased to say I have access to one because I couldn't
be here had I not and acquit my other responsibilities.
To give you just my own personal example of how that
happens, I was in Florida this morning speaking at an investor
conference with a number of our share owners which obviously
are very important to our company, I am here this afternoon,
and I am flying from here to Philadelphia for a board of
directors meeting tonight. That would not have been possible
had I not had access to a business aircraft.
One other mention because this is a very topical issue
right now, sir, as you know, in advance of this I had my flight
department do a survey of how much I, as a CEO, use our
aircraft. In total aircraft time flown, I use our aircraft 17
percent of the time, 17.
That means 83 percent of the time that that aircraft is
flown, it is program managers, it is sales representatives, it
is engineers going to our other locations around the United
States providing us the business advantage we need that that
aircraft affords us, especially--as you well know, sir, coming
out of Cedar Rapids, Iowa--with the relatively limited
connections we have and the time it takes to hub and spoke
through the system.
Now we use both, but having this as a capital tool for
business is critical to our success. I would submit, sir, you,
above all people, know how successful this company has been
over the last few years.
Mr. Boswell. We want you to continue to have success.
Mr. Chairman, I guess we will have another round, and I
have other questions.
Those of us who believe in general aviation as well as
believe in the airlines--don't misunderstand me--took a pretty
bad rap with the automobile companies and that little testimony
they had. The public out there needs to hear what Mr. Jones has
said and what it means to the whole economy of what has been
contributed by using these aircraft in a proper way.
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman.
I think maybe it is worth noting for Mr. Jones that you
have arrived here today in a business aircraft, but Rockwell
Collins is not asking for billions of dollars for a bailout
either, are you?
Mr. Jones. No, sir, and don't intend to either, sir.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished
Chairman of the Full Committee.
Mr. Moran, do you have questions?
Mr. Moran. I do.
Mr. Oberstar. No. Go to Mr. Moran, please. Please go to Mr.
Moran.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Elwood indicated about the value, as my colleague from
Iowa is indicating about the value of general aviation.
I come from a State in which we see it in both aspects. We
are certainly a manufacturing State, and so jobs created is
significant to us. But Kansas is a very rural State, and our
ability to connect with the rest of the world is very much
determined upon either commercial air service or upon general
aviation.
As we have seen, there has been this concern about the use
of general aviation aircraft, and I would like to at least
state for the record that many communities would not have a
small business component, manufacturers and others who service
the rest of the world. Businesses would make decisions about
where they locate, in the absence of general aviation or
regional service, in places that we all care about.
And so, the state of the general aviation economy certainly
matters to us in the most obvious way. It is jobs at home. But
as a person who represents a very rural State, in the absence
of our ability to connect, we would not have small business
operating in our States. They would locate in larger
communities where there is full commercial service.
I wanted to explore the state of this economy.
Mr. Jones, you outlined the difficulties that the aviation
industry and its subcontractors are experiencing.
We are debating a stimulus package and in many ways I think
most of us wanted to focus that effort on construction, shovel-
ready projects, things that put people to work. But in the
general aviation industry and its subcontractors, are there
specific things that we could do that would stimulate or at
least reduce the burden of the economy upon general aviation?
I am thinking about you mentioned some regulatory changes,
and I am also wondering about tax changes. We have used the tax
code in the past in order to try to generate additional
opportunities for people to purchase, repair and maintain
aircraft.
Any observations?
Mr. Jones. Well, a couple I would have, sir.
First, let me thank the Congress for what it did in
including accelerated depreciation in the recent legislation.
That does have a stimulative effect for all companies that are
in the capital goods segment. I think that is a known and
proven stimulus that you all passed after the 9/11 downturn and
that we saw had a direct effect on stimulating aircraft
purchases. I think that is one thing.
Obviously, the other one I would say is including something
to do with aviation in the stimulus. The one that I mentioned
would put avionics manufacturers--obviously, I have a parochial
interest in that--to work immediately equipping these aircraft,
and it would help the airline industry too, as Mr. May said.
The stumbling block to NextGen, make no mistake about it,
is going to be aircraft equipage.
And I think Mr. May said exactly the right thing. It is a
cost-benefit analysis that has to be shown if we require them
to spend the amount of money they will need. That is very
precious in terms of cash for them on these equipments.
So this stimulus would get us over that hump and then allow
us to see the benefits of reducing secondary radars and
accelerating the other aspects of NextGen.
So I think those are the kinds of things that would
stimulate this industry and keep these very well-paid,
knowledge workers in place until the rest of the economy
recovers.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Fuller, I look forward to working with you in your new
capacity. I appreciate our relationship in your previous.
The FAA reauthorization bill requires the establishment of
a number of registrations, certifications and related fees for
services and activities provided by the FAA. Do you have a
response as to whether they are satisfactory? Are they
something that is livable or are we, once again, regulating and
increasing the cost of business in an unsatisfactory manner?
Mr. Fuller. Thank you for the question.
We have seen the list. I am mindful of Mr. Oberstar's
comment of speak now or forever hold your peace. I would say
that it is a manageable list and there is nothing there that
should prevent this legislation from going forward.
I do have my medical requirement up this year. I do pay a
physician for it, and I pay the cost of that medical, and one
of those fees has gone from zero dollars to $42 which is a fee
associated with that medical certificate.
There are 600,000 pilots in the Country. All of us have to
get medicals on an annual or twice, some every three years.
That is generating an awful lot of revenue for filing medicals.
I might say if there is any one of those on that list that
we may take exception to, it would be going from zero dollars
to $42 in a fee associated with that medical.
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much.
In the eight seconds I have left, I wanted to give Mr.
Elwood or Mr. Cohen an opportunity to express any concerns that
we ought to be aware of in regard to Essential Air Service.
Again, I represent a State in which EAS is a significant
component. Both of you have mentioned it. Anything that you
would like to highlight?
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Moran, just to thank this
Committee for its leadership primarily in recognizing that the
communities, the airlines, the passengers, that there is really
reform that is needed to be done as the previous panel even
recognized. We really look forward to working with this
Committee to get that right now. You have done the most
important thing, show that you really have a commitment to
fixing this program.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you and recognizes the
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks
of the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell. I was very concerned,
being a commercial pilot myself, when we had the outrage that
we had about individuals flying into D.C. in their private
aircraft.
It concerns me a great deal when you have companies. I,
obviously, don't represent Cessna. It is in Kansas. When they
are laying off thousands of employees, that is huge to the
aviation industry, and it affects everybody out there.
It may not be my district where those thousands of
employees are laid off, but I have companies in my district
that supply Cessna and they supply Beech and they supply
Raytheon. They supply everybody.
And so, I very much appreciated the comments. I am glad you
asked how Mr. Jones arrived because I was curious myself and,
again, just very upset and wanted to express that because I
think it is very misguided when we hear some of the comments
that were made by folks, just literally demagogueing the issue
of aviation which is so vitally important to our Nation and
particularly our smaller communities.
So, thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee,
Chairman Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
necessarily be brief because I am going to have to go the
meeting of the Democratic Caucus to hear the report of the
committee of conference, the House Members of the committee of
conference on the stimulus initiative, and see what they have
created for us.
Mr. Petri. And if it is enough.
Mr. Oberstar. We will see. Our Committee has a very
distinct interest in this stimulus initiative.
Mr. Cohen, the Regional Airline Association has been a
major partner in the Essential Air Service program which was
crafted in this Committee room in 1978. My amendment was
offered when I was sitting right down there in that second row.
There were fewer Members on this Committee at the time.
And I remember in concluding my argument in favor of the
Essential Air Service as part of the deregulation act, that:
Mr. Chairman, if this amendment isn't adopted, then there are
communities in my district that are so remote that the only way
to get there without air service is to be born there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Oberstar. It was a much bigger laugh at that time
because it was a much more serious issue.
So this laughter subsided. The motion was put. The
amendment passed.
And then we have seen a whittling away of the funding and
of the authority and of the application of EAS.
So, in this legislation, we have included provisions that I
think will substantially improve Essential Air Service
particularly in this era of increasingly consolidation of
airline operations and fewer airlines, fewer competitors.
So we have increased to $200 million the amount authorized
for EAS each year. I gather you are in accord with that?
Mr. Cohen. Absolutely. I thank the Committee and your
leadership on this, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. And we authorize the Secretary to include
financial incentives based on performance goals.
Now the reason I have crafted that language is that we hear
complaints from communities that are at the end of the spokes
in the hub and spoke system, that they are getting short
shrift. They are not getting the frequencies they want. They
are not getting the service they want. They are getting a
higher number of service cuts, delays or cancellations of
flights. And, at the same time, the airline is getting the EAS
subsidy.
So we want better on-time performance. We want to reduce
the number of cancellations. We want reasonable fares including
joint fares from beyond the hub airport. Convenient
connections, example: I have heard in a recent town meeting
with airport authority directors and business persons of
smaller businesses, not Rockwell Collins that have their own
aircraft but who charter or who have maybe a KingAir, that,
sure, they get up at 4:00 in the morning, drive an hour to the
airport. They fly out of northern Minnesota, and then they wait
at Minneapolis-St. Paul for four hours for the next connection.
They don't mind getting up at 4:00 in the morning if their 6:30
flight can connect with something in Minneapolis that is going
to get them to their destination.
These are business people. They don't have a lot of leisure
time. They live way in remote Minnesota, but they are
conducting a very viable business. Now some of these folks
can't even time share on an aircraft.
So I think that we ought to have some accountability. We
are going to have the Government Accountability Office oversee
the implementation of this EAS.
Mr. Cohen, what do you think about that?
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, I think the problems you describe
really are the result of a lot of years of kind of squeezing
this program down.
And so, what has happened is that several of our EAS member
airlines have gone out of business doing this. Getting some of
the rules that have been put in place there have made it
impossible for carriers to invest, to try and bring on the
aircraft that are needed, to bring on the training, to invest
in commitment to get people flying on those aircraft again, to
get them back into the system. And it has been this kind of
drip, drip, drip over those 30 years.
I had the pleasure of sitting in this very room as public
relations representative for TWA covering those hearings, and I
remember your leadership on this very critical issue and that
promise that was made. Over these 30 years, that promise has
been whittled away at.
We really look forward to working with the Members of this
Committee to be able to try and move this into that 21st
Century, move EAS into the 21st Century because things have
changed. Demographics have changed. Transportation modes have
changed.
We would caution the Committee because some of the carriers
that are trying to provide this EAS service offer the kind of
seamless one carrier service that most of regional carriers do.
They may not have inter line relationships with major airlines,
may not have independent ticketing and so forth. So to require
those kinds of connections by statute may be difficult, and
might actually make EAS service less convenient and less
attractive for airlines and communities alike.
But I cite one of the great success stories. I have a clip
here from the recent Lebanon, New Hampshire newspaper which
cited Cape Air.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes, I am familiar with Cape Air.
Mr. Cohen. One of our great members who started service,
and they are raving about the kind of service that Cape Air has
provided, and I think it is that kind of community,
Congressional and airline partnership that can provide those
kinds of success stories that we see.
And I think we want to thank your leadership on it. We look
forward to working with you on some of these specifics.
Mr. Oberstar. My hope is to stimulate more of the type of
Cape Air service through this EAS program.
Mr. May, don't think I have forgotten about you. Welcome to
the Committee again.
Mr. May. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have never felt
unwanted.
Mr. Oberstar. There is a new provision in this legislation
dealing with anti-trust immunity for international airline
alliances.
Mr. May. H.R. 831.
Mr. Oberstar. I would like your comments.
Mr. May. With all of the respect that is due the Chairman
of the Full Committee----
Mr. Oberstar. You needn't preface. Just say what you think.
Mr. May.--we will oppose that provision.
We have no problem at all with the GAO study. There was one
done a couple of years ago that showed that actually these
alliances were positive for consumers in a number of different
respects and to have them renew that study and update it I
think would be perfectly appropriate.
But we think to effectively change the rules in the middle
of the game for alliances that have been long out there and
effective and working well, in addition to having them then
expire at the end of three years, would be counterproductive,
and so we would not support that legislation.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes, alliances are one thing, but anti-trust
immunity goes over the edge on this issue. It protects the
partners against uncompetitive pricing, against, in effect,
price-fixing.
I think alliances are one, but the anti-trust immunities we
wouldn't do that for General Motors and Ford and Chrysler, and
we shouldn't be doing this for airlines, frankly.
I think the alliance relationship has provided seamless
service. There is still a question in mind whether outright
competition wouldn't bring better fares and greater savings to
air travelers.
But the immunized alliances are going to result in three
mega global carriers who will not compete with each other, who
will not provide service to communities at the end of the
spokes in the hub and spoke system, which will diminish short-
haul service in the domestic United States. And I think it is
inimical to the future of aviation in the U.S. and in
international aviation trade.
You may disagree with that, and your carrier partners in
the ATA I am sure vigorously disagree with it, but I have to be
an advocate for the public interest.
Mr. May. We fully appreciate the intensity of your
positions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. May.
I will welcome Mr. Fuller in his first testimony before
this Committee as head of AOPA. Phil Boyer is, I am sure,
relishing his freedom.
Mr. Fuller. He is indeed, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. We hope in time you will become as lovable a
personality at this table as he was.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fuller. It was all part of the transition, I think. I
am sure he is watching this on the internet.
Mr. Oberstar. No doubt.
And, to ACI and AAAE, thank you very much for your
continued partnership in the great good of aviation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A couple of issues that I wanted to raise here today.
First one, Mr. Principato, I fly every week just about, and
I get my can of diet whatever they have, and every time I am on
the plane I always think what a great place to do recycling.
You have 100, 200 cans maybe on each flight, and I know at most
airports this is just thrown in with the rest of the waste.
I am aware of Oakland Airport I think has a recycling
program there, and I am just wondering how much effort, how
widespread, how many airports actually do this. How much effort
would that take?
My understanding is that it really produces great savings
to have such a recycling program at the airport for the
airlines coming in there. And so, why is this not more widely
done?
Mr. Principato. Congressman, thank you for the question.
I think that it is being done at a growing number of
airports. I know Seattle is another one. You are going to have
the director of the Seattle Airport here in two weeks to speak
about wildlife management, but you might file that in the back
of your mind. They have an excellent recycling initiative with
their airlines up there, and a growing number of airports are
doing that.
We have actually just completed both a survey of our
airports, so we can give you hard data on that. Our staff would
be happy to get together with yours on the number and
percentage of airports that are doing recycling and a number of
other environmental initiatives that they are doing.
Our board just last week passed a whole set of
environmental goals that ACI-North America airports will strive
to achieve over these next couple of years, with this and a
number of other issues being in there.
I don't have the specific numbers on the top of my head
about the percentage of airports that are doing it, but it is
larger--larger than you think, I think--and growing number.
We would be happy to get together with you and your staff
and brief you on our survey, brief you on the goals that our
board passed just this past Friday, and we are also putting
together a little publication highlighting what a number of
airports around the U.S. and Canada are doing on environmental
issues.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, what are the main reasons that airports
do not have a recycling program?
Mr. Principato. I think it is probably better to look at
the reasons why growing numbers of them are because of the
point you are talking about, cost efficiency and all of that.
Mr. Lipinski. I am interested more just in why they don't
have them, why they would not have them and what can be done to
encourage or help.
Mr. Principato. Again, I think the industry is responding
to the points that you have made. There are a growing number of
airports that are doing it. Obviously, 20 years ago, none of us
recycled anything, and we are all sort of moving in that
direction.
I think you will be very pleased with the results of our
survey, like I said, that we will brief you on, the goals that
our board passed just this past Friday and the other work that
the airport community is doing on the environmental side.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
I had another question, another issue that I wanted to
address to Mr. May, something I am sure that you hear a lot
about. It is, first of all, the fees for baggage on planes. It
is one thing that these fees were put in when gas prices or
aviation fuel prices went up and peaked at about $4.00 a gallon
and now down to about $1.54 a gallon, but we still have the
baggage fees.
Now I don't want to get into a debate over the fees
themselves. I am more interested in issues that since we do pay
for our bags now on planes, there continue to be issues with
and problems with baggage. I think especially when passengers
are paying for the baggage service, that they even should have
a higher or they even have a higher expectation for their bags
being taken care of and getting there in a timely manner.
There was a story in the Chicago Tribune the other day
about someone whose luggage actually got lit on fire, their
clothes burned, which, accidents happen, but the problem was it
took a long time before they ever got any restitution for that.
I myself, had an experience last month. I was coming back,
or two months ago, I was taking a flight back. It was late at
night, and I am at O'Hare Airport, and it took over an hour for
the bags to get there.
Finally, after 45 minutes, someone decided that they would
actually go and check on what was going on after no one else
would. And they said that they took the bags off the plane and
they were left somewhere, just sitting there.
So we have these issues, and I hear other issues.
Shouldn't there be an expectation, especially paying for
bags, that their bags are going to arrive in a timely manner?
It just seems like especially if these fees are going to
continue to be charged, even though I am not sure why they
still are, but I just wanted to know what your response would
be, Mr. May.
Mr. May. My response, Mr. Lipinski, is that I hear this
issue as frequently as you might imagine I do.
The good news is that in the latest report by the
Department of Transportation, the number of mishandled bags has
in fact dropped and it has been consistently dropping for the
past couple of months. So we are getting better at it, but two
bags or one bag or fifteen is not an acceptable number.
Our carriers recognize that the construct that you have
posed here, that it is one thing if you lose my bag and I have
just checked it and I haven't paid anything, but if I am being
charged for, then you lose it, that is a whole other metric.
And so, I think what we are suggesting to you is we
recognize the problem. We are working on it as we are on all of
our customer service issues, and it is one that I will make
sure I raise back with my folks at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Lipinski. One quick addition, do airlines, if there is
a problem, is there a general policy to refund the money that
was paid if there is a problem?
Mr. May. Each carrier has in fact a policy. There is a DOT
policy that governs as well. I don't happen to have the details
in the front of my memory bank, but I would be more than happy
to communicate back to your office and provide those to you.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now will
recognize two Members for questions, and then we will go to the
next panel. Mr. Graves from Missouri.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow up
on my statement earlier, and I didn't want to step on the
Chairman, because he had to go to the meeting. But given the
state of the economy and what I mentioned earlier about the
problems we are seeing, and obviously the attitude toward
general aviation, and thank goodness, the provision was pulled
that any company that receives Federal dollars would have to
sell their private aircraft, which is something that concerned
me.
I guess this question would be for Mr. Bolen, possibly for
Mr. Fuller. But I know for Mr. Bolen, because you represent the
Business Aviation Association. Can you expand a little bit on
what kind of impact that would have on an entire industry? And
I know there are companies out there selling aircraft just
because of the perception that is going on, which concerns me.
Mr. Bolen. Well, Congressman, you talked about the attitude
that was at the heart of the aircraft divestiture issue. I
believe that is an attitude that is based on a caricature of
business aviation that is totally unrepresentative of the
community. The reality is that it is not only unrepresentative,
it is also very dangerous for our community.
Business aviation is about jobs, manufacturing and service.
It is about a lifeline to small communities, and you have
talked about that yourself. And it is about allowing companies
to be productive. I think that the reality is that there may be
times when business aviation isn't appropriate for all
missions. But let's be clear about something: business aviation
is prudent and cost-effective in a huge number of situations.
It is prudent and it is cost-effective when the community you
are trying to reach has no commercial airline service.
It is prudent and cost-effective when you are trying to
visit multiple sites in a single day. And it is prudent and
cost-effective when you have products that cannot be carried
aboard the commercial airlines or shipped. And it is prudent
when you have a team of people who have to quickly get
somewhere and they need to discuss proprietary information en
route. Or if there is a team that needs to work together to
plan a presentation to be given there.
Those are times when business aviation makes sense. It
makes up 99 percent of the operations. It is critical to our
Nation's air transportation system. It is critical to our
Nation's job space. And I appreciate very much the work of so
many Members on this Committee who have taken the time to speak
out about the importance of business aviation, not just for
their districts, but for the Nation. And thanks to the hard
work of people like you and others on this Committee, we were
able to turn that around. We ask that you continue to speak out
on that.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Fuller?
Mr. Fuller. I would just add that we looked on election day
last year at the question in a survey that suggested that
almost two-thirds of the people responded that general aviation
as defined as non-military, non-scheduled carrier was an
important part of the Nation's transportation system. I think
one of the reasons that I looked with some horror at the
singling out of certain individuals or certain practices by
companies was, I think the vast majority of the American
people, in community after community, recognized that aviation
does play an important role. I know we are committed to sharing
that story more broadly. But I actually think there is a base
there that supports not only what we believe but what you have
fought for, and that we are going to continue to carry that
message out there.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Costello. Finally, the Chair recognizes Mr. Boswell
from Iowa.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, I
know the day is long, but something I think it is okay to bring
up, and you can stop me if you wish. And I am sure you will, if
you choose to.
I am concerned about some other matters. We were the
birthplace, after 9/11, of what became TSA. I could tell
several stories, make a comparison of my life, when people get
authority sometimes they handle it extremely well, and
sometimes they don't.
Well, it seems that right now, they are thinking about
coming out with a notice of proposed rulemaking which would
involve general aviation aircraft weighing more than 12,500
pounds. And I get to thinking about the cost, and the
involvement to do that, and what it would do to airports like
in my district and across the Country that I have used.
And then I think about the efforts, and I want to ask you,
Mr. Fuller, to say something about this, if you don't mind. I
think of the effort the general aviation, private pilots and
general aviation pilots that do things, as Mr. Jones did today
and so on, we have put genuine effort into making sure that we
hold up our end of that security and that safety. And the
record is good.
And I think we need to discuss this very openly. We have an
economy that is really in pain. We have budget problems. Yes,
we have safety problems, but I think we are dealing with it
pretty well. I think we need to discuss, I don't know, maybe it
is not fair to you, Mr. Fuller, having you comment as you are
six weeks into the job. But this weighs kind of heavy. Would
you want to comment on that? Maybe some of the rest of you
would, too, because I think it affects everybody.
Mr. Fuller. Mr. Boswell, I'd be delighted to comment. First
of all, I think everybody up here, and I know AOPA, absolutely
stands for making sure that our general aviation fleet and our
airports are secure. We have had an airport watch program that
has worked extraordinarily well. We don't see threats of the
kind that are being imagined that produced this regulation.
The 12,500 pound number goes to a certification guideline,
not to some kind of careful study of what constitutes
hazardous, dangerous weapons of destruction. The KingAir 90 is
under that limit. I have flown that airplane. The KingAir 200
is over that limit. I have flown that airplane. We have an
aircraft in our fleet that takes off at 13,870 pounds, carries
4,000 pounds of fuel. There are two of us up front, there are
four or five people in the back. We know exactly who is in that
aircraft. It is inconceivable to me that the people who fly
that type of aircraft over the limit are really going to have
to be subjected to a security system and a security program
similar to what large, commercial aircraft would have to use.
We have all testified, some of us have testified around the
Country in opposition to this. We do fear that TSA feels
strongly they want to go forward. We would hope that they would
get into a negotiated regulatory procedure so that we could
have a rational discussion about what constitutes a legitimate
threat and what simply constitutes a further burden on an
already over-burdened private aircraft industry. Thank you for
raising the question.
Mr. Boswell. I think, Mr. Elwood, for example, your airport
you described so well, you know what is going on at that
airport. Your workers know what is going on at that ramp. This
watch program we have going on, I am quite sure you have
implemented, it is working, I am sure it is.
Mr. Elwood. You have obviously brought common sense to this
situation, which is refreshing. I think that there is a
misconception at times that general aviation is a lot like
picking up a taxi out in front of this Capitol and that people
don't understand how the background is done. They know who is
getting on that airplane, they know the role that person is
going to play on that aircraft, and that the risk is really
what needs to be focused on.
And blanket solutions rarely work in aviation, as you all
know. Every airport has unique circumstances, as well as unique
security challenges. So from the airport side, we look forward
to trying to work with the TSA to get a better understanding
about what the real risks are and where are the resources that
actually do help protect the citizens of the United States and
are showing benefit. It is not an easy answer; but it is the
reality.
Mr. Boswell. Mr. Chairman, I would guess everybody could
comment on this on the panel. But I am going to ask that we put
this on our plate of things to do, not that you need other
things to do. But I think we have to put it on there, and I am
going to ask that we put it on our plate.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Costello. I thank you, Mr. Boswell. Points well taken
and points that I agree with. As you know, we have limited
jurisdiction with TSA, we have oversight responsibility. But it
is certainly something that we should weigh in on. And I thank
you.
Gentlemen, we thank you for your testimony and spending
most of the day with us. We hopefully will see some of you
again in the not too distant future in some upcoming hearings.
But again, thank you.
We would ask the next panel to come forward, the witnesses,
please. I will introduce them as they are coming forward.
Mr. Patrick Forrey, who is the President of the National
Air Traffic Controllers Association; Mr. Tom Brantley, who is
President of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists;
Captain John Prater, who is President of the Air Line Pilots
Association, International; Ms. Patricia Friend; Mr. Robert
Roach; Mr. Robert Gless and Ms. Kate Hanni. Would you all
please come forward?
The Chair welcomes the final panel before us this
afternoon, early evening. We will begin by recognizing Mr.
Forrey with NATCA.
TESTIMONY OF PATRICK FORREY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC
CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; TOM BRANTLEY, PRESIDENT, PROFESSIONAL
AVIATION SAFETY SPECIALISTS, AFL-CIO; CAPTAIN JOHN PRATER,
PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; PATRICIA
FRIEND, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT
ATTENDANTS, CWA; ROBERT ROACH, JR., GENERAL VICE PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS;
ROBERT GLESS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AIR TRANSPORT DIVISION,
TRANSPORT WORKERS' ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO; KATE HANNI,
PRESIDENT, FLYERSRIGHTS.ORG
Mr. Forrey. Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri,
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify again.
My name is Patrick Forrey, I am the President of the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association. NATCA represents
over 16,000 air traffic controllers and other aviation safety
professionals.
FAA reauthorization is NATCA's highest legislative
priority. I would like to commend the Subcommittee for its
demonstrated understanding of the important issues facing the
Nation's aviation infrastructure.
I would like to take a few moments to highlight some of the
aspects of the bill. NATCA fully supports and endorses the
Federal Aviation Administration Personal Management System as
written in the Reauthorization Act of 2009. As this Committee
is well aware, the air traffic controller work force that I
represent has been working under imposed work and pay rules
since September of 2006. This action not only violated the
FAA's legal right and obligation to bargain in good faith, but
it also violated fundamental principles of fairness. In effect,
the FAA stripped this Union of its collective bargaining
rights.
The effects of the imposed work rules have been
devastating, not only to the working lives of controllers, but
to the safety and integrity of the National Airspace System. As
a direct result of the imposed work rules and pay system, air
traffic controllers began a mass exodus from the FAA. The vast
majority of those that left did so not because they reached
their mandatory retirement age, but simply because they had had
enough.
Since the imposed work and pay rules were unilaterally
implemented nearly 28 months ago, we have lost upwards of
almost 5,000 controllers, equating to over 46,000 years of
experience. The FAA is hiring to make up for these devastating
losses, but they cannot keep up.
The air traffic control system is clogged with trainees.
Approximately 25 percent of the controller workforce is still
in training, and that number will grow. At some facilities, the
ratio exceeds 50 percent of the workforce.
They are being placed in high level terminal facilities
which do not have the curricula to train those with no previous
ATC experience, and in some cases they are waiting as much as
18 months for their first day of on the job training.
For fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2008, the agency has only
been able to completely certify 718 trainees out of the 4,480
hired and still employed in those three years. Mr. Chairman,
that is only 16 percent. And I want to be clear, the trainees
and new hires themselves are not the problem. They are
dedicated professionals who represent the future of the air
traffic control system, and if given the proper tools and
training, they will excel in this safety profession.
The problem is the agency's inability to provide them with
the comprehensive training they need. They are being denied the
opportunity to learn from experienced controllers, quickly
rushed through and flushed out of training, and forced to
shoulder far too much air traffic control burden at this early
stage of their careers.
This staffing shortage has left the remaining workforce
strained to the breaking point. Fatigue has become a serious
concern. Controllers are being required to work excessive
quantities of overtime, and are therefore unable to fully
recover between shifts. On shifts themselves, controllers are
often finding they are understaffed and forced to work combined
positions without radar assistance and with less opportunity to
recover after major pushes. In short, the imposed work rules
have meant fewer eyes watching the skies and those that are
remaining are less experienced and fatigued.
FAA reauthorization addresses this problem by requiring the
FAA to return to the bargaining table in order to reach a
mutually agreeable collective bargaining agreement with NATCA.
This would effectively stem the flow of experienced controllers
from the workforce and make it easier to retain new hires.
Additionally, this section amends Title 49 to ensure that this
will not happen again in the future.
This bill also addresses issues of realignment at FAA
facilities and services. NATCA is extremely concerned with the
reckless realignment initiatives the FAA has unilaterally
initiated over the course of the last year. The FAA recently
split tower radar functions at Orlando into two separate
facilities, and is planning to do the same in Memphis in June,
followed by other facilities. This is another example of FAA's
go-it-alone way of doing business, rather than truly providing
an operational benefit. These deconsolidations are designed
only to conceal the staffing crisis at each of these
facilities.
FAA reauthorization must ensure that all FAA realignment
issues are considered in a collaborative environment and
provide a specific operational benefit. We support the
establishment of a work group of stakeholders to review all
realignment initiatives prior to the FAA beginning the
realignment process.
As we have said all along, if you make us part of the
process, we will be part of the solution. NATCA also supports
the authorization of a scientific study on air traffic control
staffing to be conducted by an independent third party. Rather
than consider the safety needs of the NAS, the FAA based their
current staffing standards on budget alone.
The justification provided on the FAA's controller
workforce plan is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The
current standards were designed to deliberately conceal current
staffing crises. For example, according to the FAA's current
standards, the New York TRACON is over-staffed. Yet the FAA is
offering controllers a $100,000 incentive to transfer there.
Why would that be? Because their staffing ranges are
meaningless and do nothing to reflect the actual needs of the
facility.
The staffing study proposed by the FAA reauthorization
would allow the FAA, Congress and NATCA to truly assess the
current risks o the system and set benchmarks for resolving the
staffing crisis.
And lastly, I would like to address the related issues of
modernization and maintenance. NATCA fully supports the funding
levels set aside for the modernization of the air traffic
control system, but we remain concerned about the direction of
NextGen. Thus far, the FAA's plans for NextGen remain poorly
defined and carefully guarded. We believe that the success of
this or any modernization effort is dependent on transparency
and collaboration with all stakeholders. It is our hope that
after the imposed work rules are removed and NATCA and the FAA
reach a mutually agreeable contract, we can return to an era of
cooperation and collaboration that will best serve the needs of
the NAS.
We also want to be sure that funding for NextGen does not
come at the expense of NowGen. Under the previous
Administration, FAA facilities were allowed to fall into
disrepair while the FAA pursued ill-defined modernization
goals. This level of deterioration is unacceptable. The FAA
must maintain and repair existing AT facilities in a manner
that ensures the safety and security of personnel working there
and allows aviation safety professionals the tools they need to
do their job.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Forrey, and now
recognizes Mr. Brantley.
Mr. Brantley. Thank you.
Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting PASS to testify today. As
you know, PASS represents approximately 11,000 FAA employees in
the United States and overseas, and we appreciate the
opportunity to present our views on FAA reauthorization.
Ensuring a fair contract negotiations process at the FAA is
of utmost importance to PASS. By taking advantage of the
ambiguities in current law governing those negotiations, the
FAA has consistently refused to bargain in good faith with PASS
and other FAA unions.
The hostile environment this creates threatens the
productivity of FAA employees and the efficiency of the
aviation system. And while we are all familiar with the FAA's
unilateral imposition of changes to working conditions to air
traffic controllers, I would like to share with you a few of
the things that we have faced over the years.
Contract negotiations for four out of the five units of
employees that PASS represents have been at impasse for six
years. In our largest bargaining unit, the technical operations
unit, the agency showed no interest in reaching a mutual
agreement. As a result, when the agency's final proposal was
presented to our members for a vote, it was rejected by 98
percent of those members.
It is clear that a change is needed in order to ensure FAA
employees their right to collective bargaining. PASS
appreciates the language that was included in the FAA
reauthorization bill introduced this week. PASS is in full
support of the language clarifying that the Federal Service
Impasses Panel has jurisdiction over bargaining impasses
arising at the FAA and that binding arbitration before a
neutral third party is the method used for resolving bargaining
disputes.
Understaffing is also a major concern for PASS, especially
in our technical and safety inspector bargaining units.
Inadequate technical staffing has resulted in a move toward a
``fix-on-fail'' approach where preventive maintenance and
certification of NAS systems and equipment are significantly
reduced. PASS is especially concerned with changes the FAA has
made to its time-tested certification process in which a
certificated FAA technician checks or tests these systems and
equipment on a periodic basis in order to ensure that they are
safe for use. Not only has the FAA moved away from a proactive
maintenance philosophy with its new concept, but it has also
changed its policy to now prohibit certification of all systems
that it does not own.
As the FAA works to modernize the NAS, the systems and
equipment must be properly certified by FAA technicians in
order to ensure safety and reliability. As such, PASS proposes
that language be added to the FAA reauthorization legislation
making it clear that the FAA will make no distinction between
public or privately-owned equipment, systems or services used
in the NAS when determining certification requirements.
With regard to the inspector workforce, PASS appreciates
the efforts of this Committee to address the inspector staffing
situation by including language in the reauthorization bill
authorizing funding to increase inspector staffing.
With the many challenges facing the aviation industry
today, including outsourced maintenance work in this Country
and abroad, it is imperative that there are enough inspectors
in place to monitor the safety of the system. In particular,
PASS appreciates the language that was included mandating that
all certificated foreign repair stations be inspected at least
twice a year by an FAA inspector.
Furthermore, in light of last year's Southwest incident and
questions regarding the FAA's aviation safety oversight
program, PASS supports the inclusion of language aimed at
strengthening and improving FAA oversight of the system,
including improvements to the customer service initiative and
the voluntary disclosure reporting program.
PASS is looking forward to working with this Committee to
ensure the safe and efficient modernization of this Country's
aviation system. PASS and the employees we represent are
hopeful that this Committee will enact legislation that will
allow positive labor management relations and ensure that
safety of the aviation system is always the top priority.
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Mr. Costello. We thank you, Mr. Brantley.
The Chair now recognizes Captain Prater.
Mr. Prater. Good afternoon, Chairman Costello, Ranking
Member Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee.
When passed, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 should
make significant strides in advancing aviation safety and
herald a new era for U.S. air transportation. I will outline
six priority safety and policy areas for the 53,000 members of
the Air Line Pilots Association, International. Several are
covered in the last Congress's reauthorization bill. However, a
number of critical concerns have not yet been addressed.
First, no industry was hit harder by the 9/11 attacks than
the U.S. airlines. To keep our companies in business, our
pilots took enormous concessions. As a result, our members
often fly right up to the regulatory limits for flight and duty
time. Sixteen-hour domestic duty days and longer in
international flying are a fact of life for pilots. Irregular
shifts, multiple time zones, all-night operations and disrupted
circadian rhythms all contribute to pilot fatigue. The eight-
hour rest period in the current regulations includes travel to
and from the hotel, and pilots often cannot get time or relax
enough to receive more than five or six hours of sleep.
ALPA advocates a complete overhaul of the regulations based
on modern science. The rules must apply to all sizes of both
passenger and cargo operations. They must encompass adequate
rest periods, reasonable duty periods, and provisions for
crossing multiple time zones and flying on the backside of the
clock.
ALPA strongly supports bill language that directs the FAA
to commission a National Academy of Sciences study to collect
new data on pilot fatigue and then to use it to update the
regulations.
Second, fostering a safe air transportation system also
requires a foundation of voluntary non-punitive safety
reporting programs. These programs must be based on the
unshakable sense of trust among the participants. Most reports
are sole-sourced, meaning only the person reporting knew that a
mistake occurred. Without full confidence that reporting an
error will be used solely to advance safety, employees will
have little incentive to come forward and valuable safety
information will be lost.
Moreover, safety management systems will be stymied without
them. Programs have been suspended because of mis-used reports.
We ask Congress to protect voluntarily supplied safety
information against mis-use for discipline, FAA sanctions, or
litigation.
Third, few would deny the need to modernize the Nation's
air space. It is a priority for ALPA. Infrastructure,
equipment, and facilities are severely outdated. Modernization
is a complex, expensive and long-term endeavor that must be
done right the first time. Long-term stable funding is
essential. Airlines currently pay the majority of costs for
operating the national air space system. All users will benefit
from a safe, modern system. All should bear a fair share of the
cost.
A related air space management concern for pilots is
unmanned aerial systems, or UAVs. Regulations must ensure
safety before these aircraft can share air spaces with
airliners. ALPA pilots hail the provisions in the bill to
enhance runway safety, research wake turbulence, icing and
other weather impacts on airline operations, and continue to
operate Midway Island Airfield as a trans-Pacific emergency
landing option. The Wake Island Airfield must also be included.
We commend your efforts to establish oversight requirements
for the airlines using non-certificated maintenance facilities.
We also note two areas that warrant additional support:
research to reduce encounters with volcanic ash and to reduce
encounters with wildlife hazards.
Fourth, many cargo aircraft operate without flight deck
doors, a critical layer of safety for pilots who, along with
their cargo, often fly animal handlers and couriers who are
vetted using only limited ground procedures. All FAR Part 121
operations must be afforded one standard of safety and
security. We call on Congress to ensure that cargo aircraft are
equipped with reinforced flight deck doors or an equivalent
level of protection.
Fifth, ALPA also strongly backs language in the bill
affirming that U.S. citizens must control key operational
aspects of U.S. airlines. This bill does that by identifying
fleet composition, route selection, pricing and labor relations
among the operational elements that the Department of
Transportation must ensure U.S. citizens control.
Finally, while safety decisions must never be based on
economics, our industry's financial health is extremely
important to pilots. Large price spikes and jet fuel scarcity
pose the greatest threat to industry stability. ALPA urges
Congress to swiftly adopt a national energy policy that will
increase a stable jet fuel supply, reduce rampant oil investor
speculation, and hold the line on new fuel use taxes, charges
and fees.
This FAA reauthorization bill holds promise for powerful
change. As the professionals who make the airline industry work
every day and every night of the year, we are the ones who know
what works and what doesn't. When in doubt, ask us.
Thank you for doing that by having us here today.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Captain Prater.
And now the Chair recognizes Ms. Friend.
Ms. Friend. Thank you, Chairman Costello and Ranking Member
Petri for giving AFA-CWA, the world's largest flight attendant
union, the opportunity to testify today.
My written testimony details a number of critical issues
for the Nation's flight attendants, from our lack of basic OSHA
protections to the growing and serious problem of flight
attendant fatigue, problems with cabin air quality, and lack of
access to a HIMS program for flight attendants. These are all
serious problems that the FAA has neglected and refuses, in
most cases, to even recognize.
We appreciate that the leadership of this Committee has
worked closely with us to address these issues and to force the
FAA to do its job to protect the safety and health of those
that call the aircraft cabin their workplace and those who
daily travel with us.
We also are in full support of the provision the in-flight
use of cell phones, but we would like to suggest, in order to
ensure the peace and quiet in the cabin that we know
Congressman DeFazio is seeking, that the Committee should also,
as communication technology advances rapidly, consider a
prohibition on the use of voice-over internet protocol in the
cabin as well.
We look forward to continue working with you as this bill
moves through the legislative process. However, we are
concerned that the growing safety and security risks posed by
the exploding number of carry-on bags being brought on board
the aircraft is not currently addressed in the bill. Since the
mid-1990s we have tried to force the FAA to adopt and enforce a
uniform policy for carry-on bags, but again the FAA refuses to
recognize the problem and has failed to protect flight
attendants and passengers.
With airline management imposing checked-bag fees, we have
seen a dramatic increase in the size and number of bags being
brought into the aircraft cabin. One major carrier recently
measured a 25 percent drop in checked luggage following the
imposition of checked baggage fees. Those bags end up in the
aircraft cabin. This poses a serious risk to the safety of
passengers and flight attendants, and poses a security concern
in the aircraft cabin. We would like to work with the Committee
to include language in the final bill that would create a
concise, uniform and enforceable standard to limit the size and
number of bags being brought into the aircraft cabin.
This FAA reauthorization process is also a sound platform
to begin a comprehensive discussion on developing a national
aviation policy for our Country. This legislation addresses
some immediate and long-term needs, and that is appropriate.
But the larger conversation must take place on how we want to
build a 21st century aviation policy for our Country. It is a
conversation we believe is long overdue.
This FAA reauthorization is one of the most comprehensive
and worker-friendly reauthorization bills in memory, and again
I applaud the Committee's work. For instance, I am pleased to
see increased funding for EAS. Service to small and even mid-
sized communities are the first casualties when airlines cut
capacity, leaving a trail of wasted infrastructure investments
and unemployment for aviation workers. I applaud the Committee
for making a bold policy statement that service to all
communities is important. This is the type of discussion and
policy-making that needs to occur on a broader stage.
Chairman Oberstar's recently introduced legislation, H.R.
831, is one of those important steps that, along with this FAA
reauthorization, will help in ensuring a vital domestic U.S.
aviation system. This, along with provisions in the
reauthorization that address the issue of foreign ownership and
control of our domestic airlines, are important in protecting
U.S. workers and consumers.
Today's hearing serves two purposes in my view, Mr.
Chairman. First, AFA-CWA endorses this bill and urges you to
include a one-size-fits-all carry-on baggage policy in the
bill. Second, this legislation and this hearing have provided a
long overdue platform for formulating a national, indeed a
rational, aviation policy for our Country. In this season of
change, this is our opportunity to construct a 21st century
aviation policy that works for passengers, communities and the
union women and men who each and every day transport a number
of passengers equal to the size of the city of Chicago.
It is time that millions of aviation workers are part of
the debate on what our aviation policy will be, and I look
forward to working with you to make that happen.
I thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
Mr. Costello. We thank you for your testimony, Ms. Friend.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Roach.
Mr. Roach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this
Subcommittee, for the opportunity to speak to you today.
My name is Robert Roach, Jr., General Vice President,
Transportation, for the International Association of Aerospace
Workers, the IAM. I am appearing at the request of
International President R. Thomas Buffenbarger.
The machinists' union is the largest airline union in North
America. We represent more than 100,000 U.S. airline workers in
almost every classification, including flight attendants, ramp
service workers, mechanics, and passenger service employees. On
behalf of those workers who ensure that the United States has a
safe, secure, reliable air transportation system, I am
presenting to you today some of their concerns they hope to be
addressed in the FAA reauthorization bill.
From the outset, we are looking for a level playing field
to continue to have a safe, secure transportation system. It is
in the Nation's interest. As a matter of fact, it is a matter
of national security that the United States have a safe, secure
system. Many of our jobs have been forced overseas to foreign
repair stations.
We are asking today that the FAA reauthorization bill
create a level playing field which would incentivize some of
these domestic carriers to bring some of that work back home.
Foreign repair stations have little or no oversight.
Restrictions and testing and background checks are not required
in these overseas inspection stations. Overseas FAA inspections
are not announced, and more importantly those that are
announced very rarely take place. The public deserves one level
of safety, regardless of where the aircraft are maintained.
On the issue of express carriers, UPS and FedEx are treated
differently. The laws are applied inconsistently. Employees who
work for UPS are governed by the National Labor Relations Act.
Employees working for FedEx, for some reason unknown to us, are
covered by the Railway Labor Act, which makes it very difficult
to organize those employees who, in many cases, want to be
represented. The express language in the Railway Labor Act
needs to be modified to provide consistency throughout the
industry.
Flight attendant safety. The recent successful evacuations
of Continental Flight 1404 in Denver, and US Airways Flight
1549 in the Hudson River demonstrate flight attendant skill and
heroism. Rest periods should be exclusive of any job
responsibilities or hotel transfer time. IAM contract times
exceed FAA mandates, but not every flight attendant has union
protection. Flight attendants should be covered by OSHA. We
need to protect the people who protect us in flight.
Fixed-based operators. There is a great debate in Congress
and throughout our Country about the Employee Free-Choice Act.
Conversely, we have a group of people who voted by secret
ballot, in some cases 40 or 50 years ago, to be represented by
a labor organization, and now, as a reinterpretation of law,
not a change of law, these people are told that they are no
longer represented by labor organizations. These people fix and
maintain aircraft in our Country. These people fuel aircraft in
our Country. And as a result, there is an instability in the
fixed-based operations of people who once enjoyed a decent job,
who now have transit people making minimum wage working on $40
million or $50 million aircraft. The misapplication of the
Railway Labor Act has many workers without a union or a
contract.
Since 9/11, airline workers have sacrificed their wages,
pensions and work rules and more than 200,000 jobs in order to
rescue the industry. Industry conditions have imposed wage
burdens on workers and carriers to reduce costs. Such
extraordinary focus on the bottom line demands greater, not
less, government oversight and proper FAA funding is a must. We
were inspired by President Obama's speech the other night about
taking education, bringing education, educating people to
attach them to the skills that we will need for the future.
The IAM is presently involved in a mentorship program with
Aviation High School. We have met the young men and women who
graduate from Aviation High School, and then we place them in
skilled jobs, Pratt & Whitney. We were in discussions with
Governor Sebelius of Kansas to bring some of these young men
and women before the economy went bad.
We believe that some of the billions of dollars that are
going to be spent to create jobs, to educate people, should be
spent on programs such as apprenticeship programs so that
people graduating from high school with skills can be mentored
and placed in skilled jobs in our Country.
We look forward to working with the Department of
Transportation, and whoever the FAA administrator is, that they
should have the flexibility to work with us to create better
programs so that we can have better jobs, better skills, and
our work will not have to go overseas because we will have the
workforce in America to do those jobs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak, and
we look forward to working with you and this body, and the
opportunity to speak with you.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. We thank you, Mr. Roach.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gless.
Mr. Gless. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, the Transport Workers of America, on behalf
of its 200,000 active and retired members in the transportation
industry, including the airline mechanics at American Airlines,
American Eagle, and the flight attendants of Southwest
Airlines, appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
Committee.
In particular, I would like to thank the Committee for its
diligence in passing H.R. 2881, the FAA reauthorization bill in
the 110th Congress, and we look forward in this 111th Congress
to the successful passage in the House and Senate of a
reauthorization bill that discontinues the double-standard that
is applied to aircraft maintenance.
In addition, we hope to see the FAA put in place critical
and timely provisions for flight attendants that will enable
them to perform their duty safely. Briefly, since Mr. Roach and
Ms. Friend have spoken specifically on flight attendant issues,
we support occupational safety and health standards for flight
attendants. We think they are long overdue. Completing the
study on flight attendant fatigue is another endeavor that will
ensure that flight attendants will be able to perform their
duties to the best of their ability.
Specifically today, I would like to speak on the issue of
aircraft maintenance. The TWU represents roughly 15,000 workers
who fall within the category of interest. There are four
recommendations regarding aircraft maintenance that we see as
necessary to ensure safe and secure air travel for the American
public.
One is to require that all maintenance on aircraft used in
domestic U.S. service be done in FAA-certified repair
facilities. Two is to require as a condition of FAA
certification is that all repair stations meet the same
standards. This would include, but not be limited to, drug and
alcohol testing, background security checks, and Part 65
aircraft mechanic certification.
Three is to reconfigure the FAA inspection and oversight to
place the greatest scrutiny on those repair stations whose
audits determine to propose the greatest risks to safety and
security.
And four, requires conditions of FAA certification that all
repair stations be subject to unannounced FAA inspections. The
FAA should be prohibited from certifying any repair station in
a country that does not allow unannounced inspections and
should immediately revoke any existing certifications in such a
country.
There is no doubt that maintenance work that is done in-
house by the U.S. carriers themselves is probably the safest,
most secure type of maintenance. This is because the work is
done under the direct control of the carrier supervisors and
there is an additional layer of supervision and inspectors
dedicated to completing the tasks. They ironically receive the
highest scrutiny and FAA oversight of all.
As reported in the FAA's recent report, the Air Carriers
Outsourcing of Aircraft Maintenance, issued on September 30,
2008, out of the nine carriers that were reviewed, 71 percent
of their heavy airframe maintenance check was outsourced to
repair stations. Since 2003, the trend of sending this work out
of house has more than doubled, from 34 percent in 2003 to 71
percent in 2007.
In 1989, the TWU testified against the FAA rule change.
Unfortunately, we were right in predicting that the elimination
of limits on movement of maintenance would result in the
outsourcing of tens of thousands of jobs to overseas
facilities. Just days ago, Congress passed an economic stimulus
package that would put some people back to work. My suggestion
to keep the airline industry afloat is to keep it safe and
secure by encouraging more air carriers to ensure safety by
establishing the same rules and scrutiny on foreign maintenance
bases as are here in the States, which will keep the U.S. air
carrier mechanics working.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
We look forward to answering any questions that you may have to
my testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Gless.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Hanni.
Ms. Hanni. Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri,
thank you for inviting Flyersrights.org to testify in
connection with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. We were
pleased with the last Congress's legislation, and we were
disappointed that it did not get enacted, but we see that as an
opportunity for this Congress to enact even stronger
legislation in regard to airline passengers' rights.
We applaud the provisions recently introduced in H.R. 915
by Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Costello, but we also ask you
to consider language suggestions to the Subcommittee staff.
Specifically, we hope you would consider Congressman Mike
Thompson's H.R. 624, the Passengers Rights Act of 2009. It has
24 co-sponsors already and mandates effective minimum standards
for water, food, working toilets, tolerable temperatures, and
an option to deplane after three hours if it can be done
safely.
An identical bipartisan bill has been introduced in the
Senate, and our Members are working to garner additional
support for these bills in both chambers.
You will hear from the airline lobbyists that we are doing
a better job reducing our handling of long tarmac delays. Let
us handle it, they say, using the same arguments they advanced
in convincing Congress in 1999 to stop working on passenger
rights legislation and accepting voluntary airline customer
service commitments instead. However, the DOT's Inspector
General testified here in 2001 and 2006 that airline efforts
slacked off after the threat of legislation abated and that
those commitments to customer service plans aren't enforceable.
The airlines will also say the Tarmac Delay Task Force
Report and DOT-pending regulations eliminate the need for
Federal passenger rights provisions to be included in your FAA
Reauthorization Act legislation. Well, we asked the task force
to establish minimum standards for passenger health and safety
issues and for a maximum period for tarmac strandings.
I even asked that they clearly define what is a long delay
or what is an excessive delay, and we could not get a
definition. Instead, the airlines on the task force accepted no
standards with everything still being left to their unregulated
discretion and with no penalties for negligence.
Similarly, in DOT's current draft of its weak, toothless,
Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections regulation, the
airlines are permitted to crate their own contingency plans
with no DOT review for adequacy, no minimum standards, and no
practical way for passengers to enforce whatever the carriers
propose to offer.
The airlines' lobbying and litigation activity over the
past year make it clear that they don't want any Government
body or individual passenger to be able to enforce any
standards of airline behavior during long tarmac delays, and
not the States. The airlines successfully defeated the State of
New York's attempt to establish minimum standards for air
passenger health and welfare, imposing fines for violations.
The court's ruling was that only the Federal Government may
regulate the airline in this preempted area. And then they turn
around and say, not Federal regulation.
The airlines are opposed to DOT's requiring them in its
pending rulemaking to list their 1999 commitment and their
tarmac stranding policies in their contracts of carriage for
fear that some passengers will try to litigate those promises
in state courts. Thus, only Congress can assure minimum
protections for passengers.
Mr. Chairman, time limits restrict me from explaining how
we know from our 24/7 hotline calls and investigations into
airline statistics show that airline and Federal agency
treatment of stranded airline passengers is getting worse and
not better. In the audience today is Wayne Burnett. He is a GE
jet engine engineer. He had a blood clot and pulmonary embolism
after a three and a half hour stranding event on the tarmac. It
nearly killed him. His life will never be the same.
The bottom line here, Mr. Chairman, is that unless Congress
mandates in your FAA reauthorization legislation minimum
standards for adequate food, water, working toilets and a
passenger option to deplane after three plus hours of a tarmac
delay, if it can be done safely, tomorrow's passengers will
continue to be as exposed to airline negligence during tarmac
strandings as they are today.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be
pleased to answer your questions.
Mr. Costello. We thank you for your testimony, and as I
stated earlier, there is no question that if we leave it up to
the airlines to regulate themselves, it will not happen, and
that is why it is necessary for us to put this in legislation
and to pursue it. So we thank you for your testimony and thank
you for your advocacy on behalf of passengers.
Mr. Forrey, we don't want to get into the NATCA contract
issue. We all know that. We have discussed it. I think everyone
on this Committee is aware, and I think can say in a bipartisan
way that we believe that what has taken place is unfair. The
question is, what is the remedy, and we have proposed the
remedy in our legislation and we have stressed, I personally
have stressed it to the new Secretary and others, what needs to
be done. So I am not going to get into that now.
But what I do want to get into is to talk a little bit
about testimony that we heard from both Dr. Dillingham, and we
have heard from others in the past, about morale and what it is
doing to the agency, the concern about the morale having an
effect on NextGen and the lack of involvement in all of the
stakeholders, including the controllers, Mr. Brantley's people
that he represents, and Mr. Prater as well.
We heard in the past Administration testimony here in this
room about how NATCA in particular has been invited to the
table to participate. My question to you is, with NextGen in
particular, because everyone is concerned about NextGen and
modernizing the ATC system, have you been at the table? And
have your people, have you been invited to come in, give your
views, and help try and design the system?
Mr. Forrey. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of all those comments
made by the previous Administration and the FAA. They are just
patently false. The FAA has not invited us to participate in
any technological improvements or modernization of the system.
In fact, they don't want our opinion on anything. They view us
with disrespect, or they have in the past, and continue to do
so today. I think and hope that that will change with the new
Administrator and this new Administration. We look forward to
that.
A collaboration is the only way this agency is going to
move forward. It is the only way we are going to be able to
train people. It is the only way we are going to be able to
keep the experienced controllers from leaving the system. They
are just treated terribly.
Mr. Costello. Well, it was refreshing for me to hear from
the new Secretary about how he wanted to be inclusive and
wanted to have the opinions in not only designing NextGen, but
in other aspects of the operation of the agency, all the
stakeholders, including specifically PASS, NATCA, ALPA, and the
flight attendants as well. So hopefully that dialogue will take
place in the future, once they are organized and get moving. I
made the point earlier that I think we are into 22 days of this
Administration, so it is going to take some time to get the
appropriate people in place.
At this time, the Chair would recognize the Ranking Member,
Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for your testimony, and putting in a little
overtime here in this hearing room today.
I really wanted to take the short time I have to first of
all make a comment, and that is, as you know, we have had
several years without a fatal accident in commercial aviation
in the United States, an absolutely remarkable record. That
record was in very great jeopardy quite recently with Flight
1549, and at least three of you have members who were involved:
an air traffic controller who helped to alert people around the
area, of course the flight crew, stewardesses who managed to
prevent as best they could a potentially catastrophic
situation, turning into an orderly evacuation, and especially
your I think member, Captain Sully Sullenberger, and the
tremendous job he did in acting very quickly, as it turned out,
under great pressure.
This is a testimony to the professionalism and
effectiveness of experienced crews. We keep trying to make the
system better, but we can all be very proud of the performance
of the people involved in saving all the lives, even someone
who was in a wheelchair, with very few serious injuries and
almost everyone walked away and everyone lived. So it is a
testimony. I just wanted to say that.
The other thing, I did have a question for Mr. Forrey, the
bill, H.R. 915, has what is called a binding arbitration
provision, but when the arbitrator comes out with an award, as
I understand it, and I would like you to comment on this, it is
binding on the taxpayer, but not on the union as there is a
possibility of a vote to reject the binding arbitration
agreement. How is that necessarily going to move things
forward?
Mr. Forrey. Well, the binding arbitration process is very
similar to what is used in the Postal Service today.
Essentially, anything that is determined by the arbitration
panel is not ratifiable. In other words, it has to be accepted
by the parties. The rest of the agreement that was agreed to
voluntarily would be ratified. So anything that was determined
by the arbitration panel is set in stone.
I believe there are also circumstances where there
certainly couldn't be an award or a settlement, so to speak,
without the government's approval. Obviously, if Congress isn't
going to fund it, they are not going to fund it, and that is
all there is to it. I mean, you guys make the laws, right?
So that is kind of where it goes. It is a very good
process. It is very productive. It cuts out the strife.
Everyone gets to have their day in court and present their
evidence in support of what they want to do. An independent
panel will determine what makes the best sense.
So we believe that is the only way to go. It is similar to
what is done with the Federal services in past panels. It is
just that they don't deal with funding, basically, or with pay
in the other Federal parts of the Federal sector, like the FAA
does.
So we think it works very well. It has worked very well for
the Post Office for several years now, and it should create a
more productive environment.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much.
I wonder, too, just one thing very briefly, if you could
comment, if you were here during the Inspector General's
testimony. There seemed to be some, at least certainly an
increase in recruitment that they have hit their targets or
exceeded them. There is still concern about inexperience or
opportunities for proper training, but there were predictions a
year or so ago about how we were going to have trouble
recruiting or keeping the air traffic control force, especially
in the absence of a contract settlement. That does not, in
fact, seem to have happened. Would you like to address that?
Mr. Forrey. Well, I think it comes down to a question of
what you are recruiting, how qualified they are, and how
successful they will be in the training.
Mr. Petri. These are your members. I understand that. I
completely understand that. What we want them to do is be put
into an environment where they are going to have the best
opportunities to succeed, and that it not being done.
Mr. Forrey. You have to understand, air traffic control is
an inherent ability, not something you learn. If you don't have
the inherent ability to multi-task, three-dimensional imaging
and all that kind of stuff that us weirdos have, you probably
won't succeed in the job.
So first of all, you have to get the right pool of people
in there. Certainly, we hope that is what the FAA is doing. We
don't have any say in that.
Secondly, you have to provide an environment where they can
learn their craft and their profession, and they are being
placed in the facilities that don't have the curricula for
training them, for people that don't have experience. They are
putting too many in places at once where they can't get proper
and on-time training.
The experience-level of the controllers that are supposed
to do the training are leaving, so there are fewer of them
around to show them how to do the job. And as Chairman Costello
said, he was in Orlando tower the other month, and there were
ten people in that tower and only one of them had a year or
more of experience.
Now, if we had a situation that happened with US Air 1549,
would that controller have had the experience and been
subjected to that kind of a condition in his or her working
environment for less than a year, to be able to handle the
situation like that controller did, or those controllers did?
One was in the tower at LaGuardia, Bill McLaughlin, and
Patrick Harkin in New York TRACON. Both had years of experience
and they didn't miss a beat, just like the crew didn't miss a
beat, neither the cabin crew nor the flight crew. People were
called in to help as quickly as they could, and no one got hurt
in that thing.
So that is what we are hoping, to stop the flow of these
experienced controllers from leaving the system, to provide
these new folks coming in a decent training program that they
can be successful and be the next generation of this system. We
are concerned about that. You can hire all you want, but they
only certified 700 of them in the last three years. That is a
problem for us. We lost 5,000 and certified 700. You do the
math.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now
recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't think I have questions. I would like to make a
couple of comments, if I could.
Mr. Forrey, in all my years of being around flying, I still
an impressed when I go to a tower or control room. Pass word
back to your people that we love them, we respect them, and we
are going to continue to work our best to get the numbers you
need.
I could go right down the line. I could brag on all of you,
and I do. I think I will pick on the lady in front.
Unsung heroes. We fly a lot. Thank you. Those flight
attendants are really great, and they don't get much help from
we passengers sometimes. We get cranky and so on.
The mechanics, Mr. Roach, you make a good point.
Unbelievably costly airplanes, and then we want to shortchange
the people that keep them flying. It is ridiculous.
Mr. Gless, thank you.
Don't give up, Ms. Hanni. We are going to win this sooner
or later.
I guess I will stop with you, Captain Prater. I was
thinking back to the days of my own flying, when I was
learning. As you know, and the rest of you who fly, we practice
and practice and practice with that engine out. When I was
instructing, we wouldn't solo somebody until they could prove
to us they understood what they are supposed to do.
Nevertheless, I think that the Hudson River landing tells a
story to the world, really, that you guys are professional. You
are really, really professional. Calm and cool, you have to be,
and people of few words. Just do what you have to do.
I think of all the possibilities that could have gone
wrong, one wing being a little low or something, just the wrong
time, and what could have happened. I think that there was a
guiding hand possibly, but there was a heck of a hand on the
yoke. Our compliments to those of you that give us the
confidence to get in the back of some of those monsters, and
not being able to see what is going on. That is kind of one of
the harder things for pilots, to get in the backseat and sit
there knowing you can't do a darn thing if something goes
wrong. Then there are the flight attendants to take care of us.
Mr. Chairman, this is a great panel. I wish the whole
Country could have heard what they had to say and what they do
for us. It means a lot.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, and recognizes the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I am to a large extent what stands between all of
us being able to finish this hearing today, but I just want to
echo my colleague Mr. Boswell's comments here, that we
unfortunately with all the problems going on in our Country
right now, we would like to focus on things that don't work and
haven't worked. All of you are part of making this system work.
Every time I get on a plane, I still think about the fact
that all of these things have to work--the pilot, the flight
attendants, those that work on the plane, air traffic
controllers--everybody has to do things right so that
everything works. I also every time I get on a plane think
about how things can be better. So I thank Ms. Hanni for her
work.
I just want to ask one question of Ms. Friend. In your
written testimony, you express strong support for placing
limits on the size of a carry-on bag that may be brought onto
planes. So I just wanted to ask you, with the decision of many
carriers to charge for bags, I just want to ask you how that
has impacted the number of bags, the size of bags that
passengers carry on, and what effects that this had on flight
attendants.
Ms. Friend. Well, as you can imagine, people are reluctant
to pay anything more than they have to. So a lot of the baggage
that used to be checked is now ending up in the cabin of the
aircraft, more and larger pieces of luggage. We do know that,
as I testified earlier, at least one major carrier, two months
after implementing the checked baggage fee, they revealed that
the amount of their checked baggage was down by 25 percent.
From our viewpoint, that 25 percent reduction is now in the
cabin.
We see a number of problems with that, obviously. There
isn't room for it. It causes problems in evacuation. Some of
those passengers who were in the Hudson River felt compelled to
try to take their carry-on baggage with them as they were
leaving, which they will inevitably do.
We believe that additional carry-on baggage coming through
the security checkpoints adds an additional burden to the
screeners. It just magnifies their workload and makes it more
difficult for them to identify dangerous items.
So we are once again, as we have for as long as I can
remember, urging the enactment of a uniform carry-on baggage
limitation, size and number, that can be enforced.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. They still have those metal things
that are sitting there before you get on the plane that say
your bag must fit in here. I kind of wonder why those are still
sitting there. I don't think I have ever seen one of those
really used.
Ms. Friend. They are actually a handy receptacle for
anything, you know, that you can't find a trash can for. That
is about what they are good for.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much. I thank all of the
panelists for your testimony. Hopefully, there are a lot of
people watching this and understand the job that you do, the
people that you represent.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
The Chair thanks all of you for your testimony and for your
patience today. We think that we have a good bill that we have
introduced. We have every intention of moving the bill as
quickly as possible. We will schedule a markup as soon as we
possibly can, and we will get it to the floor quickly.
As I said earlier, with the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee who is here, most of the items in the bill are issues
that we had previously agreed on. Mr. Mica, Chairman Oberstar
and Mr. Petri and I went through item by item in the bill. So I
would guess that about 90 percent is agreed upon. The labor
issues are not agreed upon, not surprisingly, but there were a
couple of other issues, too, that were put into this bill that
we believe are noncontroversial.
So we fully intend to move this as quickly as possible. We
want to move it prior to the expiration of the extension, which
of course is the end of March. So we will be doing our work to
attempt to get that done.
We appreciate your input. As I said in my opening
statement, the bill that was introduced and passed out of the
Committee in the House in 2007 had input from all of you, and
from a lot of other stakeholders as well. This bill does as
well, and we appreciate your testimony, your input, and we look
forward to having you back before the Subcommittee in the
future to talk about other issues.
We would encourage you to talk to our colleagues in the
House and the other body as we move the bill forward, so that
we can get the bill passed out of the House and then you can go
over to the other side of the building and work hard to try and
convince our friends in the other body to pass a
reauthorization bill.
It is important. It is not only important for NextGen. It
is not only important for a lot of the reasons that you heard
today, but I think it is important to the flying public and all
of the stakeholders involved in aviation.
So again, we thank you for your patience and we thank you
for your testimony.
With that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:48 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]