[Senate Hearing 111-343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-343
AVIATION SAFETY: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NETWORK AIRLINES AND REGIONAL
AIRLINES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
AUGUST 6, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
0SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BILL NELSON, Florida JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
MARK WARNER, Virginia MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Christine D. Kurth, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Brian M. Hendricks, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, JIM DeMINT, South Carolina,
Chairman Ranking Member
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK WARNER, Virginia
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on August 6, 2009................................... 1
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Statement of Senator Begich...................................... 28
Statement of Senator Johanns..................................... 38
Statement of Senator Isakson..................................... 42
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 44
Witnesses
Philip H. Trenary, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Pinnacle Airlines Corp......................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Peter M. Bowler, President and CEO, American Eagle Airlines, Inc. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Captain Don Gunther, Vice President; Safety, Continental
Airlines, Inc.................................................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Captain Stephen M. Dickson, Senior Vice President, Flight
Operations, Delta Air Lines.................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Byron L. Dorgan
to:
Captain Stephen M. Dickson................................... 65
Captain Don Gunther.......................................... 67
AVIATION SAFETY: THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN NETWORK AIRLINES AND
REGIONAL AIRLINES
----------
THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and
Security,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L.
Dorgan, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. We're going to call this hearing to order.
Other colleagues will be joining us, but we want to begin on
time this morning.
I want to thank all of you for joining us today to talk
about the issue of aviation safety. This is the third hearing
we will have held on aviation safety. And let me begin, at the
start of this hearing, saying something that is, I think,
pretty self-evident, that we continue to have a remarkably safe
air travel system. It's not my intention, by having hearings on
the subject of air safety, to cause people to wonder about
whether, when they board a commercial flight in this country,
they need to be worried. So----
We operate aircraft all across the United States--
commercial, general aviation--every day. Commercial aviation,
the airlines, I think, provide great service to our country.
But, we do have a requirement, in my judgment, to examine
whether we drift, from time to time, to--between standards and
from standards. And, as you know, back in the 1990s, we had an
FAA requirement of one safety standard. We now have migrated to
a different kind of system. We haven't gone away from a hub and
spoke system, necessarily, although there are more carriers
flying between city pairs, but the migration has been to
regional carriers that, in many cases, are employed by, and
contracted by, the major carriers. They fly airplanes with the
same markings. The American public don't know, necessarily,
whether their getting on a trunk carrier or a regional carrier
when they board a plane; they know they are boarding a plane
with the same markings. And so, the question is, Is there one
standard being enforced by the FAA?--and with respect to the
issues that we wanted to explore today with both the major
carriers as well as the regional carriers, is, What is the
responsibility of the major carrier to the regional carrier?
And what's the responsibility of the regional carrier to the
major carrier, on pilot training and crew rest and a whole
range of issues? How does one deal with the issue of fatigue?
What kind of connection or responsibility exists between a
major carrier and another company that actually carries its
brand and its logo on the plane that it flies?
The FAA has moved forward to bring together carriers to
identify immediate steps that can be taken to strengthen
aviation safety. And I appreciate that. In addition, our FAA
reauthorization bill has a number of safety improvements, and I
look forward to working to pass that through the full Congress
and having it signed by the President. We have a
responsibility, I believe, to get that done.
The hearings that we have held on air safety, as you know,
were spurred by the tragic crash, in February, of Continental
connection flight 3407 in Buffalo, New York. This is not a
hearing about that crash. The National Transportation Safety
Board has been doing an extensive investigation there. But, the
public disclosure of a number of factors that existed with
respect to that flight have caused this committee, and others,
to raise questions about the one level of safety.
We will not be reexamining all of those issues with the
Colgan tragedy; the NTSB is doing their job. But, what we want
to do is to understand, What are the industry best practices,
what are the requirements and standards that we, in the
traveling public, should expect? The migration of our system,
to about half of the flights in our country being flights on
regional carriers, is a very different situation that existed a
decade or two decades ago, and so, I think it requires us to be
looking at, What are the standards for training and procedures,
and what is the relationship between the major carriers and the
regionals?
I'd like, if possible, to entertain very short opening
statements today, and I'll--and then we'd like to get to the
four witnesses. If we can do 2-minute opening statements, I'd
appreciate it.
Let me call on Senator Hutchison, who's the Ranking Member
of the full Committee.
Senator Hutchison?
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't
give my full remarks; I will put them in the record.
But, I think you have stated it well. We really are trying
to look at the code sharing and, when there is a contract with
another private owner for an air carrier, we want to know
exactly what the safety precautions are, what the rules are,
and, in our oversight capacity, just make sure that we're doing
enough. It is an FAA responsibility. I think they have
fulfilled that responsibility, in the main, through the years.
But, I think we have looked at the differences between air
carriers and commuters over the years, and we have made changes
that have improved safety, and those are in place. So, I think
it doesn't hurt to always err on the side of caution and make
sure that we're doing everything possible in the safety area,
which is the plane and it's also the training and other pilot
issues.
So, I thank you for continuing these hearings. It's a very
important subject. And having been Vice Chairman of the
National Transportation Safety Board myself, I am so familiar
with these issues and the differences and what we've done, and
maybe we should be looking for other things that we should do
if we decide that there is some area that needs to be
addressed.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator from
Texas
Senator Dorgan, thank you for holding this series of hearings on
regional airline safety. I believe we put together a sound safety
proposal in our recent FAA Reauthorization Bill based on the
information provided in our previous two hearings on this topic. I look
forward to working with you as the process continues to move forward.
Before I begin, I would like to take a moment and welcome and
recognize Peter Bowler, President and Chief Executive Officer at
American Eagle Airlines and Captain Don Gunther, Vice President of
Safety at Continental Airlines. Both airlines are long-time Texas
institutions and leaders in the field of aviation safety. I appreciate
both of you taking the time to testify.
Despite the remarkable safety record of the U.S. aviation industry,
the tragic accident of Colgan Flight 3407 reminds us we must remain
vigilant and aggressively work to improve our aviation system,
especially in hard to quantify areas such as fatigue and professional
responsibility.
Today, we will specifically review the contractual code share
agreements between network and regional airlines and the safety
responsibilities involved with those arrangements. While reviewing this
topic is timely, it is important we remember that it is the FAA's sole
responsibility to oversee and regulate safety in our national aviation
system.
Additionally, it is paramount that individual companies and
carriers, regardless of code share arrangements, maintain a robust
safety program that will provide the American public with the
confidence that all our air carriers are safe and that the phrase `one
level of safety' really equates to one level of safety in an
operational environment.
The message should be clear, it doesn't matter how small or whom
you code share, it is the operator's responsibility to maintain a
robust and effective safety management system at their airline. While
best practices can and should be garnered from the network carriers
through mentoring and other sharing programs--no company should rely on
another to supplement what should be the fundamental operating
principle at each and every carrier, which is the utmost level of
safety.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Hutchison, thank you very much.
Senator Begich?
Senator Begich. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I
appreciate the hearing.
I'm going to actually pass and go right into the testimony.
Thank you very much.
Senator Dorgan. All right.
Senator Johanns?
Senator Johanns. I'll do likewise.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much.
We have four witnesses today. Captain Stephen Dickson is
the Senior Vice President of Flight Operation in Delta Air
Lines; Captain Don Gunther, Vice President for Safety with
Continental Airlines; Mr. Peter Bowler, President and Chief
Executive Officer of American Eagle Airlines; and Mr. Philip
Trenary, President and Chief Executive Officer of Pinnacle
Airlines.
Let us begin with Mr. Trenary. Would you proceed? And we'll
go across to the left.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP H. TRENARY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, PINNACLE AIRLINES CORP.
Mr. Trenary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. And let me say, before you begin, we will
include your entire statement as a part of the record, and we
will encourage you to summarize.
Mr. Trenary, thank you for being here.
Mr. Trenary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Phil Trenary. I'm the President and
CEO of Pinnacle Airlines Corp., which is the parent company for
Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air.
Before I offer my brief remarks, I'd again like to extend
our deepest and heartfelt sympathy to all those who were
touched by flight 3407. I know we have some of the family
members here today. My prayers and thoughts continue to be with
you daily.
I'd also like to thank the Subcommittee members for your
work in aviation safety. I share your passion. I started in
this business in 1977, as a flight instructor at Oklahoma
State, and worked my way up to an airline transport-rated
pilot, flying turbine equipment in domestic and international
operations. The past 25 years, I've been a regional airline
CEO; the past 12 years, at Pinnacle Airlines.
As the CEO, I recognize and accept that the responsibility
for safety starts with me, and I can assure you that our 5,000
employees are dedicated to ensuring we safely transport the 13
million passengers who fly our airlines annually. Today, we
offer about a thousand flights daily to 152 cities and towns
across our Nation. We are very aware of our responsibility to
our customers, our mainline partners, and our own people to
maintain the highest level of safety. Our number-one guiding
principle is: never compromise safety. At Pinnacle Airline
several years ago, we were evaluating our performance, and,
while we were very proud that we led the Nation in operating
performance, we still asked the question, Are we the leader in
safety?
While we met or exceeded all safety standards and all
regulatory procedures, we felt we were not doing enough. At
that point, we made the decision to be the leader in safety,
just as we had in operations. We voluntarily started
implementing the recommended programs--ASAP, FOQA, IAP, LOSA,
now SMS. I might add that the LOSA program that we have
implemented has all the attributes of the University of Texas
protocol, FAA, and ICAO. In addition to that, not only do we
have observers in the cockpit and the cabin, but also in the
dispatch center during the observed flights.
We continuously work with our mainline partners to ensure
we maintain the highest level of safety and cooperation with
them. Approximately 2 years ago, we acquired Colgan Airlines.
This is a wonderful organization, with very caring people doing
a great job. We immediately started making the same investment
in Colgan as we did in Pinnacle to implement these programs.
Our pilots at both carriers are very experienced. Our
average captain at Pinnacle has over 6,900 hours of flight
time; the average captain at Colgan, over 5,300. Our average
first officer at Pinnacle has over 2,800 hours, and at Colgan,
over 2,000 hours. I believe that our pilots are among the best
in the industry, regional or major. I have total confidence in
their ability, training, and experience.
There has been a lot of discussion about compensation at
the regionals. And at Pinnacle and Colgan, we have a
philosophy, for all of our people, to target the average pay
scales of the industry. We work with our pilot groups on the
collective bargaining agreement and, over the years, have
targeted the average of the industry.
There has been significant progress. When I joined
Pinnacle, 12 years ago, the average salary for a captain was
approximately $36,000. Today that average salary is over
$64,000. The first officers have made some progress, but not
nearly as much; they are still in the low $20,000 range. I'm
pleased to announce that we have several of our pilots here
representing ALPA, including our Chairman. We worked together,
over a long time and agreed on a tentative agreement for new
contract, only 2 days ago, that will result in significant
benefits for all of our people. We're doing the same thing at
Colgan.
It's important to remember, and I hope the members of the
Committee can understand, if you're not a pilot and haven't
been a professional pilot, it is a great job. There's nothing
like it. It's one of the most fulfilling jobs anyone can have--
the freedom, the options, the ability to work with people who
share the same passion. Simply stated, it's a career I would
recommend to anyone as long as they have the passion for the
business.
We do work with our pilots in scheduling flights. The
flights are scheduled to allow ample time for rest. From a
pilot utilization standpoint, the average pilot at Colgan flies
approximately 53 hours; at Pinnacle, it's 63 hours. Average
days off at Pinnacle are 16 days; average days off at Colgan
are 14 days.
We do have a fatigue policy at both carriers. If a pilot is
fatigued, for any reason, all they have to do is say so, and
they're excused from duty. We have reserves available. The
night of 3407--and I know we're not talking about that--but we
did have 11 reserve pilots available, 2 in the ready room that
were good to go. I believe our crews are professionals and take
their job very seriously, and we expect them to report fit and
ready to fly every day.
In closing, I'd like to personally thank the Subcommittee
and the flying public and reassure the Subcommittee and the
flying public that we will continue to make safety our top
priority and do whatever it takes to maintain a leadership
position in aviation safety. I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to testify today. I look forward to working with
you on these important initiatives and welcome any questions
you have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trenary follows:]
Prepared Statement of Philip H. Trenary, President
and Chief Executive Officer, Pinnacle Airlines Corp.
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member DeMint, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
My name is Phil Trenary and I am the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Pinnacle Airlines Corp., which is the parent of both
Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. and Colgan Air, Inc.
I would like to again express personally, and, on behalf of our
entire family of employees, our deepest and most heartfelt sympathy to
everyone who has been touched by the tragic loss of Flight 3407,
especially those who lost loved ones. While recognizing that words
alone are faint consolation, we share in the grief suffered by their
relatives and friends. My thoughts and prayers are, and will continue
to be, with them.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for affording us this
opportunity to share our thoughts about very important matters of
aviation safety. We commend the hard work this Subcommittee has
dedicated into examining these issues. The airline industry is
extraordinarily safe because the government, airlines, our employees,
labor and aviation experts work together cooperatively. We fully
support and welcome this Subcommittee's commitment to aviation Safety.
I am extremely passionate about our industry and have dedicated my
career to achieving continuous improvement in aviation safety and air
transportation, primarily to areas of our Nation that have no other
access to the National Airspace System. I began my career as a flight
instructor at Oklahoma State University and worked my way up to a
professional pilot holding an Airline Transport Rating flying turboprop
and jet aircraft in domestic and international operations. I have been
a regional airline CEO for the past 25 years, including Pinnacle
Airlines since 1997.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, at Pinnacle Airlines
and Colgan Air, Safety starts at the top of the Company--with me. And
it is my responsibility to ensure that the leadership of our company
promotes Safety throughout our organization in every action and in
every communication to our employees. Safety is our number one Guiding
Principle. It motivates everything we do. No accident is acceptable,
period.
Our company is committed each and every day to making sure our
flight crews and airplanes are as safe as humanly possible. In an
industry where we all constantly search for best practices among our
peers, Safety is the best practice of them all. Safety is good
business. At our airlines, Safety is the foundation upon which
everything else depends. Without a strong Safety culture, an airline
will not survive. Our goal is to ensure that no airplane leaves the
gate unless every Safety precaution has been taken.
Together, Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air employ almost 5,000
professionals, and the message of Safety is always uppermost in their
minds. These fine men and women provide Safe airline transportation to
over 13 million passengers annually to 134 cities and towns across
North America.
I shoulder my responsibility with the utmost gravity, and I will
not tolerate any less commitment from any of my staff.
I would now like to emphasize several key points that reflect this
unwavering focus on Safety.
Our commercial relationship to mainline carriers begins with
a deep commitment to Safety.
Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air have code-sharing relationships
with our mainline business partners. We provide the crew and the
aircraft, while our partners set flight schedules, fares and customer-
service standards. These arrangements allow carriers to serve markets
that otherwise would have no scheduled airline service at all. Pinnacle
Airlines operates a modern fleet of regional jet aircraft and flies
over 740 Delta Connection flights daily to 120 airports. It flies out
of four hubs: Memphis, Detroit, Atlanta, and Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Colgan Air operates state-of-the art turboprop airliners on over 350
flights per day. It is affiliated with three airlines and operates as
Continental Connection, United Express and U.S. Airways Express.
A passenger purchasing a ticket on a mainline carrier's regional
partner has every reason to expect the same high levels of service they
would receive on the mainline carrier. Even more important, they have
every right to expect that the mainline carrier and the regional
partner have the same level of Safety.
And they do. A common misperception exists that regional airlines
and mainline carriers are subject to different Safety standards. This
is simply not true. All U.S. commercial air carriers are subject to the
same standards and requirements, and receive exactly the same level of
Safety oversight. Since 1995, the FAA has imposed one level of Safety
on the entire air carrier industry. Thus, Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan
Air are independently required to meet exactly the same Safety
standards as our mainline partners.
This is not to say that our partners do not take an interest in the
Safety of our operations, because they do. Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan
Air regularly communicate with our partners to discuss operating
performance, safety programs and initiatives. All of our agreements
provide extensive rights to our partners to inspect and review all
aspects of our operations. The agreements with our partners also
memorialize the requirement that we must comply with all Federal
aviation regulations and operating rules promulgated by the FAA, the
DOT and any other regulatory authority in the United States.
But aside from regulatory requirements, our partners take an
intense interest in the Safety of our operations. The operating
departments of Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air regularly communicate
with their counterparts on a formal, scheduled basis, as well as
engaging frequently on an informal basis. We share best practices. We
ask for advice. We report our operational and Safety metrics regularly,
and we use the expertise of our partners when developing our continuous
program of Safety enhancement. Pinnacle Airlines was a leader in
forming the ``Safety Alliance'' to share data with its code-share
partners, and is implementing the same philosophy with Colgan Air.
In addition to continuous scrutiny by the FAA and our business
partners, Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air regularly undergo Safety
audits conducted by third parties as well. The most rigorous industry
safety audit is performed every 2 years by the International Air
Transport Association, which examines almost 2,400 items for compliance
and documentation. Both of our airlines have passed this test, and in
fact, Colgan Air completed its biennial audit just last week with a
98.8 percent conformance to IATA standard practices.
I want to underscore that Safety is our top priority and a
continuous process.
Several years ago Pinnacle Airlines committed to taking a
leadership role in airline Safety. We were among the first to adopt a
wide range of Safety programs and today we are one of only a few
airlines, regional and major, to have adopted the full suite of
voluntary Safety initiatives recommended by the FAA and NTSB. When we
purchased Colgan Air, we made the same commitment and Colgan Air has
already adopted many of the same programs. I have committed to our
Customers, our mainline partners and to members of this Subcommittee
that Colgan Air will be in the same position of leadership within the
next few months. We implemented these voluntary Safety programs in both
companies well before any calls for such programs to be mandatory in
the industry, and we have regularly exceeded regulatory requirements in
Safety initiatives.
These initiatives include:
The Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP). ASAP enhances
safety by encouraging the voluntary reporting of regulatory
non-conformance by our employees. The program is non-punitive
and results in our Operations and Safety departments being able
to gather information on potential Safety issues that we might
not have known about were it not for the ASAP program. With
this information, we have the ability to spot trends that could
lead to Safety lapses. As more airlines begin using ASAP,
sharing of a broader range of data will benefit us even more.
Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air have expanded this program to
include our Flight Attendants, Mechanics and Dispatchers.
Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA). This is a
partnership among the airlines, the FAA and pilots. It collects
data on what an aircraft did during a flight to identify
potential safety issues and correct them before any Safety-
related events take place.
Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA). This program uses
highly-trained observers riding in cockpit jump seats to
observe and evaluate crew performance. The observers record how
flight crews manage various situations they encounter to
maintain Safety. Pinnacle Airlines was the first regional
airline to perform LOSA under FAA, University of Texas and ICAO
standards.
Internal Evaluation Program (IEP). This provides continuous
oversight of the airline's internal procedures and policies for
effectiveness and compliance. The focus is on evaluating
processes in order to anticipate and address potential problem
areas before compliance or Safety issues arise.
The combination of ASAP, FOQA, LOSA, and IEP provides the
cornerstone for our Safety program and will be incorporated into our
overall Safety Management System (SMS). Pinnacle Airlines is in phase
one of the SMS process with the next meeting with FAA and its
consultant set in September. A three-party agreement (Airline, FAA, and
Labor) is crucial for its success.
All Part 121 airlines have at least one or two of these programs in
place, but it is not common to have all four. At Pinnacle Airlines and
Colgan Air, our goal is to prevent accidents and our culture does not
tolerate compromising Safety for economic reasons.
Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air have a philosophy of
continuous improvement.
Pinnacle Airlines has long maintained a high level, systematic
approach to Safety, and with Pinnacle Airline Corp.'s acquisition of
Colgan Air in 2007, this practice has been instilled at Colgan Air as
well. New initiatives at Colgan Air include:
Creating a remedial training and pilot monitoring program
for pilots who have demonstrated difficulty during any phase of
training or online evaluation.
Increasing minimum flight experience requirements for new
pilots and Captain upgrade candidates.
Developing more robust fatigue guidance, including fatigue
recognition and self-discipline for personal rest plans.
Instituting stick pusher demonstrations in a flight
simulator, despite the fact that flight simulator training on
this issue is not required by the FAA and is not standard in
the airline industry.
Enhancing recordkeeping procedures by requiring retention of
paper copies of training and checking failures as a backup to
our electronic records.
Implementing a new automated safety reporting process using
a web-based database and automatic alerts to designated
Directors and Managers.
Increasing Safety Department observations of crew bases,
outstations and jump seat observations.
Evaluating safety reporting systems, including potential use
of new technology such as text messaging for instant reporting
on issues from the field.
For both Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air, the drive for constant
improvement never ceases, and the list of enhancements to our Safety
programs will continue to grow.
Our pilots are carefully screened and highly trained.
Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air pilots meet the same high,
federally-mandated standards as pilots at major air carriers and
undergo a rigorous, multi-tiered evaluation process before they are
hired. About two-thirds of those who are initially contacted for an
interview are not offered a job. The minimum new hire experience
requirement at each airline exceeds FAA requirements.
Colgan Air pilots undergo a thorough evaluation process before they
are accepted into a training program, including testing by a certified
check airman in a full-motion simulator, a step that is not widely-used
in our industry as a component of the hiring process. In order to
become a pilot with our airlines, training candidates must pass all
ground training, simulator training, and checkrides, as well as
background checks in accordance with the PRIA (Pilot Records
Improvement Act). Limitations in the available information attainable
through the current PRIA program have in the past made it difficult for
airlines to review full aviation histories on applicants, and we hope
that improvements suggested by this Subcommittee will include an
expansion of access to prospective pilot records. Until such time as
the PRIA program is expanded, Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air require
all new applicants to bring all training records with them for their
interview and agree to have their records verified through the Freedom
of Information Act.
Pilots flying for Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air undergo thorough
training programs which are fully approved by the FAA and normally
exceed minimum requirements. For example, both Pinnacle Airlines and
Colgan Air provide enhanced stall and upset recovery training. We also
provide expanded training curriculums that include enhanced training in
maneuvering, handling emergencies and mountainous terrain operations.
We have initiatives in place to provide mentoring of new hires as well
as crew-pairing to match experienced pilots with less-experienced ones.
Our training uses state-of the-art equipment such as the full-motion
Level D simulators, flight management system trainers and ground flight
simulators.
Compensation of our pilots is in line with industry
standards.
Our Captains at Pinnacle Airlines have, on average, over 6,900
hours of flight time while our Captains at Colgan Air average over
5,300 hours of flight time. Every Captain has an Airline Transport
Pilot (ATP) rating, which is the highest level of pilot certification
available. All pilots are ``type rated'' on the specific aircraft they
fly, and all ratings are issued by the FAA.
When I arrived at Pinnacle Airlines 12 years ago, our average
Captain salary was approximately $36,000. Today, at both Pinnacle
Airlines and Colgan Air, our Captains earn an average of over $64,000
per year, and our First Officers earn an average of over $24,000 per
year plus per diem allowances.\1\ These average salaries, as well as
starting salaries, are consistent with the regional airline sector.
While starting base salaries for co-pilots may seem low, they must be
viewed in the context of many other professions where higher salaries
are achieved through progressive levels of responsibility. Also, our
pilots' wages are subject to the collective bargaining process and are
negotiated with our pilot groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2008 data.
I want the Subcommittee to know that our policies require
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rested and fit flight crews.
Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air carefully follow the duty and rest
time regulations of the FAA. An automated crew scheduling system tracks
duty time and ensures compliance with duty limitations and rest
requirements in compliance with FAA regulations.
Crew schedules are developed to provide ample rest between duty
days and periodic extended rest periods. For example, after a three or
four consecutive day duty period, a pilot may have 4 or 5 days off.
Such schedules are desirable for pilots in order to achieve those
consecutive days of rest, and airlines want their pilots to have those
days off to be ready for their next assignment.
Monthly schedules are determined well in advance of the beginning
of each month, which helps pilots be ready for their next assignment.
Due to delays from weather or air traffic control or other
irregularities beyond the airline's control, duty days do occasionally
extend beyond the scheduled pairing times. Although 16-hour duty days
are legal under FAA regulations, they are never assigned by Pinnacle
Airlines or Colgan Air.
Our pilots are professionals and know the importance of proper
rest. However, if a pilot does experience fatigue, the pilot has the
ability to remove himself or herself from duty without facing punitive
action from the airline. Simply stated, our fatigue policy is this: If
you are fatigued, you do not fly. A pilot declaring fatigue will be
excused from duty, and is asked to provide a report of the fatigue
event which will only go to the Safety Department. The Safety
Department in turn tracks the reports of fatigue for trend analysis in
the development of our Fatigue Risk Management program. No pilot is
punished in any way for declaring that he or she is too fatigued to
fly.
Finally, let me emphasize that Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan
Air have appropriate commuting policies.
Throughout the entire airline industry, many pilots and flight
attendants choose to live in communities other than where they are
based. This is not unique to the regional airlines. The ability to live
virtually anywhere one desires has long been an attraction for the
airline profession, and crewmembers who elect to do so are free to live
wherever they wish, provided they comply with all the requirements of
their job. We do not, nor does any other airline in our country,
regulate where any employee may choose to live. We do, however, expect
our pilots, flight attendants, and all of our employees to present
themselves fit for duty, regardless of where they reside. Commuting
crewmembers have various options available to them for residence while
at their base, including shared apartments, and we expect they will
make suitable arrangements to ensure they always have proper rest
before reporting for duty. Often these shared accommodations are
minimal because crewmembers will only spend a few nights each month
residing there, while the bulk of their duty days allow overnight stays
away from the base in a company-paid hotel room. Commuting crewmembers
will share residences for the time they are on duty, then return to
their homes for their multiple days off. This practice is common for
pilots and flights attendants at all carriers and at all levels of
compensation.
We realize that commuting pilots sometimes encounter difficulties
getting to work in time for their rest and their assignment. Therefore,
we offer these pilots an option to call their airline in advance when
they know they will not be able to report on time. This commuting
policy aids the airline by ensuring it has ample time to reassign a
flight to a reserve pilot, and also aids the pilot in knowing that he
or she can notify the company of a missed assignment without facing any
punitive action. Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air hire professional
pilots who have an obligation to continuously maintain the exacting
standards of their profession. We expect that these highly-trained men
and women will use their rest periods wisely, prepare themselves for
their flight assignments accordingly, and advise us if they are unable
to perform their duties reliably.
There is no substitute for an airline's total commitment to Safety
or the dedication of all crewmembers in the air and on the ground to
upholding the highest professional standards at all times.
In closing, I want to assure this Subcommittee and the flying
public that Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air will continue to make
safety the highest priority and will aggressively seek to identify ways
in which we can improve our operations and ensure that we operate the
safest possible airlines. Again, I accept the responsibility for the
Safety of all Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air customers and am fully
committed to ensuring that our Airlines are recognized as leaders in
airline Safety.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for continuing
the dialogue on these critical issues. I welcome any questions you may
have.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Trenary, thank you very much. Am I
pronouncing your name correctly?
Mr. Trenary. Yes sir.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much for your testimony. We
appreciate your being here today.
Mr. Bowler, is President and Chief Executive Officer of
American Eagle Airlines.
And, Mr. Bowler, thank you for being with us. You may
proceed.
STATEMENT OF PETER M. BOWLER, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC.
Mr. Bowler. Chairman Dorgan, Members of the Subcommittee,
my name is Peter Bowler, and I am the President and Chief
Executive Officer of American Eagle Airlines, based in Fort
Worth, Texas. I am responsible for American Eagle and Executive
Airlines, two regional airlines that constitute the vast
majority of the American Airlines regional network.
As a follow-up to Mr. Trenary's comments, let me also state
that I and my colleagues at American Eagle and American
Airlines offer our sympathies to the families and the loved
ones of those lost on flight 3407.
American Airlines, American Eagle Airlines, and Executive
Airlines are all wholly owned by AMR Corporation. Every day,
12,000 of my highly trained and experienced American Eagle and
Executive colleagues operate approximately 1,500 flights to
nearly 160 cities across the United States, Canada, Mexico, the
Bahamas, and the Caribbean. We fly a fleet of modern regional
jets and large turboprop aircraft.
From an organizational perspective, I report directly to
Gerard Arpey, the Chairman, President, and Chief Executive of
both AMR Corporation and American Airlines. I work closely
with, and sit on, the Executive Committee of American Airlines,
which is the senior executive group that meets weekly to decide
policy and make various operational decisions. My senior staff
and I meet regularly with Mr. Arpey, and we discuss safety
issues at each of these meetings. Periodically, I brief the
American Airlines Executive Committee and also the AMR Board of
Directors on the performance of, and strategic issues related
to, American Eagle.
American Eagle has an autonomous safety department that
reports directly to me. Eagle's Vice President of Safety,
Captain Ric Wilson, a highly experienced pilot, holds an AVP
mechanic's license and has undergone extensive training in
aviation safety practices. Captain Wilson is responsible for
managing Eagle's various safety programs. He also interacts
closely and frequently with his counterparts at American, his
fellow American Eagle executives, the FAA, the NTSB, and the
other Federal agencies with safety-related oversight
responsibility. Captain Wilson and I meet or speak on a daily
basis, and he has access to me 24 hours-a-day.
American and American Eagle are headquartered in the same
corporate offices in Fort Worth, and we share best practices on
a regular basis. The safety departments of both carriers meet
formally on a quarterly basis and much more frequently on an
informal basis. We coordinate as much as possible with each
other while still respecting that each carrier has its own
operating certificate and that each carrier is monitored,
audited, and assessed individually by the FAA.
An example of the transparency of activities between Eagle
and American is the fact that the Vice Presidents of Safety at
both American and American Eagle meet regularly with American's
general counsel to review safety programs and initiatives.
American Eagle has committed significant resources to the
creation of a companywide safety culture. We have voluntarily
adopted numerous safety programs for our flight crews, our
ground personnel, our managers, and frontline airport
employees. The programs range from comprehensive self-
evaluation programs to internal audits to an aviation safety
action program, which has been in place now since early this
decade for our pilots, but which also covers our mechanics, our
dispatchers, and soon will cover our flight attendants, as
well.
We perform line observation safety audits (LOSAs), we
participate in the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and
Sharing Program coordinated by the FAA, as well as a number of
employee injury-reduction programs.
We are ready to go with a Flight Observation Quality
Assurance, or FOQA program, and we are awaiting final FAA
signoff to commence that program.
The FAA is currently considering making many of these
programs mandatory, and we fully support this initiative.
I'm extremely proud of the aviation professionals at
American Eagle, and I believe we have the most experienced
pilots, in particular in the regional industry. On average, our
pilots have over 10 years of company seniority. Our captains
average 16 years of seniority and 13,000 hours of flight time
with our company. Our first officers average more than 4 years
of seniority and over 4,000 hours of total flight time.
We have a well-established fatigue policy included in our
flight manual that not only enables but requires pilots to
remove themselves from flights they do not feel fit to fly.
Further, we have a fatigue review board, consisting of a
management pilot and a member of the Airline Pilots Association
who reviews conditions surrounding our fatigue events.
We are confident that we operate an extremely safe airline;
however, we are also cognizant that we can never be complacent.
We are continuously striving to improve upon what is already an
extremely safe operation.
Thank you again for the opportunity to join you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bowler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter M. Bowler, President and CEO,
American Eagle Airlines, Inc.
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member DeMint, members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Peter Bowler and I am President and CEO of
American Eagle Airlines, Inc., based in Fort Worth, Texas. I am
responsible for American Eagle Airlines and Executive Airlines, two
regional airlines that constitute the vast majority of the American
Airlines regional network.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to be with you today to
testify about the relationship between American Eagle and our network
carrier partner, American Airlines. In the next few minutes I'd like to
explain how the two airlines are structured, how our employees work
together, and tell you a little about our principal safety programs.
American Airlines, American Eagle and Executive Airlines are wholly
owned by AMR Corporation. The 12,000 employees of American Eagle and
Executive Airlines operate approximately 1,500 flights each day to
nearly 160 cities across the U.S., in Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas and
the Caribbean. We fly a fleet of modern regional jets and large turbo-
prop aircraft.
From an organizational perspective, I report directly to Gerard
Arpey, the Chairman, President and CEO of both AMR Corporation and
American Airlines. I sit on the Executive Committee of American
Airlines, which is the senior executive group that meets weekly to
decide policy and make various operational decisions. I interact
closely with my American colleagues on various aspects of the
operations of both airlines. Periodically, I brief the American
Airlines Executive Committee and the AMR Board of Directors on the
performance of--and strategic issues related to--American Eagle.
American Eagle has a autonomous Safety Department that reports
directly to me, rather than an operating executive. Eagle's Vice
President of Safety, Captain Ric Wilson, a highly-experienced pilot,
holds an A&P Mechanics license and has undergone extensive training on
aviation safety practices.
Captain Wilson is responsible for managing various safety programs.
He also interacts closely and frequently with his counterparts at
American, his fellow American Eagle executives, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB),
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and other
agencies with safety-related oversight responsibilities. Captain Wilson
and I meet or speak on a daily basis and he has access to me 24 hours-
a-day.
American and American Eagle are headquartered in the same corporate
offices in Fort Worth and we share best practices on a regular basis.
The safety departments of both carriers meet quarterly and more
frequently as events warrant. We coordinate as much as possible with
each other while respecting that each carrier has its own operating
certificate. The Vice Presidents of Safety at American and at American
Eagle also regularly review Eagle's safety programs with AMR's General
Counsel.
American Eagle has committed significant resources to the creation
of a safety culture across all aspects of the company. We have adopted
voluntarily numerous safety programs for our flight crews, our ground
personnel, our managers and front-line airport employees.
American Eagle was one of the first regional airlines to implement
an Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) covering our pilots. The
program has been in active use since 2001 and has been a great source
of information on how to improve and modify our training, procedures
and manuals. In subsequent years, we have implemented ASAP programs
covering our mechanics and flight dispatch employees and we are
awaiting FAA approval to implement a program this Fall covering our
flight attendants.
We have had an active Line Observation Safety Audit (LOSA) program
in place for at least 8 years. The LOSA program ensures that our flight
crews operate our aircraft consistent with Federal Aviation Regulations
(FARs), our Flight Manuals and our training guidelines. During audited
flights, qualified observers collect data about pilot and flight
attendant behavior, situational factors, and any safety-related issues
that may arise during the flight. The results of the audits are
analyzed and used to improve training practices, policies and
procedures.
American Eagle also is a member of the FAA-sponsored Aviation
Safety Information Analysis and Sharing program (ASIAS), which aims to
discover systemic safety issues that span multiple operators, fleets
and regions of the Nation's air transportation system.
We are awaiting FAA concurrence to implement a Flight Operations
Quality Assurance program (FOQA). To date, Quick Access data recorders
have been installed on many of our aircraft. Contracts have been signed
with an industry-leading vendor to do the analysis on the data those
recorders will provide. We have also reached agreement with the Air
Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and local FAA officials on the use of
this data. FOQA will identify potentially dangerous trends and issues
so that we can make changes to our training, our procedures and our
manuals.
I am proud of the fact that Eagle's Vice President of Flight
Operations, Captain Jim Winkley, is a member of the Aviation Rulemaking
Committee (ARC) currently meeting on the topic of flight and duty time
regulations for commercial aviation as directed by newly-appointed FAA
Administrator Randy Babbitt.
In other areas we have gone above and beyond Federal safety
standards. For example, we have expanded our sterile cockpit policy
above the minimum standards and we schedule our flight crew members
above the regulatory requirements. This includes overnight rest periods
and length of duty days.
All of our flight crew members are scheduled under FAR Part 121,
including repositioning and ferry flights. We also have published a
fatigue policy in our Flight Manual Part 1 and we hold monthly Fatigue
Review Board meetings with ALPA to review events and schedules that led
to crewmembers calling in for work saying they were too fatigued to
fly.
A critical aspect of our flight safety program is the training
received by our pilots. As of mid-July, American Eagle had 2,376
pilots. They are among the most experienced and well-trained pilots in
the industry. Our Captains average 16 years of company seniority and
our First Officers average 4 years. The average American Eagle Captain
has more than 13,000 hours of flight time and our average First Officer
has more than 4,900 flight hours.
American Eagle pilots and flight attendants are trained at the
American Airlines Flight Academy. Although we have not hired pilots
since Spring 2008, all pilots we hire must have a commercial pilot
certificate or greater with Airplane Multi-Engine land ratings and an
Instrument Airplane rating.
A new-hire pilot receives 40 hours of classroom instruction on
company policies and procedures, including aircraft performance, pilot
flight time and rest requirements, Crew Resource Management, and
compliance with FARs. They also receive 130 hours of classroom and
computer-based instruction on aircraft systems and emergency training.
Our flight training is conducted in full-flight simulators and, in
some cases, an airplane. Pilots receive 38 hours of training and
testing as well as 22.5 hours of pre- and post-flight briefings that
involve maneuvers and procedures to be covered in the simulator and
debriefings on the pilot's performance.
Once flight training is completed, pilots enter the operating
experience phase of the training program. A new-hire pilot is assigned
to fly his or her first revenue flights with a check airman, a pilot
who is specially-designated by the FAA. The check airman spends on
average 35 hours supervising and assisting the pilot so that he/she may
become accustomed to the FAR Part 121 commercial airline operating
environment.
In total, a newly-hired pilot will spend more than 265 hours in
training, satisfying each training phase prior to proceeding to the
next step, and is subjected to multiple tests before being allowed to
operate our airplanes in revenue service with a line Captain. Failure
to satisfactorily complete any phase of training will end that pilots
employment with the company.
We continually adjust our training program based on feedback from
our ASAP and LOSA programs and soon plan to incorporate findings from
our FOQA program.
American Eagle pilots also undergo extensive training for flying in
known icing conditions. Our manuals also contain clear guidance
regarding ice protection systems operation, which exceeds what the
aircraft manufacturer provides as well as that required by FARs.
First-time Captains attend a Captain's Duties and Responsibilities
course. It focuses on the transition to being the pilot-in-command of a
FAR Part 121 aircraft. We also conduct simulator training on events
that flight crew members may experience such as Controlled Flight into
Terrain avoidance scenarios and Unusual Altitude Recovery Techniques.
I would also like to note for the Subcommittee that American Eagle
pilots undergo 28.5 hours worth of recurrent pilot training annually.
Unlike most of our regional partners, American Eagle has invested
in a state-of-the-art electronic weight and balance system (EWBS). This
system uses computer-based automation to ensure aircraft weight and
balance limitations are never exceeded during any phase of the
operation. The pilot closeout release will not appear in the cockpit
until all required parameters are satisfied, therefore preventing an
improperly loaded aircraft from departing the gate.
The training for our 1,713 American Eagle and Executive flight
attendants takes place in the same facility as that used by American
Airlines to train its flight attendants. Each new hire flight attendant
must complete a 23-day safety-based training course. Eagle flight
attendants are trained on both fleet types--Embraer and Canadair--and
flight attendants at Executive Airlines are trained on the ATR. All
flight attendants must also complete 2 days of recurrent training every
year.
In addition to sharing training facilities, American Eagle is
working with American Airlines to develop an Advanced Qualification
Program (AQP) for flight attendants that offers proficiency-based
training and encourages experiential learning instead of lectures. It
also integrates TSA requirements into training modules and evaluates
crews and flight attendants using scenarios that incorporate technical
and crew resource management challenges.
From a Maintenance and Engineering (M&E) standpoint, Eagle
airplanes are maintained by Eagle employees at maintenance bases under
our control and we operate under a Continuous Analysis and Surveillance
System (CASS) to monitor the quality of our maintenance and make
modifications as needed.
I'm proud to note that American Eagle's maintenance facilities and
personnel provide a level of quality that was recognized by the FAA in
2007 with the awarding of the Gold Employers Certificate of Excellence
Award for the commitment we've made to train our employees.
We also train our ground employees when they are first hired and
they receive additional training throughout the year. New hires must
complete 40 hours of training before working on the ramp. American
Eagle employees also ground handle American Airlines at 14 airports and
we also have contracts with other mainline and regional carriers to
perform ground handling services at airports around the country.
In addition to American, our other codeshare partners also conduct
periodic on-site audits of our operations, as does the U.S. Department
of Defense as a part of our Military Air Transport Agreement. Of
course, we also undergo audits conducted by the FAA, OSHA and TSA.
Additionally, we developed and now use an extensive internal audit
system called an Internal Evaluation Program (IEP). There is no
regulatory requirement for an IEP; however, the FAA has encouraged the
use of such a program. An IEP helps us refine our management systems
and processes to ensure effectiveness and efficiency and that we meet
internal quality and external regulatory standards.
In closing, I would like to underscore that both American and
American Eagle fully support the leadership of the FAA in its efforts
to insure one level of safety for all air carriers--mainlines as well
as regionals. We also believe mandatory participation in FOQA, ASAP and
ASIAS by all Part 121 carriers will further enhance the one level of
safety concept.
By virtue of being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the same company as
our partner airline, American Eagle is in a relatively unique position.
We recognize that on every American Eagle flight the reputation, of not
only Eagle, but of American Airlines, is at stake. Although we are
confident that we operate an extremely safe airline, with thousands of
highly-trained, experienced and dedicated employees, we also recognize
that we can never be complacent. We are continuously striving to
improve upon what is an extremely safe operation.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would
be happy to answer any questions that the Chairman or Members of the
Subcommittee might have.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Bowler--excuse me, Mr. Bowler, thank
you very much.
Captain Don Gunther is next. He's the Vice President for
Safety at Continental Airlines.
Mr. Gunther, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN DON GUNTHER, VICE PRESIDENT; SAFETY,
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.
Captain Gunther. Chairman Dorgan, Senators, good morning.
My name is Don Gunther, and I am Captain and the Vice President
of Safety for Continental Airlines.
I served as an Active-Duty pilot for the United States Navy
for 6 years, and I am a retired reservist. I have flown for
Continental Airlines for 32 years. I have qualified on the
Boeing 727, DC-10, and the Boeing 737, 757, 767, and I'm
currently qualified, and still fly, the Boeing 777.
On behalf of my over-40,000 colleagues at Continental
Airlines, it is an honor to testify today before this committee
on one of the most critical and challenging topics in aviation:
safety.
Before I go further, I'd like to share with you how deeply
saddened the extended Continental family was by the Colgan Air
accident that occurred near Buffalo earlier this year. Whenever
there is an aviation accident, here or abroad, all aviation
professionals worldwide grieve for the loss of the victims, the
impact on their families, and the impact on our own personnel.
I have three points to make today, and then I will be happy
to answer your questions.
First, we at Continental are committed to air travel
safety. This is not a finite goal, it is a dynamic process that
requires all players to strive toward continuous improvement.
This continuous improvement is one of the essential elements of
an effective safety management system known as SMS.
Second, Continental recognizes the leadership and oversight
role of the Federal Aviation Administration in promoting and
ensuring airline safety. There should be one regulatory
standard to safety, and it should apply to all carriers. To
ensure that level of safety, the FAA is the regulatory body
responsible for overseeing every aspect of safety of every U.S.
airline--regional, mainline, or network.
Third, Continental appreciates the opportunity to share
some of its thoughts with this committee on how the safety bar
can be raised. I will address those opportunities later in this
testimony.
When it comes to establishing a commercial relationship
with a regional carrier, the first step for a network carrier
is to confirm that that carrier has a current operating
certificate from the FAA, because we recognize the FAA's
authority as the body responsible for determining the carrier's
fitness to fly safely, authorizing the carrier's operation, and
promoting and enforcing government safety standards.
Continental also obtains reviews--safety audits--performed
by qualified independent entities, to learn more about a
regional carrier. These include the International Air Transport
Association's Operational Safety Audit, known as IOSA. The
successful completion of an IOSA audit is considered a very
good indication of a carrier's safe operations.
Second, the DOD survey, which is an audit performed by the
military under the Secretary of Defense to ensure safety
compliance of airlines that transport military personnel.
Striving to improve safety is the common goal of everyone
in the airline industry. The aviation community appreciated the
Administrator's June Call to Action and his leadership in
asking that all carriers reaffirm their commitment to safety.
We believe the Call to Action, in combination with this
committee's safety provisions found in the FAA reauthorization
bill, will produce meaningful results on key topics, such as
pilot records, pilot professionalism, and flight and duty time.
The Senate's FAA reauthorization bill also contains several
key elements that will enhance safety. We applaud the Chairman
and the Committee for mandating ASAP, FOQA, LOSA, and AQP.
These and the other FAA voluntary safety programs provide a
wealth of data that give the industry more predictive
information that comes from day-to-day operations.
If we were to leave the Committee with one suggestion, it
would be to ensure the availability of FAA voluntary safety
programs across the industry through financial support and
legislative protections.
In 1997, the FAA sponsored the FOQA demonstration project
for air carriers with an FAA approved program, which included
one regional carrier. This program included funding for the
initial FOQA equipment and helped to establish a proactive
approach to data-driven safety change. A similar approach to
reach additional carriers would be equally effective.
ASAP reports provide critical data to airlines who seek to
adjust their operations or training programs to enhance safety,
but ASAP reports should be protected data, available to a court
only under protective order. In the Comair case, once the word
got out that ASAP reports might become part of the trial
record, we saw an immediate drop-off in pilot reports. Thus,
proactive safety enhancements were inhibited.
Mr. Chairman, let me end where I began. I'm a Captain at
Continental Airlines, proud of my profession, and proud to
spend every day of my career striving to improve safety of what
is recognized to be the safest form of transport today. Safety
is our shared goal. We look forward to working with you to
improve safety as we go forward.
Thank you for your time and attention, and I'm happy to
answer questions at this time.
[The prepared statement of Captain Gunther follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain Don Gunther, Vice President; Safety,
Continental Airlines, Inc.
Good Morning. My name is Don Gunther and I am a Captain and the
Vice President of Safety for Continental Airlines. I served as an
active duty pilot in the United States Navy for 6 years, and I am now a
retired Navy Reservist. I have flown for Continental Airlines for 32
years. I have qualified on the B-727, DC-10, B-737, B-757, B-767 and I
am currently qualified on and still fly the B-777. And on behalf of my
over 40,000 colleagues at Continental Airlines, it is an honor to
testify today before this Committee on one of the most critical and
challenging topics in aviation--safety.
Before I go further, I'd like to share with you all how deeply
saddened the extended Continental family was by the Colgan Air accident
that occurred near Buffalo earlier this year. Whenever there is an
aviation accident here or abroad, all aviation professionals worldwide
grieve for the loss of the victims, the impact on their families and
the impact on our own personnel.
I have three points to make today and then I will be happy to
answer your questions.
1. We at Continental are committed to air travel safety. This
is not a finite goal--it is a dynamic process that requires all
players to strive toward continuous improvement. This
``continuous improvement'' is one of the essential elements of
an effective Safety Management System (SMS). Continental is
committed to working with all members of the aviation community
to continuously improve the safety of our air transportation
system.
2. Continental recognizes the leadership and oversight role of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in promoting and
ensuring airline safety. Continental understands and embraces
its role as an air carrier certificated by the FAA to comply
with all applicable laws of Congress and regulations of the FAA
diligently, effectively and with commitment to the best
interests of safety. Under the FAA regulatory framework,
network carriers cannot and should not serve as a safety check
for the operations and performance of regional carriers. There
should be one regulatory standard of safety and it should apply
to all carriers. To ensure that level of safety, the FAA is the
regulatory body responsible for overseeing every aspect of the
safety of every U.S. airline--regional, mainline or network.
Continental is committed to partnering with other members of
the aviation community to develop and implement safety
solutions that work within the framework prescribed by the FAA.
To maintain the integrity of our aviation system, however,
network carriers must not usurp the FAA's role by regulating or
overseeing the certification and operations of regional
airlines.
3. Continental appreciates the opportunity to share some of its
thoughts with this Committee on how the safety bar can be
raised. I will address these opportunities later in the
testimony.
In reviewing the testimony delivered by other witnesses before this
Committee earlier this year, the DOT Inspector General said it best
with the comment, ``Safety is a shared responsibility among FAA,
aircraft manufacturers, airlines and airports. Together, all four form
a series of overlapping controls to keep the system safe.''
At Continental we agree. Aviation professionals--whether they are
employed by the government, the airlines, the manufacturers or the
airports--come to work every day focused on a purpose--to assure
employee safety and the safe passage of every aircraft and every
airline passenger 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week, 365 days-a-year.
Continental recognizes that even one fatality in an aviation
accident is one too many. This recognition should not diminish our
understanding of the many accomplishments and safety improvements that
have been achieved in air transportation. The airline safety record
compares favorably to other modes of transportation. Since 1938, when
the government began keeping records of aviation accidents, the very
worst year for airline fatalities was 1974, with 460 deaths recorded.
By contrast, more than 40,000 people die each year in highway
accidents. According to the National Safety Council, which publishes an
annual report on accidental deaths in the United States and measures
passenger deaths per 100 million passenger miles, airlines are
consistently the safest mode of intercity travel, followed by bus, rail
and automobile. This record speaks for itself.
Of course, the primary issue of the hearing today is not to
determine whether the system is safe, but rather to examine the
relationship between network carriers and regional carriers. The
primary responsibility for airline safety regulation, for both network
and regional carriers, lies with the FAA. Carriers are responsible for
complying with all applicable laws of Congress and FAA regulations. The
FAA's major safety functions include reviewing the design, manufacture
and maintenance of aircraft, setting minimum standards for crew
training, establishing operational requirements for airlines and
airports and conducting safety-related research and development. In
short, the FAA sets the safety standards for all airlines, and all
airlines are each individually responsible for ensuring their own
compliance.
But, as the DOT IG pointed out in his statement to the Committee
earlier this year, the FAA does not get its safety job done without
extensive collaboration from other partners. Government and industry
officials commonly work together to address recognized safety problems,
usually through committees or task forces comprised of representatives
of equipment manufacturers, airlines, pilots, mechanics, the FAA and
NASA.
The Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST)--of which I represent
the industry (ATA, RAA, Boeing, ALPA, etc.) and Peggy Gilligan, the FAA
Associate Administrator for Safety, represents the Government (FAA,
NASA, DoD, etc.), is a good example of collaboration within the
aviation community for the benefit of safety. Examples of issues and
activities that have been the object of collaboration for the benefit
of aviation safety include: Aging Aircraft, Collision Avoidance, Wind
Shear, Flammability Factors, Human Factors and Safety Management
Systems (SMS).
Ms. Gilligan and I also co-chair the Aviation Safety Information
and Analysis Sharing (ASIAS) program. ASIAS brings together data from
airline Aviation Safety Action Programs (ASAP) and Flight Operational
Quality Assurance (FOQA) programs with FAA data and other data from
public sources. Currently these data are aggregated and analyzed by the
MITRE Corporation and CAST has used this analysis to develop Industry
Safety Enhancements. ASIAS includes data from both mainline and
regional carriers and is a monumental step forward in data-driven
safety change.
When it comes to regional carriers, the first step is to confirm
that the carrier has a current operating certificate from the FAA
because we recognize the FAA's authority as the body responsible for
determining the carrier's fitness to fly safely, authorizing the
carrier's operation, and promoting and enforcing government safety
standards.
Continental also obtains and reviews safety audits performed by
qualified independent entities to learn more about a regional carrier.
These include:
The International Air Transport Association's (IATA)
Operational Safety Audit (``IOSA''). The successful completion
of an IOSA Audit is considered a very good indication of a
carrier's safe operations.
The DOD Survey, which is an audit performed by the military
under the Secretary of Defense to ensure safety compliance of
airlines that transport military personnel.
Other network carrier audits conducted using internally
developed checklists, which are traditionally derived from IOSA
standards. These audits may occur by an individual carrier or
using shared resources when a regional operator partners with
more than one network carrier.
Continental communicates regularly with regional carriers and
follows up on any notice it receives of safety or operational concerns
relating to regional carriers.
We in the aviation community appreciate the opportunity to discuss
real issues and challenges in our industry. This Committee and the FAA
have taken significant and constructive steps toward improving safety
in the aftermath of the Colgan Airlines accident.
Striving to improve safety is the common goal of everyone in the
airline industry. The aviation community appreciated the
Administrator's June ``call to action'', and his leadership in asking
that all carriers reaffirm their safety commitment. Continental has and
will continue to do so. We believe the ``call to action'' will produce
meaningful results on key topics such as pilot records, pilot
professionalism and flight and duty time. Continental participated in
the first meeting here in Washington in June and will be participating
in the subsequent ``road shows'' that are scheduled to take place
around the country this summer.
Furthermore, Continental is an active participant in the FAA's
Advisory Rulemaking Committee (ARC) on Flight, Duty and Rest
Requirements. We remain committed to the Administrator's stated goal
that we should have a proposal ready by Labor Day and are actively
attending all sessions and contributing to the final product. We are
optimistic that the ARC will embrace SMS as a basis for moving forward
with flight and duty time regulations. SMS is an overarching philosophy
under which all functions of airline management take an active role in
contributing toward safety awareness, education, cost justification,
resource allocation and conservation, product reliability and overall
performance.
The FAA Reauthorization Bill, which you and your colleagues
introduced just a few weeks ago, contains several critical elements
that will enhance safety. We applaud the Chairman and the Committee for
mandating ASAP, FOQA, LOSA and AQP. These, and the other FAA voluntary
safety programs, provide a wealth of data that give the industry more
``predictive'' information that comes from day-to-day operations.
Continental Airlines already has all of the FAA voluntary safety
programs in place and we are proud of the work that we do with our ALPA
coworkers and the FAA to make sure the data collected through these
programs enhances training and operations to improve the level of
safety at Continental.
Success stories using FOQA and ASAP data to drive safety change
occur on a regular basis at Continental. I would like to share with you
one Continental experience that shows the power of this proactive
approach to reducing risk. Initially, both FOQA and ASAP data indicated
that a small number of our crews were not following the Traffic
Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) commands to climb or descend. Even
though the numbers of crews not following the TCAS commands were low,
the risk was assessed as high by members of the Flight Operations
Safety Action Team, which includes members from Flight Operations,
Training, ALPA Safety and FAA personal from our local office. The
decision was made to enhance TCAS training in both ground school and
simulator training. Following this training, the data showed near-
perfect compliance by the Continental flight crews. This issue and its
implemented solution occurred 18 months prior to a tragic mid-air
collision (not involving Continental) over Germany due in part to TCAS
compliance issues on the part of a crew. In other words, the predictive
data we obtained through FOQA and ASAP allowed us to identify a trend,
make a change in training and follow-up with ongoing monitoring for
compliance--clearly a successful outcome for all parties.
If we were to leave the Committee with one suggestion, it would be
to ensure the availability of FAA voluntary safety programs across the
industry through financial support and legislative protections. In
1997, the FAA sponsored the FOQA Demonstration Project for air carriers
with an FAA approved program, which included only one regional carrier.
This program included funding for the initial FOQA equipment and helped
to establish a proactive approach to data-driven safety change. A
similar approach to reach additional carriers would be equally
effective. After the COMAIR accident in Lexington several years ago,
attempts were made to use ASAP reports as evidence in the trial. ASAP
reports provide critical data to airlines who seek to adjust their
operations or training programs to enhance safety. But ASAP reports
should be protected data available to a court only under a protective
order--in the COMAIR case, once the word got out that the ASAP reports
might become part of the trial record, we saw an immediate drop off in
pilot reports, thus proactive safety enhancements were inhibited.
Mr. Chairman, let me end where I began. I am a Captain at
Continental Airlines--proud of my profession and proud to spend every
day of my career striving to improve the safety of what is recognized
to be the safest form of transport today. Safety is our shared goal,
and it is why I am here today. We remain firmly committed to the
collaborative process that we believe yields the most positive results
to help this industry prevent the next accident. We look forward to
working with you to improve safety going forward. Thank you for your
time and attention, and I am happy to answer questions at this time.
Senator Dorgan. Captain Gunther, thank you very much for
being here.
And, finally, we will hear from Captain Dickson, who is a
Senior Vice President for Flight Operations at Delta Air Lines.
Captain Dickson?
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN STEPHEN M. DICKSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
FLIGHT OPERATIONS, DELTA AIR LINES
Captain Dickson. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you and the Committee for holding this hearing.
All of us in the airline industry have as our first
responsibility the task of getting you and all of our customers
to their destinations safely. It's a straightforward goal, but
underlying it is a complex set of processes that have been
developed over time and provide a remarkable platform for
success in the U.S. aviation industry.
Delta currently operates more than 2,500 mainline flights
per day and 3,500 per day through our nine regional operators,
all under the umbrella of Delta Connection. We continuously
monitor all 6,000 flights, as safety in this industry is not a
competitive issue for us, but, rather, a collaborative one,
where we share best practices with each other as a routine
matter. We all feel the loss when an accident occurs.
This hearing's letter of invitation reminds us that we must
continually examine and constantly improve aviation safety. At
Delta, we are continuously driving enhancements to our safety
programs, not only for our mainline operations, but with all
nine of our regional affiliates at Delta Connection.
Oversight plays a critical role in aviation safety.
Congressional, administrative, and internal oversight all
continue to drive home the simple objective that safety is
first. Delta supports and strongly endorses Administrator
Babbitt's call to action, and we are working with the FAA on
the important initiatives outlined therein.
And I would now like to address the three areas that the
FAA has asked each of us to review, beginning with the Pilot
Records Improvement Act.
Delta has a long-standing practice of requiring pilot
applicants to complete the PRIA check prior to hiring and
training, and to provide privacy waivers that allow us to
perform thorough background and performance checks. This
includes the voluntary disclosure of FAA records, as well as
any information regarding any accidents, incidents, or
violations, including pending investigations.
We perform an extensive review of applications, based on 20
competitive factors. The applicant then completes an in-depth
interview and testing process, which measures complex problem-
solving skills, personality characteristics, and cockpit fit.
Successful candidates proceed to a medical exam,
psychological evaluation, and a cognitive test that evaluates
the individuals' ability to multitask in the cockpit.
Delta Connection carrier pilot hiring processes are all
conducted by the certificateholder under Part 121, and those
processes are regulated and inspected by the FAA.
Second is FOQA and ASAP. Delta has existing ASAP and FOQA
programs. These programs have been expanded beyond pilots to
include dispatch, maintenance and load planners, covering
nearly 20,000 of our employees. Our data analysis process
supporting all these programs is strong, with closed-loop
processes that directly provide feedback to the appropriate
training programs. Today these multiple data sources allow us
to identify and analyze trends and achieve the goal of a
proactive safety management system. While these programs are
deemed voluntary, we work with our regional carriers to ensure
they successfully implement and manage these enhancements. We
believe all of our regional carrier partners should have FOQA,
ASAP, IOSA, and DOD certifications.
The third area is regional carrier oversight. At Delta, we
ensure that our nine regional carrier partners have robust
operations and safety programs. It's our job to set the
standards. Under the DOT and FAA regulatory system, each
regional carrier has the responsibility to manage its own Part
121 operations. Therefore, we do not and cannot directly manage
our regional partners' safety and quality issues. However, we
do go to great lengths to ensure they have a solid safety
record and fully comply with all regulations.
Moreover, we believe the oversight function is so important
that two of our senior officers at Delta, both of whom report
to Delta's Chief Operating Officer, directly oversee our
regional partners' operations and safety programs. The Delta
Connection carriers have committed to achieving the highest
levels of safety in accordance with our standards. We're
requiring all of them to operate with a standard dashboard of
safety metrics similar to those that we use a mainline Delta.
We hold monthly meetings with all connection carriers to review
operational and safety performance.
Finally, I want to add that, while the airline industry has
the best safety record of any mode of transportation, even one
avoidable accident is too many. As we're sitting here, the FAA
has commenced a call-to-action conference in Atlanta today, and
until I received your invitation a few days ago, I had planned
to lead our delegation at that event.
We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman and this
Committee, as well as the Administrator, to see that necessary
upgrades to our safety programs are made. Our customers, our
industry, and our Nation deserve nothing less.
And finally, in closing, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to note and
acknowledge the presence of Captain Lee Moak, our ALPA MEC
Chairman, along with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of our nine
regional partners, who have joined us, in a collaborative
spirit today, on aviation safety.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Captain Dickson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain Stephen M. Dickson, Senior Vice
President, Flight Operations, Delta Air Lines
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the Ranking Member for
holding this hearing. All of us in the airline industry have as our
first responsibility every day and on every flight--to get you and all
of our customers to their destinations safely. We know our customers
also want to arrive on time and on schedule, but first and foremost,
safely. It is a straightforward goal, but underlying that objective is
a complex set of processes that have been developed over time and
provide a remarkable platform for success in the U.S. aviation
industry.
We also recognize when an accident occurs, it is a true tragedy,
not only for the loved ones and crew members on that flight but for the
entire aviation industry. I have been involved in aviation for over 30
years and in the airline business for almost 20 years. As the Senior
Vice President of Flight Operations and a Delta 767 captain, I am
responsible for Delta's 12,400 pilots flying in the mainline operation.
Additionally, I oversee Delta's day-to-day flight operations, as well
as pilot training, pilot standards, technical support, pilot staffing
and scheduling, as well as our quality assurance/compliance functions.
I also serve on Delta's Operations Council. Prior to joining Delta, I
graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy and flew F-15s in the Air
Force and fully appreciate the importance of high level safety
standards. Today, I am a member of the IATA Operations Committee, serve
as Chairman of the ATA Operations Council, Chairman of the RTCA NextGen
Implementation Task Force and Chair of the Air Traffic Management
Advisory Committee (ATMAC).
Delta currently operates more than 2,500 flights per day as part of
our mainline operation and 3,500 per day through our 9 regional
operators--all under the umbrella of Delta Connection. We continuously
and closely monitor all 6,000 flights per day as safety in this
industry is not a competitive issue for us but rather a collaborative
one where we share best practices with each other as a routine matter.
We all feel the loss when an accident occurs.
The hearing's letter of invitation captured the issue at hand most
succinctly: ``While the U.S. aviation industry is experiencing the
safest period in its history, the tragic accident of Flight 3407 on
February 12, 2009, reminds us that we must continually examine and
constantly improve aviation safety.'' This is absolutely true.
At Delta, we are continuously driving enhancements to our safety
programs not only for our mainline operations but with all nine of our
regional affiliates at Delta Connection. Oversight plays a critical
role in aviation safety--Congressional, Administrative and internal
oversight all continue to drive home the simple objective--safety is
first.
In June, we saw considerable focus on the importance of improving
regional airline safety, including this Committee's hearings, as well
as Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt meeting with carriers and
pilot unions to review specific areas to achieve improvements.
Following the meeting with industry leaders, the Administrator sent a
letter to each carrier seeking policy changes on pilot records. The
letter also announced regional safety forums and asked each carrier to
implement Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) and Aviation
Safety Action Programs (ASAP) (which we have done at Delta and are in
the process of implementing at all Delta Connection carriers). We
support and strongly endorse Administrator Babbitt's actions and are
working with the FAA on these important initiatives.
I want to add that as the Aviation Rulemaking Committee initiative
moves forward, we are working directly with the FAA on safety issues
through a wide web of safety working groups. Delta personnel are active
members on many industry safety groups. This is an ongoing process for
us and for the FAA.
I want to address the three areas that the FAA has asked each of
us to review.
1. Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA) at Delta
Delta has a long-standing practice of requiring pilot applicants to
provide privacy waivers that allow us to perform thorough background
and performance checks. This includes the voluntary disclosure of FAA
records. Delta further requests information regarding any reported or
unreported accidents, incidents or violations, including pending
investigations. We perform an extensive review of applications based on
20 competitive factors, which exceeds FAA requirements (i.e.,
education, prior work experience, etc.). The applicant then completes
an in-depth interview and testing process, which measures complex
problem-solving skills, personality characteristics and cockpit fit.
Successful candidates proceed to a medical exam, psychological
evaluation and a cognitive test suite that evaluates the individual's
ability to multitask in the cockpit.
All newly hired pilots are required to complete the PRIA check
prior to hiring and training. As verification of our process, in 2008,
Delta passed a records review by the FAA of all PRIA checks for 2007
and 2008 new hire pilots. Delta Connection carrier pilot hiring and
training systems are all conducted by the certificateholder in
accordance with Part 121 and those processes are regulated and
inspected by the FAA.
2. FOQA and ASAP at Delta
Delta has existing ASAP and FOQA programs. These programs have been
expanded beyond Pilots and Flight Operations, to include Dispatch,
Maintenance and Load Planners, totaling nearly 20,000 employees.
Particularly, our Delta Connection carriers have safety program
elements such as ASAP and FOQA, as well as IOSA registration, DOD
certification, safety management systems, and special winter operating
programs. While these programs are deemed voluntary under FAA rules, we
work with our regional carriers to ensure they are successful in
implementing, managing and overseeing these enhancements. We believe
all of our regional carrier partners should have FOQA, ASAP, IOSA and
DOD certifications.
Our data analysis process supporting all these programs is strong,
with closed-loop processes that directly provide feedback to the
appropriate training programs. Utilizing our pilot training data and
audits, ASAP, FOQA and employee reports, we understand that no one
system provides a clear picture of an issue but instead combine this
data enabling us to see trends develop. Today, these multiple data
sources allow us to analyze trends and achieve a proactive safety
management system.
3. Regional Carrier Oversight
At Delta, we ensure that the certificated 121 regional carriers
flying as Delta Connection carriers have robust operations and safety
programs. Our nine regional carrier partners represent a substantial
percentage of our available seat miles and it is our job to set the
standards for our carriers. Under the DOT and FAA regulatory system,
each regional carrier has the responsibility under its Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity to manage its Part 121 operations.
That legal responsibility, under our regulatory structure, rests with
the designated leadership of each certificated carrier. Therefore, we
do not, and cannot, directly manage our regional partners' safety and
quality issues. Delta does go to great lengths to ensure that these
carriers flying our passengers have a solid safety record and fully
comply with all Part 121 regulations.
Delta assumes the responsibility to closely monitor all levels of
the operation. In fact, we believe the oversight function is so
important that two of our senior officers, both of who report to
Delta's COO, directly oversee our regional partners' operations and
safety programs. We require our regional partners to fully comply with
Part 121 regulations. In addition, we are requiring all of our regional
partners to operate with FOQA, ASAP, IOSA and DOD Programs and
Standards. We closely oversee their operations by requiring a standard
dashboard of safety metrics and reporting similar to the methodology we
employ at mainline Delta.
Specifically:
A. The Delta Connection Carriers have committed to achieving
the highest levels of safety in accordance with the Delta
standards.
B. The Delta Connection Carriers are implementing a common set
of safety programs and metrics.
C. We hold monthly meetings with all Delta Connection Carriers
to review operational, safety and regulatory performance. Our
standing monthly agenda includes a review of top-level safety
performance metrics that are common among all carriers, review
of safety investigations and our quality audit and safety
reporting programs, review of each carrier's response to FAA
Safety Alerts and discussion on common strategies to mitigate
current industry safety risks.
D. We will include contractual language in our Delta Connection
Airline Services Agreements regarding the operational and
safety requirements to be a Delta Connection Carrier.
Finally, I want to add that while the airline industry has the best
safety record of any mode of transportation, even one avoidable
accident is too many. As we are sitting here, the FAA has commenced a
Call to Action conference in Atlanta today. Delta has sent its key
leadership to the meeting as we all seek to improve safety. In fact,
until I received your invitation a few days ago, I had planned to lead
our delegation at that meeting. We look forward to working with you,
Mr. Chairman, and this Committee, as well as the Administrator, to see
that necessary upgrades to our safety programs are made. Our customers,
our industry and our Nation deserve nothing less.
Senator Dorgan. Captain Dickson, thank you very much for
your testimony.
Mr. Trenary, your company, Pinnacle and Colgan, flies as a
partner for U.S. Airways, United, Northwest, Delta, and
Continental. And it--I guess the question--one of the
overriding questions for me at this hearing is, What
responsibility does a major carrier that employees a regional
carrier by contract have for the standards at that regional
carrier?
I will be flying tomorrow, and when someone asks me, ``What
carrier do you take?'' I'll say, ``Northwest.'' I probably
won't be on Northwest; I'll be on a plane that's painted with
``Northwest'' on it, or ``Delta,'' perhaps. But, I never tell
anybody, when they say, ``What are you flying?'' I say,
``Pinnacle.'' I've never said that, just because, I--you know,
I have a Northwest ticket and are--going back and forth to
North Dakota.
And so, the question is, What are the standards, here, that
Continental would apply to the regional partner, or that United
or Delta would apply to the regional partner, when they employ
either a Pinnacle or a Colgan? And it--the two captains raised
the question, and, I think, answered it, saying--I think
Captain Dickens said--Dickenson--Dickson, rather, said, ``We
cannot, and do not, manage the safety issues of the regional
carriers.'' And I believe, Captain Gunther, you stated that you
didn't believe that network carriers should serve as a safety
check for the operations and performance of the regional
carriers. I think the position is, that's the FAA's job.
My question, though, is, If a network carrier, a major
carrier, is deciding to contract and put their colors and their
brand and their logo on another fuselage, do they not have a
responsibility? And, if so, what is that responsibility, beyond
the FAA, with respect to procedures, training, and so on?
Give the two captains a chance to answer that.
Captain Gunther. Chairman, you're correct, we firmly
believe that the FAA sets the standard, industrywide. But,
additionally, when we look at our regional carriers, besides
the steps I outlined in my opening statement, where we will
look at those third-party audits, make sure they have a
certificate, we do an onsite visit to ensure they have the
processes and controls in place to stay compliant with those
standards. In addition to that--and I will state this; it's
been years--we have been an open door at Continental to show a
carrier our safety programs. The problem is, if I take my
standards, which are based on the FAA standards, and put those
onto another carrier, that carrier may have agreements with
three other major carriers; and if they do the same thing, I
think that may create more of an issue for that carrier. But,
rather, what I would see us do is open up programs that we find
beneficial, ask those carriers to take those programs, see how
they fit into their operation, and develop those. And one thing
I've always said is, ``After you develop those programs--and we
will assist you--bring it back, because there's something you
made better, and we want to share best practices.''
Senator Dorgan. But, that approach represents opportunity,
rather than responsibility, it seems to me.
Captain Dickson, do you want to respond?
Captain Dickson. Mr. Chairman, I think we do have a
responsibility, but it goes beyond what the regulations
require. In other words, as you pointed out very succinctly,
those are Delta passengers on our aircraft, so, from a customer
service prospective, from an operational perspective, and from
a safety perspective, we, at the mainline carrier, certainly
want them to perform to the levels that we have set out for
them. So, there's a distinction between managing individual
programs and requiring that those programs and processes exist.
And as a matter of course, we actually have a tighter co-chair
relationship, in that respect, with our feeder carriers than we
do with our international co-chair partners. Normally we use
the IOSA process to cover that.
Senator Dorgan. I think you'll be asked about the
international issue this morning, as well, perhaps.
But, Mr. Bowler, does American Eagle fly as a regional
carrier for a company other than American?
Mr. Bowler. We do not have any aircraft dedicated to flying
for other mainline carriers. However, in a few of the cities we
serve, we carry other airline codes on our aircraft.
Senator Dorgan. And what's the relationship between
American and American Eagle with respect to the
responsibilities for training and so on? You--is there a
relationship that is different than the other carriers?
Mr. Bowler. Well I think the fact that there is common
ownership--and in my position reporting to the Chief Executive
at American, with full transparency and regular meetings, it
enables us to view our customers in common. There may be a
greater flow of information and a greater sharing of best
practices and current performance and metrics, than might be
the case between carriers which don't share a common ownership.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Trenary, the fact is, regional carriers
are paying lower salaries than the network carriers in the
cockpit. Is that correct?
Mr. Trenary. That's correct.
Senator Dorgan. And more and more flights, particularly to
the spokes of hub-and-spoke systems, migrated to the regional
carriers. My assumption is, one of those reasons would be for
economics. You can--economic reasons--you can pay a crew less
money if they're riding--or, if they're working on a regional
carrier than a network carrier. And so, a network carrier sends
its plane, with its name on, owned by another company, in to
pick up passengers and take them to the hub, and are paying
less for that.
And so, the question--and, again, my understanding is four
of the last crashes that have occurred--commercial aviation
crashes--have been with regionals. And I don't know what that
says, actually, but the question is, Isn't there, by
definition, less experience in the cockpit and a circumstance
where you might feel differently riding on a network carrier
versus a regional carrier, just because you have less
experience and are paying less money, and perhaps are
attracting a different kind of crew?
Mr. Trenary. Mr. Chairman, you should not. The most
important word here is ``competency.'' The drive toward the
regional aircraft that we have today was not to have the
ability to pay pilots less. We didn't have the aircraft we have
today, 20 years ago; we didn't have the regional jets, we
didn't have the new-generation turboprop aircraft. We have so
many more aircraft, with much more capability. The markets we
fly to, almost exclusively, would not work with the mainline
aircraft we have today. So, it's more an issue of aircraft
versus any sort of labor issue, as far as making that work.
It's important to recognize that the pay structure is one
that's been around a very long time. It's the one I came into.
If you look at the Administrator, I think he'd share with you
that what he came into, relative to what a regional pilot comes
into today, versus 10, 20 years ago, is very much the same.
There have been increases. I urge you, please do not ever
equate professionalism and competency with pay. There are many
aviation professionals in the cockpits of airplanes landing at
the airport here today that are highly professional, some make
over $100,000, some make less than that. They are all
professionals.
As for the competency issue, too many people equate hours
as being the sole factor you look at for experience. Thirty
years ago, that was true; today, it's not. We have so many
tools we use--advanced training, the high-tech simulators. The
young people who are coming to our cockpits today have so much
more to work with now than they did even a decade ago. So, I'm
very confident putting customers on these airplanes for our
partners.
Senator Dorgan. Right. I have other questions. I'll wait
until other have completed their questioning. But, I have a
fair number of questions about fatigue, crew rest, a wide range
of issues, that I want to cover today. But, in fairness to all
my colleagues, I want to recognize all of them first.
Senator Hutchison?
Senator Hutchison. I'd like to ask all four of you, the
NTSB and other stakeholders have suggested additional use of
the cockpit image and voice recorders as safety and analysis
tools. What are your thoughts on added use? I mean, we all know
that the cockpit voice recorders have been very valuable, and
the recorders that show how a plane is pitched and all of the
technical data, as well. But, there can be more, and they can
be longer. My question is, to all of you, would that be a good
addition? Would you support it?
Let me start with Captain Dickson and we'll go down the
line.
Captain Dickson. Thank you, Senator. I do believe there is
a possibility to begin down that path. However, it would have
to be under the auspices of a voluntary safety program, and
handled in the same manner as FOQA data, where it's de-
identified and put in with all the other data-sharing that we
have. I think that's the only way to move forward with a
program like that.
Senator Hutchison. Voluntary on the part of the pilots?
Captain Dickson. In other words, as part of a program such
as FOQA or ASAP, under the current voluntary safety programs
that are already set up with the FAA. Of course, if those
become mandated, it could be part of those programs, as well.
The point is it would have to be handled very carefully, and be
part of a trend system, as we see with FOQA data today.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Captain Gunther?
Captain Gunther. I would share the caution. With the
cockpit voice recorder, when the NTSB works with that, it's in
a very structured investigation, and many times the cockpit
voice recorder is very difficult to establish a timeline with
the real-world dynamics of the airplane, and takes time.
Additionally, statements made out of context, which may be
just a stress-relief statement or to bring people back into the
situation, can be misconstrued. So, the protections for that
would be very important.
And I would tend to agree that a voluntary program, where
you have the three parties agree to it--the regulator, the
company, and the association--and much like an ASAP or FOQA
program, may be effective, but there are some technical issues,
especially with the CVR.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Bowler?
Mr. Bowler. I'd share Captain Gunther's perspective. I
think there may be information that would be valuable from a
more systematic program, but I think one of the foundations of
the programs that have made the biggest difference is that they
have come as a result of a collaborative approach to data-
gathering and -sharing, and that's only possible when all three
parties believe that it's in their best long-term interest to
participate.
So, I think it would be critical to have our pilots'
association onboard, and appropriate safeguards of how the
information is going to be used.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Trenary?
Mr. Trenary. I agree with Peter. We used to use FOQA as a
accident investigation tool. Today, it's accident prevention.
The same could be true for the CVR. The key is, as the other
panelists have indicated, we could do it exactly like ASAP, as
far as having collaboration with the pilots. The people who run
the professional standards--air carriers--are very focused on
aviation safety. We can put it in their hands, de-identified,
and report back to management, just as we do with ASAP and
FOQA. And I believe that would be a tremendous help--and make
the CVR, not just an investigation tool, but a prevention tool
as well.
Senator Hutchison. I'd like to ask Mr. Bowler and Mr.
Trenary, given their two different perspectives. Obviously, a
carrier that contracts with another company for use of
airplanes flying under the carrier name has the right to
inspect and have certain safety rules. My question is, how much
is that used--Mr. Trenary, from the standpoint of a contractee,
and, Mr. Bowler, from a contractor standpoint--how much do you
have your own people inspecting these contract airplanes that
are used?
Mr. Trenary?
Mr. Trenary. Having them inspect us?
Senator Hutchison. Yes.
Mr. Trenary. Yes, it's an ongoing basis. If you look at
each carrier, each one is a little different, but, to use Delta
and Continental as examples, the Delta operation is the
collaborative that we talked about, where you have the metrics,
the meetings, sharing best practices. Part of that is sharing
audits that we have, which, gives them insight into what's
going on in our fleet. So, it's a very structured environment,
where you're looking at the different metrics, what's driving
safety issues and best practices.
At Continental, it's very much the same way, as far as,
``What do you need? What can we help you with?'' It's constant
communication. A great example is on Colgan. Continental has
offered to help establish their ASAP program. Continental has
an outstanding CRM program, with additional fatigue threat and
error management as part of the program that Colgan and
Pinnacle have adopted. So, they see all of our audits,
including IOSA, DOD, and any independent audits we do, in
addition to our own work. They ride on our aircraft. There are
visits from time to time. But, the real foundation for the
audit process between the carriers goes to the formal programs,
back and forth.
Senator Hutchison. OK.
Mr. Bowler?
Mr. Bowler. We have similar audit programs that we
undertake ourselves and which are performed on Eagle and
Executive Airlines by the FAA, by the DOD, and by other code-
sharing carriers. Those are, of course, made available to, and
reviewed by, the safety executives at American Airlines. And,
as well, as a part of virtually all of our meetings that review
performance of American Eagle, whether it's briefing the
Chairman or it's briefing my fellow members of the Executive
Committee at American, they include safety components, which
may include these items or they may include items that not----
Senator Hutchison. Do you have an ongoing program? You're
self auditing, which I think is very good, but do you also have
an inspection routine with your contracts?
Mr. Bowler. Well we--American Eagle and Executive Airlines
represent in excess of 90 percent of the total regional
operations for American Airlines. So, those activities--all of
the audit and surveillance activity performed on us, on our two
regional certificates--are made fully available to--provided to
the American Airlines safety department, and they are reviewed,
at a high level, with the senior executives, as a part of
Eagle's ongoing governance processes.
American does have a contract with one additional regional
carrier, and it reviews similar information on that carrier.
Senator Hutchison. You do have inspection routines, as
well, on the contract carriers that carry American Eagle's name
but that you're contracting for the airplane.
Mr. Bowler. Well, you know, American Eagle does not
contract with other regional airlines.
Senator Hutchison. Do you contract with other airplane
providers?
Mr. Bowler. No. Eagle has a relationship with American.
American has a----
Senator Hutchison. Right. I'm----
Mr. Bowler.--relationship with Eagle and with one other
regional airline, Chautauqua Airlines. And they----
Senator Hutchison. I understand that. What I'm trying to
find out is, do you contract with another company to use their
airplanes, flying under your name, American Eagle's name?
Mr. Bowler. No.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Mr. Bowler. The--we own Executive Airlines, and that
operates in the Caribbean and Florida and----
Senator Hutchison. But you own the planes.
Mr. Bowler.--carries--we own the airline. It's----
Senator Hutchison. Correct.
Mr. Bowler. It's a subsidiary, actually, of American Eagle
Holdings Company.
Senator Hutchison. As I understand it, you're saying you
don't contract to use someone else's airplanes.
Mr. Bowler. That's correct.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Begich?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, again,
for holding this hearing. And for the four participants, thank
you for being here.
First, I want to make sure you know where I'm coming from.
And I do this at every one of these, because I think you need
to understand my personal interest, but also my legislative
interest, here. I lost my father when I was 10 in a plane, a
smaller plane. He was never found. It was the largest air
search in the Nation's history. And because of that result,
locator beacons were then required in planes, after that. So, I
come from a unique experience. My mother was 34 years old and
had to raise six kids. So, I want to give you, kind of, where
I'm coming from, so nothing is personal to you, but it is
personal to me.
I'm going to ask you two, first, quick questions, and this
can be, hopefully, ``yes'' or ``no,'' and then I'm going to
follow up on, I think, a couple questions that Senator
Hutchison asked.
First, do you have any opposition--there's some legislation
that's moving through regarding adding a safety member to the
FAA's Management Advisory Council. Why don't we just start down
the row, here. Do you have any objection to adding a safety
member to the FAA Council?
Captain Dickson. Delta has no objection.
Captain Gunther. No objection.
Mr. Bowler. I can't imagine--no.
Mr. Trenary. No.
Senator Begich. The second one is, On the websites and any
activity that identifies your carrier, would you object to any
format to identify who your subcarriers are? Mostly for the
majors. Like when you have American Airlines, and if it's Eagle
flying, it should say ``Eagle.''
Captain Dickson. I'm not sure I should speak for the
corporation on that. Certainly, from an operational
perspective, there's no impact to me, but it's really beyond
what I'm responsible for.
Senator Begich. Would you relate to your corporate entity
that I'd like a response to that?
Captain Dickson. Absolutely.
[The information referred to follows:]
Answer. The actual operator, as required by DOT, is identified at
the time of purchase. For Delta, the specific operator is identified to
customers when they purchase through our reservations phone lines, and
the information is displayed for Internet users on our website. In
addition, the ``operated by'' identification is made again on the
ticket and again on the boarding pass. Finally, for Delta and Delta
Connection customers boarding a regional aircraft, the regional partner
is displayed on the fuselage of the aircraft just outside the boarding
door. Attached is an example of the ``operated by'' identification
found on our website delta.com.
Captain Gunther. Senator--and, again, I'm in safety, but my
understanding of DOT regulations is, we're required to do that.
And there are a number of--either a check-in, whether it's
online or at the station where that is shown--I know it's on--
on our ticket stubs, it does show who they're flying on.
Senator Begich. On the stub, but the websites are the----
Captain Gunther. And I believe it is also on the website
for Continental, yes, sir.
Senator Begich. Very good.
Mr. Bowler. As it is for American and American Eagle.
Senator Begich. I don't know if--let me go into--I'm going
to follow up, and I want to make sure I understand this
correctly. In the contracts that you sign with regionals--
because there's an agreement; it's not just, you call them up
and say, ``Give me a plane.'' You have a detailed contract. I
can only imagine how detailed it is. In there, you must have a
safety level and standard that you require. Would I--am I
correct on this? And this, again, is just ``yes'' or ``no,''
because I'm going to get into the next question.
Captain Dickson. That's correct, at Delta.
Captain Gunther. That's correct, sir.
Mr. Bowler. Yes.
Mr. Trenary. Yes.
Senator Begich. OK. Within that, are there scheduled
routine requirements of inspecting, not just audits, but, I
mean, physical inspections, by the majors into the regionals,
of their safety and what they're doing or not doing?
Captain Dickson. There are not, currently. I will tell you
that the contracts at Delta right now are in a little bit of a
state of flux, due to the merger with Northwest. So, we are
actually evolving and merging the two oversight programs that
Delta and Northwest had with their respective regional feeders.
Senator Begich. So, that's not in there now.
Captain Dickson. It is not--inspection processes, per se,
are not in there, no. No, Senator.
Captain Gunther. And not in the Continental contracts.
Mr. Bowler. No. It--the agreement between American Airlines
and American Eagle are agreements between two subsidiaries----
Senator Begich. But, I--I understand that, but I guarantee
you, they're separate entities, so if you go bankrupt, they may
not go bankrupt. Right? That's why they're subsidiaries. So,
the contract itself, do you have in there, safety routine
inspections from American to Eagle?
Mr. Bowler. I don't believe that's spelled out in the
agreement, no.
Voice. No.
Senator Begich. OK. That, I think, was Senator Hutchison's
concern. And so, I'll just kind of put that on the side. I
would--by the question, I hope that implies what I'm hoping
that you think about doing, because I think that's part of the
equation here. Depending always on the FAA is great, but you
have an obligation--I think you said it very well, Captain--in
regards to your customer. They're a Delta customer. Doesn't
matter what they fly. So, the standard that the customer
expects is the same on any--in any given----
Do you have a document--again, for all four of you, that
would show--I'm a very visual person, so I like to see flow
charts, so forth--but, do you have a chart, that would be able
to be done, that says, for the majors--and maybe it's to these
three, here--here's what we require for safety, the procedures,
the timetables, all those--and then, for your regionals, what
boxes are checked that correspond to the same ones you do? Do
you have such a document?
Captain Dickson. I don't have it with me today, Senator,
but I can provide it.
Senator Begich. OK.
Captain Gunther. We don't have such a document, no, sir.
Senator Begich. Can you produce such a document?
Captain Gunther. Well, I----
Senator Begich. I'm assuming, if Delta can, of course the
competitor----
Captain Gunther. Well, we----
Senator Begich.--can do the same thing.
Captain Gunther. The answer is, yes, we could produce it.
Senator Begich. OK, good.
Mr. Bowler. I'm afraid I'm unclear of the document you're
looking for, sir.
Senator Begich. Let me clarify, if I can, Mr. Chairman.
If you have--and, again, you're kind of in a different--
because you're Eagle, so you have to kind of look to American.
But, assume American, which I'd put money on it, I'll bet on
it, that they have a list of--``For our planes to move through
the air, here is our safety list of things we require--routine
checks, this--you know, whatever it might be--routine
inspections, pilot issues, a variety of things.'' They'll
probably have a shopping list. I want to see that comparable to
what they require of you, or you of them. In other words, do
you have the same requirements that they have? What boxes
aren't checked? What are not consistent in the safety of the
two types of planes--or, airlines? Do you have such a document?
Mr. Bowler. It sounds like what you're calling--you're
requesting is a checklist for operating aircraft at the two
different airlines. Our checklists are different, as we're at
a--a separate----
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Bowler.--certificate. And----
Senator Begich. I understand that, from a technical
standpoint, but--so, you do have a difference. What I want to
see is what those differences are. If the regional--or, if the
major requires X amount of routine inspections, and the
regional requires Y, I want to see the difference. That then
will drive future questions. To be very fair to you.
Mr. Bowler. I'd be happy to get that for you.
Mr. Bowler. I think it's a complicated response, because
the maintenance----
Senator Begich. Here's what we'll do, Mr.----
Mr. Bowler.--requirements of each aircraft are different.
Senator Begich. Here's what we'll do, Mr. Bowler, and then
I'll turn to the last one. Whatever Mr. Dickson has, we'll use
that as the baseline, because obviously they've done it.
Mr. Trenary?
Mr. Trenary. I think the answer is yes, but not
contractually required.
Senator Begich. I understand that part.
Mr. Trenary.--and by that I mean, if you came and said,
``OK, we're going to require you to do this,'' I think it would
be very easy to produce that, because you do have all these
processes and procedures you'd have to agree to. It would be a
matter of formalizing it, putting it in a format, whether it is
Delta's or another carrier.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Trenary. So, I'm confident it's there. You have the
rule, but the rule doesn't say you have to stop there; you can
go above that rule.
Senator Begich. Correct.
Mr. Trenary. I'm confident we're doing what you're
suggesting. It's a matter of putting it in a format that would
display what we're talking about.
Senator Begich. Understood. I'm just trying to see if there
are----
Mr. Trenary. I understand.
Senator Begich.--differences. And then, that will drive
questions of, you know----
Mr. Trenary. Right.
Senator Begich.--why. And you may have some very rational
reasons, maybe, why, but that helps us understand what the
standardizations are.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those questions.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Begich, thank you very much.
Senator Johanns?
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Johanns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here.
Let me just go down the row, here, and try to do this very
quickly. Mr. Trenary, what is the starting salary for a first
officer in your airline?
Mr. Trenary. It's in the low 20s. Now, that will go up
significantly in about the next 60 days. By ``significantly,''
approximately 20 percent.
Senator Johanns. Mr. Bowler?
Mr. Bowler. Approximately $22,000.
Captain Gunther. It's approximately $30,000.
Captain Dickson. And Delta's about the same, about $30,000.
Senator Johanns. You know, it just strikes me--and I
appreciate, your pilots are professional; I don't doubt that
for a second. But, what you're paying them, I think they
qualify for every government program we'd have. The two at the
end of the table could probably even put their families on food
stamps. I just find that remarkable, when they're charged with
the responsibility of people in their airplanes. I just find it
remarkable. And I don't know enough about your industry to
explain why that happened.
On the regional versus the major, I'm assuming the major
contracts with you, because the economics are just simply
better, and they can fly that route cheaper than they could fly
it themselves. Would that be true, Captain?
Captain Dickson. Yes, it would, Senator. Generally
speaking, we are able to increase the breadth of our network
and serve many smaller communities with our regional partners.
Senator Johanns. And have you ever done a study of how much
cheaper you are to do a route from, say, Washington to Omaha,
or Washington to wherever, versus a major?
Captain Dickson. Yes, we have. Yes.
Senator Johanns. What would the percentage be?
Captain Dickson. Well, it depends on the particular
mission. You have to look at the network as a whole, because
one of the functions of our regional carriers is to build
traffic out of our hubs. If we have a hub, particularly one of
our smaller, connecting hubs that doesn't have a lot of
originating traffic or enough critical mass there, then we will
build traffic into the hub. So, it's very difficult to look at
each segment----
Senator Johanns. Just give me----
Captain Dickson.--on----
Senator Johanns.--the range. Is it 5 percent to 50 percent?
Captain Dickson. I would say probably, depending on stage
length and the airplane you're talking about, maybe 15 or 20
percent.
Senator Johanns. Mr. Gunther, would that be true in your
situation?
Captain Gunther. That would be outside my expertise,
Senator. There are a number of variables to consider, but by
contracting with regional carriers, Continental gains cost
efficiencies. It would not be economical for Continental to
serve smaller markets without the benefits of the
infrastructure, fleet and operating costs enabled by regional
carriers.
Senator Johanns. OK.
Mr. Bowler?
Mr. Bowler. Depending on the route, it could be a
dramatically greater difference.
Senator Johanns. Just give me the range--5 to 50?
Mr. Bowler. I'd rather--I'd prefer to get back to you with
a formal----
[The information referred to follows:]
Answer. American's decision to allocate mainline or regional
aircraft to a particular market is based on a number of factors--but
the primary driver is matching supply of seats offered to a particular
market's demand. The decision is not one of ``cutting costs", but
rather of ``maximizing profits.'' The cost difference between the
regional and the mainline can vary dramatically, depending on the
route, frequency and type of aircraft, but the revenue generated on
those flights also varies widely. In some instances, American Eagle
will have lower absolute costs of operation on a particular route, but
American is likely to collect far less revenue on that regional flight.
If demand in that market was strong, it might justify serving the route
with a mainline jet to capture the additional revenue. All routes are
regularly evaluated to determine their profitability--and we routinely
adjust our schedule to ensure we are matching the service we provide to
the current demand for travel. In some instances, this means
substituting a mainline jet for regional service, and vice versa.
Senator Johanns. OK, you'll provide that to the Committee.
Mr. Trenary?
Mr. Trenary. I don't have access to the majors'
information. What I can tell you is that, if you look at any
carrier, major or regional, one of the issues is you can't
operate a whole lot of different aircraft types. You've seen
our industry, over the past several years, major or regional--
--
Senator Johanns. So, you'd say that--and I have to tell
you, I almost smile when you say that. Why can't a major
airline own a small airplane?
Mr. Trenary. If you look at the maintenance, training,
inventory, overhead to support each aircraft, and you look at
your lowest-cost carriers, and they have one thing in common:
they operate a limited number of aircraft. Each time you add
another aircraft ToT--and let's set aside--I think folks tend
to focus on labor costs--set that completely aside. As you add
additional aircraft types, you add cost--and it's not on a
linear basis--to support those aircraft--the engineering that
goes behind it, the inventory that goes behind it. So, while I
don't have that number, it would be significant, regardless.
Senator Johanns. But, you're kind of getting to the point
that I want to make, here. And the point is that the majors
aren't running these routes, because you just, financially, can
do it cheaper. You're doing something, and it'd take us a long
time to figure out what you're doing, but you're cheaper. Now,
my concern is, from a safety standpoint, is it not only
``cheaper,'' but ``on the cheap.'' And there's a difference.
Now, let me ask you another question. If we had a
bipartisan bill that basically said, from a safety standpoint,
from a liability of the major carrier, that there would be
joint and several liability for any negligence that occurs by
the regional, so that they would both be responsible when it
comes to safety purposes, would you folks support that?
Captain Dickson. Senator, that's beyond my purview.
Senator Johanns. Would you get back to me on that? That's a
very important question.
Captain Dickson. Of course.
Senator Johanns. Mr. Gunther?
Captain Gunther. Same thing, sir, we'll--Senator--we'll get
back to you on that.
Senator Johanns. OK.
Mr. Bowler. Likewise, Senator.
[The information referred to follows:]
Dickson
Answer. Each certificated carrier is responsible for its own
training and operations, and for ensuring against the risk of any
injury that may result from a failure in those operations. Safety is
our number one priority, and we absolutely stand behind the safety of
the operations of our regional contractors. Making us jointly and
severally liable for any safety-related incidents that occur in our
regional carriers' operations will not increase our incentives to keep
them safe, it will only create confusion and potential disputes among
our insurers as to who is responsible if an accident occurs.
Additionally, it would make it more difficult and expensive for
carriers to insure against aviation risk liability.
Gunther
Answer. Continental does not support joint and several liability
for negligence by a regional carrier. The allocation of such liability
is well established under current law, which should not be disturbed.
Each carrier is responsible for operating its flights to the
appropriate standard of safety and is required to uphold its regulatory
obligations under its operating certificate issued by the FAA. Since
every carrier's operation is separately managed and overseen with
unique characteristics and many differences, the mainline airline that
contracts with a regional carrier should not have the burden of joint
and several liability for a separate operation.
Bowler
Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) currently has
ultimate responsibility for oversight of airlines and ensuring they
operate safely, according to all Federal guidelines. The FAA certifies
all airlines, approves their manuals and training programs and
routinely monitors their compliance. This certification and regulatory
process is already in place to ensure compliance with all safety
requirements--any issues regarding safety or compliance are best
handled by the existing process, which focuses on prevention.
Mr. Bowler. If I could come back to your prior comment
about the--only flying the routes with the regional because
it's cheaper. I think, without a smaller aircraft, most of the
routes that are operated by the regional airlines wouldn't be
flown at all, because they couldn't be sustained. So, it's not
a matter of doing them cheaper; it's a matter of the routes not
existing if there weren't a regional aircraft to fly them. And
regional entities are, I believe, better operators of regional
aircraft than mainlines.
Senator Johanns. But, see, what I want to get to, here, is,
how do we do this safely? That's the point. And I know you do,
too. Nobody is coming here today saying, ``Gosh, just let us do
what we do.'' But, let me finish that line of thought.
Mr. Trenary, what would you think about a law that
basically says you can't offload your safety responsibilities,
that that is so fundamental and so important that there would
be joint and several liability?
Mr. Trenary. Well, I can't speak for the majors, but I can
assure you we do not offload our safety responsibilities. I've
been asked a question, ``What would you think if we legislated
that you have to have exactly the same safety requirements,
exactly the same standards as major carrier?'' and the answer
is, ``We already do, and, in some cases, we may have to cut
back a little bit.''
Senator Johanns. Let me just wrap up with this thought. I'm
never going to figure out your business model; I must admit, it
doesn't make any sense to me. It really doesn't. But, it
probably makes sense to you, and that's the important thing.
But, the bottom line for me is the safety piece of this. And
obviously there's a savings, for the major airline, to have you
doing their routes--or, doing routes, I should say. So, if the
only way we can figure out safety is to deal with it from a
liability standpoint, then I guess what I would say to you is,
I'm open to that possibility. Sounds funny, probably, coming
from me, on my side of the aisle, but I just don't think that
we should, in a fundamental area like safety, have any
difference. You all talk about how all of these things are
happening, ``We do this, that, and the next thing, with the
major carrier.'' Well, then I would think both the major and
the regional would buy into this idea and say, ``Well, great,
we're doing those things anyway. Why not?''
So, I'll be very anxious to hear back from your enterprises
as to what their thoughts about that is.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Isakson?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I've been listening to Senator Begich and the Chairman and
Senator Johanns, and it occurred to me to make a little
comparison here.
When I got on American Eagle, in Chicago, Monday, 2 weeks
ago, to fly to Washington, I got on that plane the same way I
walk into a McDonald's. The American brand is something that,
in my mind, is a quality brand. I didn't think twice about
walking on the airplane, just like McDonald's is a quality
hamburger--and I don't want to start making other people mad; I
like them all, hamburgers, and airplanes, too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Isakson. Wasn't for airplanes, none of us would
work. But, there's a difference, at least to me, there's a
difference in a contractual relationship and a franchise.
In a franchise, Mr. Bowler, if you were a franchisee of
American, and your quality of service or safety went down,
you'd lose your franchise; and McDonald's would still make lots
of money, and they'd be fine. But, in the hub-and-spoke system
and the feeder system that all the airlines have today, you
can't just necessarily fire somebody on the spot, or you lose
your network, at least that would seem likely--I'm thinking
this through. So, it seems like you have a contractual
relationship to serve--in your case, American; in your case,
Colgan and--who else do you serve? The big carriers?
Mr. Trenary. Delta.
Senator Isakson. Delta?
Mr. Trenary. Continental.
Senator Isakson. OK. You have a contractual relationship,
not a franchise relationship. But, you have the benefit of the
franchise perception, because you've got the brand name on the
airplane.
What's the difference between a franchise relationship,
like I described, and a contractual relationship, like you
have? If you don't meet contractual standards, what are the
consequences, say, on safety?
Mr. Trenary. It was for me?
Senator Isakson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Trenary. That's a very good question, Senator. We have
very clear contractual relationships, and, frankly, the major
carrier doesn't look at the impact on their network. If you do
not meet this level of performance, this level of--and the
overarching is safety. There are a lot of very detailed metrics
you have to meet. If you go below these thresholds, your
contract is terminated. The catchall language is that if you
are deemed unsafe, the relationship ends.
Captain Gunther. Senator, may I----
Senator Isakson. Yes. Any of you that want to address this.
Captain Gunther. Well, I think it's important to
understand, regardless of the relationship, that, when it comes
to safety--and I've even had our Chairman and CEO look me in
the eye and say, ``If you, as the safety manager, have any
concerns and come to me, we will shut it down.'' And regardless
of the relationship, I would think, at this table, you would
hear that, because we really believe that that's the key. Are
we providing a safe product? If I, for any reason, feel I'm
not, I will be at the Chairman's door in a second.
Senator Isakson. So, from what I hear both of you saying--
in your contracts, safety overrides the feeder system that the
bigger airline depends on. OK.
Second question. And I know this is a--I'm an old guy. My
brother-in-law and I are Vietnam-era guys. My brother-in-law
was a decorated Vietnam fighter pilot and carrier pilot, stayed
in the Navy 25 years. But, when he got out, I believe in 1987,
he went and flew for--I think it was Comair, and he stayed with
us in Atlanta while he was going through training. And I was
struck by two things. One, the depth of the training he had to
go through, even being a carrier pilot who'd made 535 landings
and, as he used to say, and takeoffs, which--he was always
proud they balanced. But, I was surprised at two things. One
was the depth of the training, and second was the pay cut he
took from the Navy, versus starting out with a feeder airline.
Is that still true today, that you get a lot of military
pilots? Or are more of them going directly to the major
airlines? Any of you that want to answer?
Captain Gunther. I'll start off with: Senator, I don't
think that you're that old. I am also Vietnam-era, so----
But, we do not see as many military pilots today as we have
seen in the past. I would think everyone would agree with you.
When I was hired, several years ago, I would say the class was
probably 80- to 90-percent military pilots. I would think that
percentage today is down in the 20s, 30s, just depending on the
supply of military pilots. But, it has changed over the last
few decades.
Captain Dickson. And, Senator, the same thing at Delta.
Traditionally, our hiring profile has been in the 90-percentile
range, up through the 90s, of military-background pilots. Our
last round of hiring, in 2007 and 2008, it's probably in the
45-percent range. Because of longer Active-Duty service
commitments and other issues, the military pool is smaller.
However, I will say that the pilots that have been coming to
the majors over that period of time, were every bit as
qualified. In fact, in some ways, it was an easier transition
for them, because they had been working in a sophisticated
glass-cockpit environment. They were working in a part-121
operation, and they were working with dispatch and flight
control. That's an unfamiliar environment for military
aviators. So, in some respects the pilots with the civilian
regional background have actually been superior, certainly in
the beginning, to some of our military pilots.
Senator Isakson. Mr. Bowler, real quick?
Mr. Bowler. Military pilots represent a relatively small
percentage of our new-hire recruits.
Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Trenary. It's dropping here, as well. But, there is one
very important distinction--and this goes to Chairman Dorgan's
area--the University of North Dakota has an outstanding flight
school. These young people who come out of a program like
University of North Dakota, and go through a bridge program,
where they have the experience with 121 operations, regional
jet simulators, the glass-cockpit--when they come to us, it is
amazing how competent and how capable they are. If you compare
some people who have, say, 6-, 7-, 800 hours out of an approved
bridge program, relative to a pilot that may have several
thousand hours, and there's no comparison. So, the future looks
very good.
Senator Isakson. Well, thank you all for being here today.
Mr. Trenary. Thank you, sir.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you.
Senator Thune?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate all of you being here, too, and responding
to these various questions that we have. Obviously, everybody
here, and all of you, want to make sure that we're taking
whatever steps we can to make airline travel as safe as is
humanly possible. And I think we all realize, too, that, in the
modern world, the relationships between the main carriers and
the regional carriers is an economic necessity.
I remember, as a kid, we didn't get to fly very often, but
when we did, you could go to Pierre, South Dakota, where
Western Airlines flew 727s. On these big planes you only had,
like, ten people on them. But, nowadays, for service into any
of our smaller communities in South Dakota, you do rely heavily
on regional airlines. And, of course, many of them, as the
Senator from North Dakota pointed out, when they fly in there,
it may have the Northwest or now, the Delta logo, or United, or
whichever. And so, the assumption is that that carrier--it's
sort of an integrated operation--you may have a relationship
that is contractual, or shared revenue--but, in any event, that
everybody is operating, sort of, with the same set of standards
and quality and everything else at the main--the larger
airlines, and the regional airlines that contract with them,
all adhere to the same sorts of standards.
We've had a couple different hearings on this subject
already, and I think they've shed some light on things that we
may be able to do to help you, such as dealing with the whole
Pilot Records Improvement Act for an airline. There are
limitations today in obtaining a full understanding of a
prospective pilot's flight history when making hiring
decisions. It has been difficult, in the past at least, in
getting some of the information released, because of privacy
issues. And I'm just curious in knowing to what extent each of
your companies has required prospective applicants to sign
privacy releases pertaining to their flight history.
Captain Dickson. Senator, that should have been reflected
in my statement. We do require that, at Delta, and we have for
several years.
Senator Thune. All right.
Captain Gunther. Senator, the same at Continental. We have
required that for several years.
Mr. Bowler. We are not now hiring, Senator. We plan to
implement such a program, going forward, when we do commence
hiring.
Senator Thune. OK.
Mr. Trenary, you just changed yours, I understand----
Mr. Trenary. We just changed ours, and we would appreciate
any help you can offer on that, because we're doing the same
thing now, as far as asking for that.
The other thing we can use your help on, is having PRIA go
back farther. Under PRIA, after 5 years, anything negative,
other than a revocation, is expunged from the record. It really
doesn't do us much good to go back and look, 8 or 9 years, if
anything negative is not there. So, if we could see the entire
pilot history, from beginning up until the time they apply to
work for us, it would be very helpful.
Senator Thune. And my understanding is, with respect to the
pilot in the flight crash in New York, that there were some
check-ride failures that probably would have come to light, had
you had that sort of information available to you. That was
within the 5-year window, I think.
Mr. Trenary. Let me stress one thing. Captain Renslow was a
fine man, by all accounts. Had we known what we know now, no,
he would not have been in that seat. A failure on a check ride
is not necessarily a reason for someone not to fly; it depends
on what kind of failure it is. The failures that we were unable
to see were the basic fundamental airmanship failures that you
would not want to have.
Senator Thune. I'm interested, too, in something that was
raised in--and I'm not sure which of your testimony--but, it
had to do with this--and I see this quite frequently, too. We
have a number of pilots, who live in South Dakota, fly out of
another city, and so, they commute to work, basically, like
many of us do. And I appreciate the fact that they like to live
in South Dakota, and maybe not in some larger city somewhere
else. But, would it make sense for the FAA or the airlines to
track the commute, to make it easier to see if there has been
adequate rest for the pilots? I mean, if their experience is
like ours, sometimes you have flight delays and issues and
complications getting to your ultimate place of work from where
you're going to start flying. Should that information be
available? Would it make sense for the FAA or the airlines to
track that?
Captain Gunther. Senator, let me first say that as a pilot
over the years, I also commuted. And I will say the men and
women who are professional pilots in this country, who do
commute, the vast majority do it correctly, and they do show up
for work ready to go, rested. That would be a very hard thing
to do--tracking. The difference between someone leaving from
your state and flying, say, to Minneapolis, if you will, versus
someone driving 6 hours, how do we track that person who lives
6 hours from the hub? And how far do we go into their private
lives on their off time?
Speaking personally, I'm a professional pilot, I have
managed it. There are programs out there to help the outliers,
if you will. The professional standards group, with the
associations is an outstanding program. That's peer-to-peer.
Employee or a pilot assistance programs to track those. And if
you were to ask me, personally, over the years--there has been
a time--I can recall, many years ago, where we actually, three
of us, approached one of our pilots and told him, ``You need to
change your commuting habits.'' He moved to the hub.
Senator Thune. Go ahead. Anybody else who cares to comment
on that?
Captain Dickson. Senator, I would concur. It's very
difficult to enforce or legislate what happens in someone's
private life. And it would be very difficult to track.
We have pilots, who live on the north side of Atlanta, it
might take them, if there's an accident on the Interstate 3 or
4 hours to get to work. Is that person more fit to fly than
someone who commutes in from Jacksonville? And, how are we
going to track----
Senator Thune. Right.
Captain Dickson.--those different situations?
Senator Thune. I can see where that would be fairly
complicated, and certainly be an imposition on pilots.
Well, we would appreciate, I think, any other suggestions
that you might have. I know the Chairman has included, in the
FAA bill that we've marked up, some of these changes in PRIA
that, I think, will make it easier to get information. And so,
if you have other suggestions that would be useful to this
committee as we pursue FAA reauthorization this year, we would
certainly appreciate it.
Thank you for your testimony.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Thune, thank you very much.
Let me ask a follow-up about this issue of fatigue. And I
understand there's a difference between crew rest, which I
think is a contractual situation between carriers and their
employees, and the issue of fatigue. So, I--Captain Dickson,
frankly, somebody that lives in a suburb of Atlanta and runs
into a traffic jam, it is different than someone that is going
to fly from Seattle to New York to reach a duty station. Would
it be OK if somebody lived in Southern France, for example, and
commuted to work? I mean, is--the question is, Is there some
limit, someplace? I guess what most of you have said--as long
as--if they show up on time, that's fine, and you expect people
who are professional to have had sufficient rest, and so on.
But, I do want to call your attention to a piece in the
Washington Post, actually, that provoked a response, I believe
by the FAA this week, just yesterday, a crowded hub away from
home. And it describes something I wasn't aware of. It
describes several--500 to 1,000 houses in the United States
that can be found--they're called ``crash pads,'' where 20, 30
people will show up and use a crash pad to get a few hours
sleep here and there. And it just seems to me, whether this--I
mean, those of us in politics understand, sometimes you have to
double check these things--but, assuming this article is
correct, that there are these crash pads that exist, and
assuming that the description of, Mr. Trenary, the co-pilot on
the tragic flight into Buffalo, had described what she had
described, that she had a couch with her name on it at the
airport when she arrived after flying all night, don't you
think, from the evidence we now see, that there's something
wrong, here? You fly across the country all night, thinking
you're going to catch a few winks on a couch, or you've got a
lot of folks moving back and forth, around, trying to commute
to work, and, in some cases, being paid relatively small
amounts of income--$20-, $22-, $25,000--having to find a crash
pad someplace, where you can get in there and make sure that
you don't make enough noise to wake other people that are
trying to catch a few hours sleep.
Do--I guess--look, here's the question. All four of you are
very experienced in the aviation business, in the airline
business. Do any of you think there's a problem in this area?
Or do you think that we're just reciting things that we're
reading and hearing, and anecdotal things with respect to the
one tragic flight, and, you know what, this is not a problem?
Give me your assessment of this----
Captain Dickson. Senator, I'd----
Senator Dorgan.--fatigue.
Captain Dickson. Senator, with respect to the commuting
issue, in particular, this is going to be addressed by the
Aviation Rulemaking Committee, in some form or fashion. We know
that it's an issue. To what extent it is a systemic problem, I
think that's probably a subject that's open to discussion.
Senator Dorgan. Yes, but I'm asking for your opinion, your
judgment.
Captain Dickson. Absolutely.
Senator Dorgan. Do you think it's a problem, or don't you?
Because it's only come up recently, because----
Captain Dickson. Right.
Senator Dorgan.--we've all pushed it, saying, ``We think
there's an issue here.'' Question is, Do you think there's an
issue here?
Captain Dickson. I certainly think that it's very important
that the carrier has policies that support commuters and
individual stability. Their family life, their stability,
bringing kids up through the same school system, all those
things can create disincentives to moving to where their flying
career is taking them. So, certainly our ability to be able to
have flexible policies, as have been described, to support
commuters and to deal with the extraordinary situations that
sometimes crop up, without any disciplinary action or penalty
to the individual, is very important.
Senator Dorgan. This question is not just about commuters,
however. I refer----
Captain Dickson. Right.
Senator Dorgan.--to commuters. This question is about the
industry. And I'm asking, Do you think there's an issue here?
Captain Gunther. There is obviously, just from the
incident, Senator, you talked about, an issue that needs to be
looked at. To what depth that issue goes, I personally don't
believe it's a large number of people who fall into that
category. Do we need to look at it? Absolutely. Is the ARC
going to address it? Absolutely. And from my experience within
my carrier, I don't see a large issue with fatigue or with
commuters not commuting properly.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Bowler?
Mr. Bowler. I----
Senator Dorgan. By the way, have you read the crash-pad
piece that was written?
Mr. Bowler. Yes sir.
Senator Dorgan. OK.
Mr. Bowler. Fatigue is a serious issue. We are confident
that--I am very confident that our pilots take that--their
responsibility, to show up for work rested, seriously. I
believe we have a good program for making sure they have the
ability to remove themselves without punitive response.
Having said that, I am very supportive, and I'm very proud,
of the fact that Eagle's Vice President of Flight is a member
of the ARC that's reviewing time and duty rest. And we're
looking forward to the outcome of that rulemaking process. So--
and we will, of course, adopt that as promptly as it comes
forward.
In response to ``Should pilots have the flexibility to
commute?'' I believe that they should, because I think it's
very difficult to say, ``It's OK in this circumstance, and not
in this circumstance.''
I'd also add that we operate at airports all around the
country, as I mentioned in my comments, in expensive cities, in
inexpensive remote smaller communities. And we have employees
in all those communities. We have employees in New York, in
Chicago and Los Angeles--on the ramp, they're mechanics,
they're baggage-handlers, they are ticket agents. And most of
them earn less than the pilot group. And they're able to live
in those communities. Most of those people don't commute;
they've found places to live, and they've found a lifestyle to
sustain themselves.
So, the commute--I think it's important to distinguish that
the commuting decision is a lifestyle decision.
Senator Dorgan. Well, I understand. But, the lifestyle
decision is made--is required by how much income you're making.
And if you're making $24,000 a year, you choose, perhaps--in
the circumstance that we're all well aware of, you choose to
live with your parents on the West Coast, and then--and I
guess----
The only reason I'm asking this question is this. I think
if, God forbid, there's an accident next year, and it is
someone related to one of the witnesses that's on the airplane,
and you discover what we now know about what put--what clearly
had to have been fatigue in that cockpit, would you think
there's something wrong that needs to be corrected? And the
answer would be, I assume, ``yes,'' in that circumstance.
And then, the next question is, Does that circumstance
portray something broader as a problem? And then, you read
these things and begin to understand and talk to people, and
you say, ``Yes, I think there's something going on.''
I board airplanes all the time, as I'm sure does Senator
Thune and Senator Begich. And I know pilots, and I know flight
attendants, that commute to work. I understand that. I mean,
you know, you get on a plane in Fargo. There are pilots
boarding in Fargo to go to Minneapolis or Detroit to begin
their duty. I understand that. I have never felt alarmed by
that. But, I do have some alarm about someone flying all across
the country the entire night and then explaining, to somebody
that she's flying with, that there's a couch that's--with her
name on it at a crew rest station, and then reading that there
are 500 to a 1,000 crash pads someplace.
It just seems to me that there's something here that we
ought to be concerned about, because fatigue in a cockpit is
critical. I mean, you know, there's no room for errors in a
cockpit. And when you're fatigued, you make mistakes. And so,
I'm trying to understand whether there's a problem. And I think
what I'm hearing is, ``You know what? Not much of a problem
here, but whatever ARC says, we will proceed to implement.''
And I--so, let me go onto some other things, because I--
obviously, we're driving, I think, through the FAA and other
processes, some better understanding. I do think it's the case
that probably none of you fully understand, either, how much
rest does someone have when they show up for work, because you
say professionals are expected to meet the standards. And I
understand that. I understand that. But, I also understand
there are some requirements to make certain that those
standards are met, other than just an expectation that they are
met.
Let me ask about the network carriers. When you have co-
chairing with foreign airlines, my understanding is that
network carriers are required, by the Department of
Transportation, to conduct periodic safety audits of the
international co-chair partners and submit the results to DOT.
That--is that a proper understanding, that a network carrier,
such as Continental or Delta, when you do co-chairing with an
international carrier, you're required to go do a safety audit
and then submit your findings to the Department of
Transportation? Is that accurate?
Captain Dickson. Senator, in the absence of an IOSA audit,
that is true. Before the advent of the IOSA system, we had done
audits on our own. As a matter of fact, the Delta audit system
actually became the basis for IOSA later on. That is actually
the audit that we accept, at this point.
Captain Gunther. And, Senator, that's the same, sir.
Senator Dorgan. And in--is that IOSA audit present in all
cases these days? I mean have you--are there circumstances
where you've had to do the audit and report to the DOT?
Captain Dickson. Not in recent years, Senator.
Senator Dorgan. But, in any event, the implication of that
has been that the requirement is on the network carrier to make
certain that someone who's flying on the network carrier, and
then going to a co-chair partner, is going to fly on an
airplane that--with a crew that you feel represents the same
safety standards, and is meeting all the standards, that you
expect for your airline. Is that----
Captain Dickson. That is correct.
Senator Dorgan. And does that same requirement exist for
you with respect to a regional carrier? Now, you employ a
number of regional carriers, I think, Captain Dickson. How many
regional carriers do you----
Captain Dickson. We currently have nine----
Senator Dorgan. And how many of those do you own, in total?
I mean, how--I--let me rephrase that.
How many of the regional carriers do you have a 100-percent
ownership in?
Captain Dickson. I believe it's two out of the nine.
Senator Dorgan. That would be Mesaba and who else?
Captain Dickson. It would be Comair----
Senator Dorgan. Is----
Captain Dickson.--and Compass and Mesaba.
Senator Dorgan. And--so, three?
Captain Dickson. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. And the other six----
Captain Dickson. Are all contractual relationships.
Senator Dorgan. OK, yes.
And so, the question, I guess, again, if you decide that
you're going to have Mr. Trenary pick up and deliver passengers
at--as--in part of your spoke system, hub-and-spoke system out
there, what is your requirement with respect to the safety
issues of Mr. Trenary or Mr.--Mr. Bowler's in a different
position, because he's wholly owned by American and only flies
for American. But, what is your responsibility with respect to
assuring the safety, as you must with a co-chair international
carrier--what's your responsibility when you employ Mr. Trenary
to pick up and drop off passengers?
Captain Dickson. It's a similar responsibility, Senator. We
are requiring IOSA audits of all of our regional partners,
currently. We have not built in this requirement for ASAP and
FOQA into contractual relationships at this time, but that's
something that we intend to evolve into, going forward. And
it's part of our monthly review, when we review all of the
recent FAA SAFOs and InFOs; and other recent events in the
industry. We also review the status of their ASAP and FOQA
programs, as well.
Senator Dorgan. Alright. I have a couple of other
questions, but I'm going to call on Senator Begich, if you wish
to ask----
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, I, again, thank you for the last round of answers to
my questions. I just want to make sure, and make, kind of, a
declarative statement, that charts that I have asked, I would
hope that each one of you could submit those to me, and I'll be
happy to share them with the Committee, or if the Committee
wants them, too--if you could do that, I'd greatly appreciate
that. I want to make that very clear.
The fatigue issue, how do you--let me ask it this way. If a
pilot comes in and says, ``I just--I can't fly,'' and they use
fatigue as the issue, what happens? Whoever wants--I don't know
who to ask this, but whoever would like to ask this--answer. Go
ahead.
Captain Gunther. If a pilot declares fatigue, he's taken
off the--he or she will be taken off the trip. No reprimand.
Senator Begich. OK. And is that similar to all cases?
Captain Dickson. Yes.
Senator Begich. OK. And do you keep track of how many
pilots identify fatigue as their issue?
Mr. Trenary. We do, sir.
Senator Begich. You do?
Voice. Yes.
Senator Begich. You do? Do you--Delta?
Captain Dickson. We have relatively low incidence of this.
We don't track it per individual, but we do have the data in
our system.
Mr. Trenary. The safety department keeps track, yes.
Senator Begich. OK. Do you--and, I guess, for the ones that
operate the regional--how do you manage and understand your
employees, in the sense--and I think your question--or, the
response that Captain Dickson commented, you know, that you
don't want to get down so deep--or maybe it was Captain
Gunther--in their personal lives too deep. But, how do you
understand--for example, maybe you have a pilot working--and I
am an issue--with the salary, you should know that. I recognize
your earlier statement. You know, you've got great pilots--
there's no question about it--that are working at a different
wage level, and--but, they could also be doing other things,
too, to make money, meaning other jobs. How do you--you know,
if you have a pilot that's being a pilot, making whatever your
salary range is, but know--they know that's not enough to
maintain their family, they have a second job--how do you put
that into the equation? Because I will guarantee you, it's one
reason, as a former mayor, we ensured our payment to--our
police officers and firefighters were very well paid. We did
not want them to have a second job, of any kind, because their
requirements were significant for public safety. So, our job
was to pay them well, and good benefits. I got a lot of
criticism for that, for mayor, but we had very low, if almost
zero, corruption and situations that our officers got in
trouble. So, how do--for both of you two, how do you deal with
that? I mean, do you survey your pilots? Do you do focus groups
with your pilots? What--how do you deal with this?
Mr. Bowler. I'm afraid I could not tell you what
percentage, or what numbers, of our pilots have additional
sources of income. And again, I don't think that we would be
prone to go ask them that question. I think what they do in
their private lives, as long as it doesn't interfere with their
responsibilities to perform when they're at work, and to
perform to our standards and the FAA's standards required of
their license, I'm prone not to go enquiring about that. We set
our compensation levels, based on the peer group that we
compete against. And, most importantly, it is a negotiated
process, it's a collective bargaining agreement that we reach
with the--in the case of our pilots, the Airline Pilots
Association, who ably represent pilots across the country.
Senator Begich. Mr. Trenary?
Mr. Trenary. I think it really goes to professional
standards, because we don't track what people do in their off
time. I can tell you that some pilots live on what they're
paid, some do not; some have kids, mortgages, colleges, things
like that. I know pilots who work for major carriers making
well into the six figures who have other jobs, not because they
need the money, but because they want to. It really gets into a
lifestyle choice. One of the things that I'd recommend is we
could take this issue to our professional standards group. They
do an outstanding job helping with ASAP and our other safety
programs. We could ask them to look at this and tell us what
they're seeing.
Senator Begich. Yes, I would just be interested, because,
you know, if there's a trend line--you know, I don't know the
answer to this, that's why I'm, obviously, asking the question.
But, I know when we managed a police force--you know, I had 500
police officers, I had 400 paramedics, firefighters--it was
very important that we--you know, if they were working--in our
case, we had them working four-10s, the police officers. So,
you know 10 hours is a long day, and you don't want them to go
10 hours, and then spin out and do something else afterwards,
and then come back for another 10-hour shift, because--it
doesn't matter what they tell you; physically and mentally,
they--their system is degraded. Period. I don't--they cannot
argue me out of that, based on all the scientific evidence. So,
that's--it would be an interesting--if there's a trend line
going the wrong direction--and maybe--when I say ``wrong
direction,'' more secondary employment--but, yet maybe there's
no impact. I don't know the answer. But, I would appreciate
that.
Mr. Trenary. We'll get back to you and see what we can come
up with.
[The information referred to follows:]
Answer. I am not aware of any existing source for secondary
employment trend information for our pilots or the industry. However, I
have asked our Professional Standards Group to survey our Pilots to
determine how many hold down second jobs. All Pilots are required to
attend recurrent training (Captains every 6 months; First Officers once
annually). We will poll our Pilots during recurrent training regarding
jobs outside of our airlines and provide the results of our survey to
the Committee.
The attached presentation is the one we used to brief various
Senators and staff on the relationship between Pinnacle and Colgan and,
more importantly, the Safety programs at both carriers. The most
important pages in the deck are 10 through 15 which outline our Safety
programs.
Senator Begich. I appreciate----
Mr. Trenary. We'll look----
Senator Begich.--that.
Mr. Trenary.--at that.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. That's the limit of my
question time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Begich, thank you very much.
Let me just ask, again, about this issue of IOSA. How many
regional carriers do we have in the country? Is it around 20
that are under contract?
Mr. Bowler. I--we can--it--I would--my guess would be 20 to
30----
Senator Dorgan. Alright. And----
Mr. Bowler.--regional. But, we can get back to you----
[The information referred to follows:]
Answer. According to the most recent data from the Regional Airline
Association, there were 72 U.S. regional airlines in 2007 based on the
number of carriers reporting U.S. DOT Form 41 traffic. However, in the
first half of 2008, there were 70 U.S. regional airlines based on the
number of carriers reporting U.S. DOT Form 41 traffic. To be classified
as a ``regional'' airline, a carrier typically has annual operating
revenue of less than $100 million. Furthermore, a ``national'' airline
has annual operating revenues between $100 million and $1 billion and a
``major'' airline has annual operating revenues in excess of $1
billion. By definition, American Eagle is a major airline. Additional
information may be viewed by visiting the website of the Regional
Airline Association at http://www.raa.org/index.php?option=com_content
&task=view&id=16&Itemid=30.
Mr. Bowler.--Senator.
Senator Dorgan. Does anyone have information of how many
regional carriers have had the inspection by IOSA that you
described recently? Or, no--let me phrase it a different way.
Are all regional carriers, at this point, in a circumstance
where they have had an IOSA inspection?
Mr. Trenary. I would put it this way. I don't know the
answer to that question, but I believe that any regional
carrier flying for a major mainline carrier in the U.S.--
United, U.S. Airways, Continental, Delta--would have had an
IOSA inspection. I don't know that, but I would believe that
would be the case.
Senator Dorgan. Let me have you submit that for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Answer. I cannot speak for all regional carriers, but I believe any
regional carrier flying for a major mainline carrier in the U.S. would
have had an IOSA inspection. Our mainline carriers, Continental, Delta,
United and U.S. Airways, all require their regional carriers to
successfully complete an IOSA inspection.
Senator Dorgan. My understanding is that that may not be
the case, that the issue of IOSA----
Mr. Trenary. We can find out for you.
Senator Dorgan.--inspections is a more recent phenomenon.
And inspections of regionals, in any event.
And the point I was getting at earlier is that the network
carriers have a requirement with respect to co-chair partners.
That requirement does not exist with respect to the regional
carriers, isn't that correct?
Captain Gunther. Correct.
Senator Dorgan. And the obvious question is, Why? The co-
chair partners actually don't wear your colors, in most cases;
they have their own brand, and you move from one carrier to
another, as a result of a co-chairing arrangement, which is
very helpful to the traveling public. But, when you have a co-
chair partner, you have a requirement--and I understand you
accept that requirement as a result of an IOSA inspection--but,
as opposed to a co-chair, when you have a relationship with a
commuter carrier, that requirement does not exist. And that's a
strange disconnect, as far as I'm concerned, because that
disconnects the responsibility from the network to the
regional.
Captain Gunther. Yes, sir. And if I could make the point--
one of the reasons IOSA is so important--we are dealing with
carriers outside this country, with different regulators. And
those regulators vary from country to country. And the purpose
of IOSA was to standardize, throughout the different
regulators, a standard safety format so that we could be
assured, no matter what country we were dealing with, that they
were meeting the standards set up by IATA and the ICAO
standards.
We have a standard, in this country, which is set up by the
FAA--safety standards. And so, as the regionals are doing IOSA,
and several of our regionals have IOSA audits, that is in line
with what we have with these alliances--so, an Air France can
look at a flight, knowing that every one of their passengers
will be on a carrier that has met that IOSA standard, and that
helps them, because of the difference in regulators, as we go
across different countries.
Mr. Bowler. Senator, I might----
Senator Dorgan. But, the only thing I would say to that is
that there's a general feeling, I think, even at the FAA, that
that's--one standard has drifted since the mid-1990s--the
articulation by the FAA of one safety standard, one standard. I
think there's a general feeling, on this panel, I would say,
that that has drifted some, and that's why there's now new
attention to trying to make certain we have that which was
previously described as one standard. So, if it did drift, and
you don't have one standard, then, it seems to me, the
requirement would be even more important with respect to
regional carriers on behalf of the networks.
Captain Gunther. And I understand that, Senator, and I
agree with the one standard. We need to have one standard in
this country.
Mr. Bowler. Senator----
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Bowler, did you want to respond?
Mr. Bowler. Well, I just wanted to comment that, in light
of the transparency between ourselves and American and the
other audit and safety-related activities, we have not
undergone an IOSA audit at Eagle; it is something we're
considering doing, going forward. We have not done so to this
point.
Senator Dorgan. But, I assume that Eagle is different, in
the sense that there's a requirement on the part of your parent
company--I mean, your parent company's responsible for what
happens with you, because they own you. Is that correct? Am I
wrong about that?
Mr. Bowler. Well, the executives of American Eagle are
responsible for managing it, in the eyes of the FAA. Perhaps,
in--if the--if it's a legal responsibility, as liability of--in
the event of an accident, to the extent we have common
ownership, then there's shared responsibility.
Senator Dorgan. All right.
Let me just conclude by saying that I have flown, I
suppose, almost all commercial planes over the many years I've
served, and--I mean, I can recall ``the good old days.'' Let me
frame it, as Senator Thune has done, from the Dakota
experience. I can recall ``the good old days,'' when leaving
Bismarck, North Dakota, you were almost always going to leave
on a 737 or a 727, by Western Airlines, Republic--or a DC-9,
perhaps--Republic Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Frontier
Airlines--all of them flying larger airplanes. That was ``the
good old days,'' 30 years ago. And then we had Metroliners, the
little cigar tubes, silver tubes that people sat in. And then
1900s, and now RJ-50s, and now, you know, 76-passenger RJs. I
mean, we've had this morphing of different kinds of equipment.
And at the same time, we've gone from a hub-and-spoke system
that's--that was created by--in their own image, and run by the
major carriers. And I understand; it made a lot of sense. You
pick people up in a spoke, move them to a hub, regather them in
another airplane, and fly them from one hub to another. It
makes a lot of sense. It's the business model that they created
after deregulation. And--that new model, however, has also now
changed, from the network carriers picking people up in the
spoke and delivering them, to hiring other companies to do that
job--smaller companies, in many cases--and companies in which
they'll fly smaller, perhaps right-sized, airplanes, in some
cases, and carriers that will be paying less for their crew and
their pilots. And therefore, if one-half of the flights that
take off from airports today are with those kinds of companies,
regional carriers who are paying less for their crews in the
cockpit, and flight attendants and so on, it just leads to an
obvious question, Do we have the same standards if we have
less-experienced, lower-paid crews than ``the good old days,''
when the 737, DC-9, and 727 would be coming in, with only the
major carrier flying it?
Now, I understand the business model has changed. But, as
the business model has changed, and half those flights are now
not with the network carrier, but with some other kind of
service, the question, I think, that we ask, and I think the
FAA has to look at, is, Are there diminished standards? Is
there equivalent capability? Do we have, as a passenger, a
right to believe that behind the cockpit door represents the
same capability, same experience, same professionalism, and so
on?
And I'm not, by asking the question, diminishing a lot of
good people that fly. I see--I mean, I fly on a lot of these
airplanes. I get off some of them, and I look in the cockpit
and think, ``Holy cow. I mean, is that person out of college
yet? Rather young pilot.'' But, I'm the last person that should
be saying that, because I'm--I was selected by a Governor, at
age 26, to serve in a constitutional office.
So, I understand, you can be young and professional, and do
a great job. I understand all of that. I'm just saying that the
way this whole system has been created in recent years is the
creation of a regional system that pays less and flies smaller
planes--and the significant question I think Senator Begich, I,
and others ask is, Has the FAA and have standards kept up so
that a passenger boarding that plane with those markings can
feel it is boarding the plane with the same kind of experience
as existed on network carriers' plane? That--I mean, that's
part of the discussion about all of this that we've had with
the FAA and with your carriers.
And I want to end where I began. It's not my intention to
frighten anybody, it's not my intention to suggest we don't
have a remarkably safe system. We do. We've--we have, knock on
wood, had precious few casualties and accidents. But, at least
those circumstances that have existed that resulted in tragedy,
I think, raise questions and constantly should require us to be
alert to what kind of changes are required, given the fact that
these--that this industry has changed and is creating and
providing a different kind of service in different areas of the
country.
So, if any of you have observations you wish to make to
that, I'd be happy to hear them, and then we're going to
adjourn the hearing.
Anyone wish to comment on that?
[No response.]
Senator Dorgan. This is the third in a series of hearings
we've held. We are working closely with the FAA and
Administrator Babbitt. We want to work closely with all of you
to try to continue to think through, to be alert, and to
understand these issues, and make certain that we always make
changes that are necessary to assure the American people that,
when you board an airplane in this country, you have confidence
that the standards are being met, enforced vigorously, we have
an FAA that is doing its job, and we have airline carriers that
are required to be vigilant in doing their job. That's what we
want the American people to believe and understand.
So, I want to thank you. I know that people who run
airlines and are in executive positions with airlines don't
want to come to the Congress to talk about two things: their
finances or safety. I understand that. So, I understand you
didn't exactly line up at the door, asking to be admitted. But,
we, on the Committee, very much appreciate your willingness to
continue this discussion. It's very important. And we'll
continue to have this discussion in the future, with you and
with the FAA.
This hearing's adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Byron L. Dorgan to
Captain Stephen M. Dickson
Question 1. In most code-share agreements between major and
regional air carriers the major airline is typically given the right to
inspect the safety of their code-share partners' operations. Does this
right exist in all of your companies' code-share agreements?
Answer. Yes.
Question 1a. Does Continental or Delta exercise this right as a
matter of standard policy? If so, how often and what was the scope of
your review during these inspections?
Answer. Delta's approach to safety oversight of our regional
partners has many aspects. Certainly, having the ability to inspect and
work with our regional partners is one key part of our safety program.
As a matter of course, Delta is able to and does exercise its right to
inspect our partners. We recognize that audits and inspections
particularly on such items as safety and quality programs, pilot
hiring, pilot training, and operations control are an on-going part of
our responsibilities. We also are able to, and do, carry out full
audits of operations of our regional partners.
Question 1b. How are the findings of these inspections communicated
to the regional airlines?
Answer. After an audit or inspection, we make sure that our
regional partners are aware of our findings and we work with the
regional partner, depending on the finding, to make any necessary
changes. Any findings from audits are handled under a consistent set of
processes within our company, whether the audit is internal or
conducted by a third party. In addition, these are all handled in
accordance with our FAA approved quality programs.
Question 1c. Have any changes been implemented at a regional
airline as a result of the major air carrier's safety inspection?
Answer. We believe that audits and inspections have enhanced safety
of operations. Sharing of best practices has resulted in more robust
safety programs in such areas as training, winter operations, and
deicing.
Question 2. Although DOT currently has a rule that requires the
disclosure of the identity of each company that operates a leg of a
flight on behalf of a major carrier, confusion remains for many
passengers regarding which air carrier is actually operating their
flight. How can we further raise the awareness of consumers when their
flight is operated by an air carrier other than the one from whom they
purchased their tickets?
Answer. As the question indicates, the operator is required by the
DOT to be identified at the time of purchase. For Delta, specific
operators are identified to customers when they purchase through our
reservations phone lines, and the information is displayed for Internet
users on our website. In addition, the ``operated by'' identification
is made again on tickets and again on the boarding passes. Finally, for
Delta and Delta Connection customers boarding regional aircraft, the
regional partner is displayed on the fuselage of the aircraft just
outside the boarding door.
Question 3. Some major airlines have a ``flow back'' provision in
their contract with pilots which allows an experienced pilot at a major
airline that becomes furloughed or laid-off the opportunity to fly for
the major carrier's affiliated regional airline. Does your air carrier
have flow-back provisions in their contracts with your pilots? What
your assessment of the utility of ``flow back'' provisions? If you
believe that they are effective, why aren't they more utilized across
the industry?
Answer. We have flow-back provisions with two of our regional
partners, Mesaba and Compass. Flow-back provisions are usually paired
with a corresponding flow-up capability. While there are advantages to
flow-back and flow-up provisions, the differing needs of the carriers
can make the use of such provisions challenging. The flow-back
provisions tend to create additional training requirements and
disruption at the regional carrier, particularly if the mainline
carrier is in a period of retrenchment and the regional is in a stable
or growth period.
Question 4. Do you believe that ``one level of safety'' has been
achieved for all Part 121 air carriers?
Answer. Yes. When the one level of safety program was announced a
number of years ago, it presented challenges, particularly for the Part
135 operators. Today, the Part 121 regulations provide a single
standard for both regional and mainline operations. FAA requirements
are typically the minimum standard with many different methods of
compliance. Many carriers have implemented programs tailored to their
operations that exceed the minimum regulatory requirements by a
significant margin. For example, the implementation of training
programs under Advanced Qualification Programs (AQPs) often allows
carriers to conduct pilot training that is more applicable and relevant
to real-world scenarios and the conditions under which carriers
operate.
Question 5. In what ways may a major airline and its regional
partners work together to improve aviation safety?
Answer. Delta has established a formal Safety Alliance with all
nine of its regional partner carriers. This Alliance meets monthly and
participants include the Directors of Safety for all carriers. During
these meetings the carriers share performance on common safety metrics
(accident/incident investigations and solutions to safety issues that
contributed to these events), work toward implementing enhanced safety
programs and standards, and discuss common responses to industry safety
concerns that the FAA has passed along through mechanisms such as SAFOs
(Safety Alerts for Operators).
Question 6. Please describe the existing fatigue management
policies for pilots in place at your air carrier. What can the
government do to encourage your airlines to give pilots more leeway to
forgo a shift because of fatigue?
Answer. Delta has implemented education on managing fatigue into
our training programs and crew communications for the past 10 years. We
have also worked closely with fatigue scientists to help us identify
and mitigate risks in our operations due to potential fatigue issues.
Additionally, we have collected and analyzed data to verify the
performance of our pilots in some parts of our international
operations, and this work is expanding now to other areas of our
operation. Finally, any pilot who indicates he is fatigued while
performing company flying is removed from the operation without
question and without disciplinary action, no questions asked. In
collaboration with industry, the FAA should adopt a scientifically-
based Fatigue Risk Management (FRMS) model similar to that being
developed within ICAO. This would eventually allow an operator to be
much more proactive in managing this risk and would also provide for
approved fatigue mitigation in areas where elevated risk was
identified. Current rules are too prescriptive and not flexible enough
to account for differences in the ways carriers operate.
Question 7. In the 1990s Atlas Air was having problems attracting
qualified pilots. As part of their efforts to attract pilots, Atlas Air
instituted the ``Gateway Travel Program'' which pays a commuting
pilot's travel and accommodation expenses to ensure that they are
rested prior to their shifts. Why don't more commercial airlines adopt
programs like this to prevent fatigue?
Answer. Atlas, a cargo carrier, has a unique operation as compared
to most scheduled passenger carriers. For example, Atlas' pilots trips
typically do not originate at a crew base so their pilots always have
to commute to get in position to fly. On the rare occasion where one of
our pilots would start from somewhere other than his base (i.e., to
cover a mid-rotation sick-out) we would handle this through a deadhead
from the pilot's base with rest and expenses taken into account The
flexibility of commuting is one of the factors pilots take into account
when determining how to bid on positions in the airline. The payment of
travel and accommodation expenses would also favor one group of pilots
(commuters) over another (those who choose not to commute). As
discussed at the hearing, the FAA is working through the issue of pilot
fatigue. The Aviation Rulemaking Committee on fatigue, in which the
industry participated, recently submitted its recommendations to the
FAA. We look forward to continuing to work with the FAA on the science
of fatigue and adopting best practices and procedures.
Question 8. Colgan has recently stated that it plans to conduct a
LOSA Audit on all of its operations. As you may know, the FAA
recommends not conducting such an audit within a year after an accident
because the chances of getting normal data will be diminished. Do you
think that Colgan should conduct a LOSA audit at this time?
Answer. LOSA has been an extremely valuable tool for Delta over the
years and provides a perspective that is not available through other
audit programs. From our perspective a LOSA audit would provide value
whether or not it was conducted in a post-accident environment.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Byron L. Dorgan to
Captain Don Gunther
Question 1. In most code-share agreements between major and
regional air carriers the major airline is typically given the right to
inspect the safety of their code-share partners' operations. Does this
right exist in all of your companies' code-share agreements?
Answer. In the event of a safety concern, Continental has the right
to inspect, review and observe its partners operations of scheduled
flights.
Question 1a. Does Continental or Delta exercise this right as a
matter of standard policy?
Answer. Continental exercises its right to investigate reasonable
safety concerns of which it is aware.
Question 1b. If so, how often and what was the scope of your review
during these inspections?
Answer. There is no set schedule Continental follows with regard to
exercising its right to investigate reasonable safety concerns.
Continental communicates regularly with carriers with which it
contracts and follows up on any notice it receives of safety or
operational concerns. The scope of Continental's investigation would
depend on the circumstances that prompted the review, but at a minimum,
Continental obtains and reviews safety audits performed by qualified
independent entities to learn more about a regional carrier, including
available IOSA audit reports, DOD surveys, or other network carrier
audits.
Question 1c. How are the findings of these inspections communicated
to the regional airlines?
Answer. In person and/or by phone with the carrier's senior
personnel in charge of safety and operations.
Question 1d. Have any changes been implemented at a regional
airline as a result of the major air carrier's safety inspection?
Answer. Continental is unaware of what specific changes regional
carriers with which it contracts have made based on Continental's
exercise of its right to investigate reasonable safety concerns, but
Continental is aware of changes that have been made in some carriers'
policies and practices as a result of collaboration within the aviation
community on issues that bear on safety, as well as Continental's
sharing of its safety-related policies and practices with its code-
share partners.
Question 2. Although DOT currently has a rule that requires the
disclosure of the identity of each company that operates a leg of a
flight on behalf of a major carrier, confusion remains for many
passengers regarding which air carrier is actually operating their
flight. How can we further raise the awareness of consumers when their
flight is operated by an air carrier other than the one from whom they
purchased their tickets?
Answer. The DOT requires airlines to disclose the carrier actually
operating the flights. Continental does so in numerous different ways,
including on its website, such as on the pages where customers search
for flights, select flights, book itineraries and on e-ticket receipts.
Additionally, Continental lists on its website all carriers with which
it codeshares and/or participates in alliances. Customers who choose to
make travel plans through telephone reservations or travel agents are
also advised of the operating carrier at the time of booking.
Question 3. Some major airlines have a ``flow back'' provision in
their contract with pilots which allow an experienced pilot at a major
airline that becomes furloughed or laid-off the opportunity to fly for
the major carrier's affiliated regional airline. Does your air carrier
have flow-back provisions in their contracts with your pilots?
Answer. No.
Question 3a. What [sic] your assessment of the utility of ``flow
back'' provisions?
Answer. They generally are workable for major carriers; however,
such provisions tend to create strain on regional carriers during
periods of rapid growth and reduction in pilot ranks at major carriers.
Question 3b. If you believe that they are effective, why aren't
they more utilized across the industry?
Answer. See answer above.
Question 4. Do you believe that ``one level of safety'' has been
achieved for all Part 121 air carriers?
Answer. Continental believes there should be one regulatory
standard of safety and it should apply to all carriers, but Continental
does not have the ability to determine whether it has been achieved for
all Part 121 air carriers. Continental recognizes the leadership and
oversight role of the FAA in promoting and ensuring airline safety.
That being said, Continental is committed to working with all members
of the aviation community to continuously improve the safety of our air
transportation system.
Question 5. In what ways may a major airline and its regional
partners work together to improve aviation safety?
Answer. FAA sets the safety standards for all airlines, and all
airlines are each individually responsible for ensuring their own
compliance. With regard to what airlines can do to help further the
interests of safety within the FAA regulatory framework, Continental
supports airlines working together to address recognized safety
problems through participation in committees or task forces, such as
the Aviation Safety Information and Analysis Sharing (ASIAS) program
and the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST), and by participation in
safety forums and meetings where best practices and other aspects of
the FAA voluntary safety programs (ASAP, FOQA, LOSA and AQP) are shared
and discussed.
Question 6. Please describe the existing fatigue management
policies for pilots in place at your air carrier.
Answer. Continental has a very explicit fatigue management policy
for pilots. When a pilot calls in fatigued, they will be immediately
removed from the schedule without reprimand.
Question 6a. What can the government do to encourage your airlines
to give pilots more leeway to forgo a shift because of fatigue?
Answer. Currently, the FAA has established the Flight and Duty Time
ARC to address fatigue issues and outline the process to establish a
Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS). The FRMS uses a science-based
approach to managing fatigue and should have a fatigue policy embedded
in its processes.
Question 7. In the 1990s Atlas Air was having problems attracting
qualified pilots. As part of their efforts to attract pilots, Atlas Air
instituted the ``Gateway Travel Program'' which pays a commuting
pilot's travel and accommodation expenses to ensure that they are
rested prior to their shifts. Why don't more commercial airlines adopt
programs like this to prevent fatigue?
Answer. Network carriers have been able to attract and hire
qualified pilots. Pilots are not restricted to living in a specific
location and many choose to live away from their place of work. It is
the responsibility of the crewmember to report for duty adequately
rested and prepared for a scheduled flight duty period. Anything to the
contrary will be viewed as a violation of FAR 91.13. An air carrier is
prohibited from assigning a crew member to a flight duty period if the
crew member has reported himself as not fit for duty or if the air
carrier believes that the crew member is not fit for duty. A pilot, who
says he/she is fatigued, is removed from duty without negative
consequences.
Question 8. Colgan has recently stated that it plans to conduct a
LOSA Audit on all of its operations. As you may know, the FAA
recommends not conducting such an audit within a year after an accident
because the chances of getting normal data will be diminished. Do you
think that Colgan should conduct a LOSA audit at this time?
Answer. Continental understands that Colgan plans to conduct a Line
Observation Safety Audit (LOSA) in the 1st Quarter of 2010, which would
meet the recommended 1 year period following an accident.