    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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

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

                                    (115-4)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                                    AVIATION

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 8, 2017

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

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

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                      BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

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

                                      (ii)

                            Subcommittee on Aviation

                    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman

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

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

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

                                   TESTIMONY

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

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

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

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

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

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

                            ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

    Written statements from:

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

        [The chart follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

        [The chart can be found on page 17.]

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             [all]