    [Senate Hearing 115-66]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-66

                              FAA REAUTHORIZATION:
                       PERSPECTIVES ON RURAL AIR SERVICE
                       AND THE GENERAL AVIATION COMMUNITY

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

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 6, 2017

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                                 Transportation

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    26-598 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2017

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                       JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
    ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
    JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       GARY PETERS, Michigan
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
                           Nick Rossi, Staff Director
                     Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
                        Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
                     Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
                  Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                          Renae Black, Senior Counsel
                                     ------

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY

    ROY BLUNT, Missouri, Chairman        MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi             Ranking
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
    JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       GARY PETERS, Michigan
    SHELLEY CAPITO, West Virginia        TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on April 6, 2017....................................     1
    Statement of Senator Blunt.......................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................     5
    Statement of Senator Moran.......................................     9
        Letter dated March 6, 2017 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill
          Nelson from 150 mayors regarding the privatization of our
          air traffic control system and the removal of Congressional
          oversight..................................................    11
    Statement of Senator Inhofe......................................    13
    Statement of Senator Booker......................................    15
    Statement of Senator Hassan......................................    17
    Statement of Senator Capito......................................    18
    Statement of Senator Wicker......................................    20
    Statement of Senator Peters......................................    21
    Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    23

                                    Appendix

    Hon. Laurie Gill, Mayor of Pierre, South Dakota, prepared
      statement......................................................    29
    Spencer Dickerson, Senior Executive Vice President--Global
      Operations, American Association of Airport Executives, and
      Executive Director, U.S. Contract Tower Association, prepared
      statement......................................................    31
    Mark Baker, President and CEO, Aircraft Owners and Pilots
      Association, prepared statement................................    41
    Dr. Guy M. Smith, Professor Emeritus, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
      University, prepared statement.................................    45
    Letter dated April 4, 2017 to Senator Roy Blunt from Matt
      Atkinson, Board Chair, Alaska Air Carriers Association and Jane
      Dale, Director, Alaska Air Carriers Association................    51
    Letter dated April 6, 2017 to Hon. John Thune, Hon. Bill Nelson,
      Hon. Roy Blunt and Hon. Maria Cantwell from Selena Shilad,
      Executive Director, Alliance for Aviation Across America.......    53
    Letter dated June 30, 2017 to Hon. John Thune from Alan J.
      Stolzer, Ph.D., FRAeS, Dean and Professor, Embry-Riddle
      Aeronautical University........................................    54
    Written statement from the Air Line Pilots Association,
      International..................................................    55
    Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Guy M. Smith by:
        Hon. John Thune..............................................    63
        Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................    64
        Hon. Tammy Duckworth.........................................    65
    Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to:
        Spencer Dickerson............................................    70
        Mark Baker...................................................    71
    Response to written question submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth
      to:
        Hon. Laurie Gill.............................................    72

                              FAA REAUTHORIZATION:
                       PERSPECTIVES ON RURAL AIR SERVICE
                       AND THE GENERAL AVIATION COMMUNITY

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2017

                                   U.S. Senate,
          Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety,
                                          and Security,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
    room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Roy Blunt,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Blunt [presiding], Thune, Wicker,
    Fischer, Moran, Inhofe, Capito, Gardner, Young, Cantwell,
    Klobuchar, Booker, Peters, and Hassan.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI

        Senator Blunt. The hearing will come to order. Based on
    Senator Cantwell's staff assurance that we can start without
    her and she is on the way, we are going to do that.
        We have an 11 o'clock vote scheduled today, and because of
    that, we have asked the witnesses to give us an opportunity to
    look at your written testimony and ask questions, and so we
    will be moving quickly here as we get started.
        We are certainly glad our witnesses are here today. The
    Honorable Laurie Gill, the Mayor of Pierre, South Dakota. How
    we get someone from Pierre to be here with Chairman Thune, the
    Chairman of the Full Committee, is a shock to all of us. But,
    Mayor, we are glad you are here. Spencer Dickerson, the
    Executive Director of the U.S. Contract Tower Association,
    which is an affiliate organization of the American Association
    of Airport Executives. Mr. Mark Baker, the President and CEO of
    the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. And Dr. Guy Smith,
    Professor Emeritus at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
        We are pleased that you are all here.
        I certainly want to recognize that there are family members
    here of the victims of Colgan Air Flight 3407. Your presence
    here today is a reminder to us that aviation safety must be the
    primary goal of this subcommittee and the Congress as it deals
    with FAA issues.
        This hearing is part of a series of hearings on the
    reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.
        Civil aviation, obviously, is critically important to our
    economy and particularly important to small and rural
    communities. It is estimated that the overall economic impact
    of reliable air service in small communities is roughly $121
    billion, and it supports over 1.1 million jobs.
        Quality air service links smaller communities to the
    broader economy and global transportation networks. Small and
    non-hub airports provide a lifeline for local businesses, for
    transportation of service members, and others.
        A perfect example of that would be the Waynesville-St.
    Robert Regional Airport at Forney Field, at Fort Leonard Wood,
    Missouri, located in central Missouri. This is a joint use
    facility which provides reliable, accessible air service for
    members of the military serving on post and thousands of their
    family members who attend annually the regular training
    graduations there. It also links local businesses to Lambert
    International Airport at St. Louis. It supports tourism at the
    Mahaffey Museum complex on base.
        And that is only one of a lot of small airport stories
    around America where the airport being linked up to the greater
    network makes all the difference in the world and where
    commercial air service at those airports really matters.
        General aviation also is an important part of the
    responsibility we have here. It encompasses a range of
    noncommercial operations, including private pilots that fly
    small planes, gliders, hot air balloons, homemade aircraft, as
    well as sophisticated jet aircraft, as part of the daily
    business flow of the country.
        General aviation plays an important role in connecting
    rural areas to the rest of the Nation's air transportation
    system. It is also estimated to support over a million jobs and
    accounts for over $2 billion in total economic activity.
        There is no question that the importance of regional air
    service and general aviation needs to be one of our priorities.
    From 2007 to 2016, small and non-hub airports experienced
    significant declines in departure seats and connectivity.
    Additionally, in 2014, the Government Accountability Office
    testified that regional airlines were having difficulties
    finding sufficient numbers of qualified pilots.
        Reduced service in rural airports is alarming, and a number
    of members of this subcommittee are concerned about that.
        I am going to submit the rest of my remarks for the record.
        We, of course, are going to be looking at and want to talk
    about the Contract Tower Program, small community air service,
    some of the elements that we put in the Senate version of FAA
    reauthorization last year that turned out to be more of a
    temporary extension.
        Senator Cantwell and I are both committed to having the
    best bill we can possibly produce and, if possible, get that
    done by the end of this current extension of FAA. And I am glad
    that she and I are working together on this committee, and I
    turn to her for her remarks.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Blunt follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Roy Blunt, U.S. Senator from Missouri
        Good morning.
        Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before this Subcommittee
    today to discuss their perspectives on rural air service and the
    general aviation community.
        We have before us: The Honorable Laurie Gill, Mayor, Pierre, South
    Dakota; Mr. Spencer Dickerson, Executive Director, U.S. Contract Tower
    Association, an affiliated organization of the American Association of
    Airport Executives; Mr. Mark Baker, President and CEO, Aircraft Owners
    and Pilots Association; and Dr. Guy Smith, Professor Emeritus, Embry-
    Riddle Aeronautical University.
        I would also like to recognize the family members of the victims of
    Colgan Air Flight 3407. Your presence is a steadfast reminder that
    aviation safety must be the primary goal of this subcommittee.
        This hearing is one of a series on reauthorization of the Federal
    Aviation Administration (FAA).
        As we've previously noted, civil aviation is a critically important
    sector for the economy in general, and in rural and small communities
    in particular. It is estimated that the overall economic impact of
    reliable air service in small communities is roughly $121 billion, and
    it supports over 1.1 million jobs.
        Quality air service links smaller communities to the broader
    economy and global transportation networks. Small, and non-hub airports
    provide lifelines for local businesses, transportation for service
    members and their families, and bolster local tourism. A perfect
    example of this is the Waynesville-St. Robert Regional Airport at
    Forney Field, Fort Leonard Wood.
        Located in central Missouri, this joint-use facility provides
    reliable, accessible air service for members of the military serving
    on-post and thousands of their family members who attend annually for
    training graduations. It also links the local businesses in Ft. Leonard
    Wood's surrounding communities to Lambert International in St. Louis,
    and supports tourism for the Mahaffey Museum Complex.
        In addition to commercial air service at regional airports, we also
    want to highlight the important role of General Aviation (GA). GA
    encompasses a range of non-commercial operations, including private
    pilots that fly small planes, gliders, hot air balloons, homebuilt
    aircraft, as well as sophisticated jet aircraft. GA plays an important
    role connecting rural areas to the rest of the Nation's air
    transportation system, and it's estimated that GA supports 1.1 million
    jobs and accounts for $219 billion in total economic output.
        There's no question about the importance of regional air service
    and general aviation, but we must also recognize and address the
    challenges they face.
        From 2007 to 2016, small and non-hub airports experienced
    significant declines in departures, seats, and connectivity.
    Additionally, in 2014, the Government Accountability Office testified
    that regional airlines were having difficulties finding sufficient
    numbers of qualified pilots.
        Reduced service to rural airports is alarming.
        In addition to reduced service, and insufficient availability of
    pilots, we must also examine Federal programs that support air service
    at smaller airports to determine if they are working as Congress
    intended.
        These programs include: The Federal Contract Tower program, which
    allows FAA to contract with private air traffic control providers at
    253 airports nationwide, including five in Missouri; Essential Air
    Service, which provides a safety net to ensure rural areas have air
    service, including four in Missouri; and The Small Community Air
    Service Development Program, which provides grants to communities for
    strategies to improve availability and price of air service, including
    multiple airports in Missouri.
        This Subcommittee is mindful of the anxiety in rural communities
    that hear talk about funding cuts in Washington to these programs.
        Proposed cuts to rural aviation programs are a perennial request of
    both Republican and Democratic administrations.
        While a president has the right to propose cuts in spending, the
    Constitution gives Congress the power to actually set spending.
        The purpose of this hearing is to examine what's working for rural
    aviation, and what can be improved. To that end, we need to think of
    rural aviation and general aviation issues holistically.
        I was pleased with provisions included in the short-term FAA
    Extension, Safety, and Security Act that require the Department of
    Transportation to convene a working group and issue a report to
    Congress by July 15, 2017.
        The focus of the Working Group is to consider whether funding for
    existing rural aviation programs is sufficient, and to identify
    initiatives to support pilot training and aviation safety for small
    communities. The Subcommittee eagerly awaits the working group's
    report, and we look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. I want
    to thank my Subcommittee counterpart, Maria Cantwell, for being here
    today as we continue to work in a bipartisan manner to advance rural
    aviation and safety as part of a comprehensive FAA reauthorization.
        I turn now to Ranking Member Cantwell for any remarks she would
    like to make.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we are on
    a quick time schedule this morning, so I am going to be brief
    and submit my fuller statement for the record.
        But, I too, want to recognize the families who are here of
    the victims of the Colgan Air Flight 3407. Your constant
    presence as we look at aviation security issues and safety
    issues is so appreciated. Thank you for constantly doing that.
        Obviously, we are here today to talk about the
    interconnectedness of our system and making aviation and
    general aviation safer. NextGen will provide better data and
    weather and traffic information to drive that safety.
    Obviously, the FAA's new Part 23 rules I am sure will be
    discussed here.
        The Chairman mentioned briefly the SCASDP grant program. I
    cannot tell you how much we appreciate this program in
    Washington State. It has been able to help us continue to grow
    and launch great services, which have been very stabilized
    after the SCASDP grant, so very, very interested in that.
        And obviously, if I could just say, contract tower,
    contract tower, contract tower three times to get everybody to
    realize how important these contract towers are to communities.
    We are going to get a chance to ask questions about this from a
    safety perspective, but I am sure many of my colleagues here
    have the same concerns about these contract towers, so we want
    to make sure that they remain.
        But rural airports are vital connections. I will just give
    one example.
        In Pullman, Washington, Schweitzer Engineering has its
    headquarters there with more than 2,000 employees, but it is
    just a town of 32,000 people. So the fact that their fleet can
    move in and out, getting their employees and customers--and
    these high 2,000 paying jobs in the community are all supported
    because of that small airport.
        So I want to make sure we are continuing the economic
    development that is associated with our airports throughout our
    state.
        So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit my fuller
    statement.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Cantwell follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator from Washington
        Thank you to the witnesses for being here today to discuss matters
    pertaining to rural aviation and general aviation. I would especially
    like to acknowledge the families of the victims of Colgan Air Flight
    3407, many of whom are here with us today. We all appreciate the
    tireless work you do to make the aviation system safer.
        As we think about our national airspace as an interconnected
    system, we must look at ways to make aviation, and especially general
    aviation, safer. NextGen will provide better data on weather and
    traffic, but we should look for other opportunities to drive safety.
        One area where we have seen progress for general aviation came with
    the release this past December of the FAA's new Part 23 rules. The new
    rules, which apply to GA planes under 19,000 pounds, apply a
    performance-based certification standard to new safety-enhancing
    technologies that can be brought into the cockpits of GA aircraft. The
    new rules should reduce the time and the cost of moving these
    technologies through the certification process, and the system as a
    whole will benefit as a result.
        Importantly, the new Part 23 rules come at a time when aviation
    authorities across the globe are working toward common certification
    standards, meaning that safety technology developed here in the United
    States can be quickly adopted into GA fleets worldwide.
        Following on the heels of the new Part 23 rules, we should consider
    other areas for improving existing regulations. The FAA reauthorization
    provides an opportunity to identify areas where we can enhance,
    streamline, or refocus regulation to improve safety.
        This committee has done much to ensure access to our commercial air
    system for rural areas, especially through its strong support for the
    Essential Air Service program, and the Small Community Air Service
    Development Grant Program (SCASDP, pron. SCAS-DAP).
        In Washington state, SCASDP has had a tremendous impact. Six
    Washington state airports have been awarded SCASDP grants in the last
    six years, and the results have made a real difference. New routes have
    been launched through revenue guarantees, and marketing campaigns have
    led to increased tourism and higher load factors to the benefit of
    these communities.
        Rural airports allow vital connections between small towns and the
    global economy. In Pullman, Washington for example, Schweitzer
    Engineering Laboratories has its headquarters, a major manufacturing
    facility, and more than 2,000 employees--all in a town of just 32,000
    people. SEL's fleet of 5 Pullman-based aircraft have flown about half
    of the company's 4,000-strong global workforce among their more than
    100 locations in the last 15 years. Without the ability to access
    locations far and near, big and small, Schweitzer Labs would be unable
    to respond to their customers' needs, and they certainly wouldn't be
    able to offer 2,000 well-paying jobs.
        My state serves as an example of how the Federal Government can
    work with small and rural communities to ensure that they are able to
    take full advantage of our national airspace. For Washington state,
    SCASDP accomplishes this purpose. For other members of this committee,
    on both sides of the aisle, the Essential Air Service (EAS) program is
    important. That is why I was disappointed in the Administration's
    proposal to eliminate the EAS program, which would have a very negative
    impact on small and rural communities across the country. I am sure
    many members with affected communities will be sharing their views on
    the Administration's proposal.
        With that, I look forward to your testimony.

        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        I think I will defer my questions until later so we can get
    started.
        We have asked the witnesses to do us the favor of not
    providing their testimony verbally. We have the written
    testimony, so we will go right to questions.
        And, Senator Fischer, we will start with you.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Cantwell.
        If I could, I would like to begin with you, Mayor Gill. You
    discussed the AIP funding challenges that small, rural
    communities face in dropping enplanements because of unreliable
    air service.
        Scotts Bluff, which is in the panhandle of Nebraska, faces
    this same challenge. And I was pleased to provide relief to
    rural airports in the FAA extension bill.
        Since you raised this in your testimony, do you have
    additional suggestions on how Congress can craft AIP funding
    distribution so that it recognizes small community airports
    that face this very difficult situation?
        Ms. Gill. Yes, certainly. Thank you so much for that
    question.
        In Pierre, as you are familiar with and have already
    mentioned, we have seen disruption in our service and changes
    in the reliability in the service over the last several years.
    And as that has happened, our enplanements have fallen below
    the 10,000-threshold level.
        What that means to a community like ours is the difference
    in over $1 million annually in money coming in from the AIP
    program that we can use for infrastructure dropping down to
    $150,000 a year. So that kind of a dip is drastic. It is
    dramatic. And $150,000 does not give us much to work on in
    keeping the infrastructure up.
        So in response to your question, what I would recommend is
    that the Airport Improvement Program funding distribution
    should be looked at and crafted in a way that recognizes that
    small community airports may have suffered enplanement
    reductions due to pilot supply issues following implementation
    of the 1,500-hour rule. And when an airport's enplanements
    drop, it is extreme under the current formula.
        Legislation, I believe, should be established to provide a
    more gradual reduction, or a delay in reduction, or some other
    meaningful response to the program to allow us to adapt to the
    scenario that we are facing.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        And as a follow-up, I share your support for strengthening
    the EAS program. Nebraska has seven rural communities that
    receive critical commercial air service because of EAS. And you
    talked about how Pierre was able to use the EAS funding to
    increase the number of enplanements.
        Would you elaborate on how the EAS improved that air
    service, which increased enplanements and the airport's ability
    to serve your community?
        Ms. Gill. Certainly. Just to put this in perspective, what
    happened for us was that, in the summer of 2013, when the
    Federal rule change went into place, the year of 2013, Pierre
    had 14,500 enplanements. Just 3 years later, our traffic had
    plummeted more than 60 percent to less than 6,400, and our
    commercial air service provider at the time could not staff
    their flights because they could not find enough pilots
    eligible under the new rule. Consequently, our reliability of
    our service suffered.
        After the regulation change, by 2015, a full 20 percent of
    our flights out of Pierre were canceled, and 40 percent were
    not on time. The number of flights that we had per day dropped
    from eight to three. Our customers lost confidence in the
    service that was being provided, and that caused enplanements
    to decline even more.
        So what happened was, as a result, Pierre applied for
    funding under the Essential Air Service program. And in 2016,
    that was reinstated and funded.
        As a result, we have been able to receive service now from
    a new carrier using 50-seat regional jets in twice-daily
    service to Denver. Enplanements are recovering, and it looks
    like we are on track to exceed that 10,000-enplanement
    threshold in 2017.
        So we feel like we have a success story with EAS and that
    it has reinstated the lifeline for Pierre to the rest of the
    Nation.
        Senator Fischer. That is good news. I have used your
    airport in the past. I live 2 hours south of Pierre, so I have
    used it.
        Mr. Baker, in your written testimony, you mentioned the
    difficulty in utilizing the nonprimary entitlement funding for
    general aviation airports. In Nebraska, we have 60 of these
    airports that qualify for NPE funding.
        Could you please provide the Subcommittee with your
    perspective on how to improve the effectiveness of this funding
    program for GA airports?
        Mr. Baker. Thank you. I would be happy to.
        You know, if you look at the history of the $150,000 a year
    for these NPE airports, nonprimary entitlement airports, it was
    well-intended. If you go back 15 years ago, there was only
    about, call it about $18 million left over at the end of the
    year. But as we have gone on, costs have risen to update
    taxiways, lighting systems, other things that these general
    aviation airports require, the 5,000 public use ones that are
    out there in the countryside.
        We are now giving back--over $300 million a year is being
    returned because the program does not work anymore.
        We would really like this committee to take a look at how
    we can use that money--it has already been allocated, the $300-
    plus million--and use it in more systematic and significant
    programs to update these airports and keep the infrastructure
    alive. The money has already been allocated, and it is just,
    unfortunately, being turned back into the FAA--to think about
    other programs.
        So we think a real committee effort to pull this together
    and say how should we spend this money and redo the $150,000 a
    year for 4 years, which equals $600,000 for programs, into more
    significant programs at a limited number of airports every year
    to keep this money being employed and take care of this
    infrastructure that is really outdated.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Blunt. Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I mentioned contract towers. Currently, there are 253
    airports in 46 states that participate in this program. Of the
    16 towers in the cost-share program, seven of them are operated
    at airports that support regularly scheduled commercial air
    service. It is the cost-share contract program generally and
    the cost-share contract of these towers, seven of which I want
    to focus on.
        Walla Walla Regional Airport, it will cost I think this
    year $84,700 to participate in the Contract Tower Program. In
    2014, airports had a total, this particular airport, of 72,000.
    I think that is passenger count.
        Similarly, costs at Joplin Regional Airport in Missouri and
    Grand Island in Nebraska supported even larger commercial air
    enplanements. Yet, they too were required to have the local
    match.
        So I can understand the cost-share at a contract tower with
    no commercial air service, but those that are, I would submit
    that when you have a contract tower support regular commercial
    air service flights--so we need to look at this a little
    differently.
        So, Mr. Dickerson, I have heard a discussion of formulas
    being looked at. How can we best support these contract towers
    in the entire system in places like Walla Walla?
        Mr. Dickerson. Thank you, Senator. First off, I would like
    to thank this Subcommittee and the Commerce Committee for its
    great support of this program over the past several years.
        As you said, it is a lifeline that is very important to
    small community rural air service and general aviation.
        The cost-share program was established by Congress about 15
    years ago as a safety net for airports that did not qualify for
    the fully funded program primarily based on their traffic
    level. And that, from our perspective, worked very well.
        It was based on the percentage, so if you were at a 0.8 on
    a benefit-cost ratio, the locals would pay 20 percent. Congress
    put in a limit of 20 percent several years ago.
        What has happened recently, the last several years, is FAA
    has not run these benefit-cost ratios on any of the towers,
    including the benefit-cost of towers. It affects Joplin, as you
    said, Walla Walla, Grand Island.
        A lot of these airports have had an increase in airline
    service and passenger traffic over that period of time,
    probably 7 or 8 years since they ran the BCs. Many of them
    could go into the fully funded program, eliminating the need
    for the local cost-share payment, but FAA has not run these
    towers, BCs on these towers. They put a moratorium on any new
    applicants for the program, nontowered airports, in 2014, which
    has been very frustrating for the industry.
        So a lot of the provisions you had in your bill last year
    exempted cost-share towers that had 25,000 enplanements. That
    would benefit Walla Walla, Joplin, Grand Island. That is a
    great provision. We are very supportive of that.
        You also included a number of reforms to the program to get
    FAA off the dime and get moving. We believe FAA is going to
    wait for Congress to act. We just need closure on this program
    in terms of the new airports that want to get in the program
    and the cost-share facilities.
        Senator Cantwell. We obviously want good programs that
    work. But in this case, I do think the language we submitted
    that was in the Senate version but did not make it into the
    final version really would help these airports that are
    growing. And we are helping them grow.
        So they are almost moving--they are doing what we want them
    to do for our communities and for the air service program. They
    are growing. But then they are still being charged under a
    system that is very punitive, as opposed to being able to move
    up, just because of the moratorium.
        So we would hope that we could figure out a way to get the
    FAA to look--we will give direction. I am definitely for giving
    direction, but we hope that we can resolve this so these
    airports can continue to grow in a cost-effective way. And that
    is really what we are asking.
        I do not know the details of Joplin or this site in
    Nebraska. But I can tell you from Walla Walla's perspective, it
    is going to continue to grow. It is just about how you make the
    next phase and the next leap.
        And since, for us, this is our wine industry, a very
    burgeoning wine industry, tourism industry, we want those
    enplanements to grow. But we have to have a cost-effective way
    for the airport to meet that demand and not be under a system
    that uses an old formula that penalizes them.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt. Senator Moran.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

        Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        I thank our panel for being with us.
        I think a number of us on this Committee and in the U.S.
    Senate have a reputation of being supporters of general
    aviation. I sometimes think that people would perceive me as a
    general aviation supporter because we manufacture so many
    airplanes in Kansas, Wichita, the air capital of the world,
    home of many, many planes being made that are flown across the
    country and around the globe.
        That certainly is a component of my view on these issues
    about rural airports, but the point that we always try to make
    is it is not just about manufacturing airplanes. We need
    airports and pilots who fly those planes. And particularly in
    rural America, the places that all of us come from, our ability
    to connect with the rest of the world is often determined by
    access to air service--commercial and private.
        And so I can name dozens of communities and businesses in
    those communities that are only there, can only remain there,
    if they can connect with the rest of the world because the
    hometown airport is there that brings in their customers and
    clients and allows them to service their customers and clients
    around the globe.
        So if you care about rural America, you better care about
    rural America's airports.
        And I appreciate the testimony. I had the chance to review
    it. I normally wait until you tell me what you are going to
    say. I had to read it this time to find out what you are going
    to say, and I appreciate that.
        I want to list just a few issues that seemed to me to be
    front and center, and make sure that I am not missing anything
    when we come to the topics that we care about in preserving GA
    and regional commercial service at airports across rural
    America and small towns.
        EAS is often front and center, and that is critical to our
    commercial service. The Contract Tower Program has been
    mentioned here numerous times, but it is, again, toward the top
    of the list of things that matter. Airport infrastructure, our
    ability to get the funds to maintain our airports, matter
    greatly to us, and the ability for a local community or county
    to fully fund those airports is limited without the assistance
    of the Federal Government and the FAA.
        More pilots is a critical one to us. The Mayor talked about
    consequences. We have had similar circumstances in which we
    lose commercial service. The EAS subsidy is insufficient to
    keep an airline flying if they cannot provide quality service
    in a timely way. And often at least their explanation for their
    inability to do so is pilots, a pilot shortage.
        And we need to make certain that our small airports who,
    through no fault of their own, do not lose Essential Air
    Service funding because of a gap, or they do not receive the
    infrastructure funding because they have fallen in number of
    enplanements through no fault of their own. The airline just
    cannot provide the service, did not provide the service, or it
    went away. So we need to have a period of time in which
    airports can recover, return to commercial service.
        And then, finally, TSA is an issue that has occurred, and
    when that has happened, loss of service, then to convince TSA
    to come back with screening to a small airport has been a topic
    of concern in a number of instances.
        So that is kind of my outline of those issues that matter,
    that should matter to me as somebody who wants to make sure
    that rural America stays alive and well.
        What am I missing?
        I like that answer.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Moran. Then let me take my comments one step
    further. There is an issue that is pending that is not the
    topic of this hearing, but the issue of privatization of air
    traffic control. And I would be interested if anyone would be
    interested in sharing their view of what concerns or lack of
    concerns they have about this program with air service and
    airports in rural America.
        This one I do expect an answer.
        Mr. Baker. I will weigh in on a view from over 300,000
    pilots and members from AOPA.
        The air traffic control services, whether it be tower or en
    route, is a very effective system, and we do not get any
    complaints from our members, from general aviation and small
    business aviation on the current system as it is employed for
    moving those 200,000-plus general aviation aircraft out there
    today.
        So from our perspective, we just want to make sure there
    are no additional user fees that get impacted by whatever
    change may come down the line.
        But from identifying the problem, we do not see the problem
    with the current air traffic control from a general aviation
    perspective.
        Senator Moran. Thank you.
        Anyone else?
        Mr. Dickerson. Senator, a couple points.
        AAA does not have a position on the ATC nonprofit
    corporation. There are several concerns we have about the bill
    that was introduced last year in the House.
        Number one, we need to make sure the AIP program, the
    airport grant program, has a long-term viability to it for the
    small airports, as you mentioned, and Senator Cantwell
    mentioned.
        PFCs, Passenger Facility Charge, we think that needs to be
    adjusted. That will allow large airports to leverage their
    funds with private investment. It also helps smaller airports
    because the bigger airports give back some of their entitlement
    funds to the smaller airports.
        The governance of the ATC board, the bill introduced last
    year in the House did not have an airport representative, and
    we just think it is critically important to make sure that
    airports are represented on this board that is going to
    potentially manage the air traffic control systems. It is not
    only about the airspace. It is about what is on the ground as
    well.
        And the last thing, we have to make sure there is a
    protection for the Contract Tower Program. As you mentioned and
    as Senator Cantwell mentioned, it is a very, very important
    program for rural America's small airports. We need to make
    sure that program is viable in the future, if Congress moves
    forward with the corporation.
        Senator Moran. Mayor, I do not know whether you have
    anything to say.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent, I have a
    letter that is addressed to the Chairman, Chairman Thune and
    Ranking Member Nelson, from 150 mayors across the country who
    expressed concern with this issue, and I would ask unanimous
    consent that it be made part of the record.
        Senator Blunt. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                                          March 6, 2017
    Hon. John Thune,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Bill Nelson,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson:

        As you debate reauthorization of the Federal Aviation
    Administration (FAA), I write to ask you to reject any risky plans to
    privatize our air traffic control system and take away Congressional
    oversight of this important public system.
        Over the last year, proposals have recently been forwarded to put
    this vital infrastructure under the control of a private entity
    dominated by the commercial airlines. On behalf of the tens of
    thousands of communities around the country, we are concerned about the
    very real and dire ramifications of eliminating Congressional
    oversight-of this public air transportation infrastructure.
        For tens of thousands of communities such as ours around the
    country, we depend on our local airport and all sectors of
    transportation to reach far-off markets and access critical services
    such as law enforcement, disaster relief, and medical care. Small
    aircraft and airports are utilized on a daily basis to help transport
    blood and organs to residents in rural communities, reunite veterans
    back from overseas with their families, maintain power lines, and help
    our companies reach customers in far-off markets, among many other
    priorities.
        Privatization would hand over decisions about infrastructure
    funding, taxes and fees, consumer complaints, noise, and many other
    priorities, to a board of private interests dominated by the commercial
    airlines. These are the same airlines that have cut back flights to
    smaller communities by more than 20 percent in recent years, and have
    stated their intent to divert investment from small and mid-sized
    communities to large ones where the airlines are most profitable.
        We are also concerned about costs and access. For example, the
    Canadian, privatized system, which is often held up as the system the
    U.S. should emulate, is more expensive than the system we have in the
    U.S. by miles flown. In the U.K., that system has seen ``more delays,
    higher fares and reduced connectivity'' at London's airports since
    privatization. So while we all agree that modernizing our air traffic
    control system and investing in American infrastructure should be among
    our highest priorities, privatization is not the answer.
        We look forward to working with you throughout this process to
    ensure that our air transportation system protects communities of all
    sizes and keeps passengers flying safely and efficiently.
                Sincerely,

    Elmira, NY--Mayor Daniel J. Mandell
    Clarksburg, WV--Mayor Catherine A. Goings
    Ocala, FL--Mayor Kent Guinn
    Corning, NY--Mayor Richard P. Negri
    Mitchell, SD--Mayor Jerry Toomey
    Fairmont, WV--Mayor Ronald J. Straight Sr.
    Edgemont, SD--Mayor Carl A. Shaw
    Warwick, NY--Michael J. Newhard
    Texarkana, AR--Mayor Ruth Penney Bell
    Easton, MD--Mayor Robert C. Willey
    Watertown, SD--Mayor Steve Thorson
    Fayetteville, AR--Mayor Lioneld Jordan
    Huron, SD--Mayor Paul Aylward
    Texarkana, TX--Mayor Bob Bruggeman
    Bloomington, IL--Mayor Tari Renner
    Chillicothe, MO--Mayor Charles E. Haney
    Lewisburg, WV--Mayor John Manchester
    Worcester, MA--Mayor Joseph M. Petty
    Elkins, WV Mayor Van T. Broughton
    Wall, SD--Mayor Marty Huether
    Sturgis, SD--Mayor Mark C. Carstensen
    Longmont, CO--Mayor Dennis Coombs
    Albert Lea, MN--Mayor Vern Rasmussen Jr.
    Lake Wales, FL--Mayor Eugene Fultz
    Santa Barbara, CA--Mayor Helene Schneider
    Riverside, CA--Mayor William Bailey
    McCall, ID--Mayor Jackie J. Aymon
    Sioux Falls, SD--Mayor Mike Huether
    Concord, NC--Mayor Scott Padgett
    Prospect Heights, IL--Mayor Nicholas Helmer
    Mountain Home, ID--Mayor Rich Sykes
    Lewiston, ID--Mayor Jim Kleeburg
    Florence, SC--Mayor Stephen J. Wukela
    Fernley, NV--Mayor Roy G. Edgington Jr.
    Huntington, WV--Mayor Steve Williams
    Morristown, NJ--Mayor Timothy Dougherty
    Macomb, IL--Mayor Michael J. Inman
    Kamiah, ID--Mayor Dale Schneider
    Mesquite, NV--Mayor Allan Litman
    Mount Pleasant, SC--Mayor Linda Page
    Newport, OR--Mayor Sandy Roumagoux
    Jacksonville, IL--Mayor Andy Ezard
    Broomfield, CO--Mayor Randy Ahrens
    Petaluma, CA--Mayor David Glass
    DeLand, FL--Mayor Robert F. Apgar
    Jackson, TN--Mayor Jerry Gist
    Gainesville, FL--Mayor Lauren Poe
    Annapolis, MD--Mayor Mike Pantelides
    Fernandina Beach, FL--Mayor John A. Miller
    Naples, FL--Mayor Bill Barnett
    Fargo, ND--Mayor Tim Mahoney
    Sedalia, MO--Mayor Stephen Galliher
    Wenatchee, WA--Mayor Frank Kuntz
    Coeur d'Alene, ID--Mayor Steve Widmyer
    Cumberland, MD--Mayor Brian Grim
    Keene, NH--Mayor Kendall Lane
    Zanesville, OH--Mayor Jeff Tilton
    Youngstown, OH--Mayor John McNally IV
    Henderson, NV--Mayor Andy Hafen
    Big Rapids, MI--Mayor Mark Warba
    Pinedale, WY--Mayor Bob Jones
    Pekin, IL--Mayor John McCabe
    Hermiston, OR--Dr. Dave Drotzmann, Mayor
    Wausau, WI--Mayor Robert Mielke
    Danbury, CT--Mayor Mark D. Boughton
    New London, CT--Mayor Michael Passero
    Idaho Falls, ID--Mayor Rebecca L. Noah Casper
    Valdez, AK-Mayor Ruth E. Knight
    Brigham City, UT--Mayor Tyler Vincent
    Salisbury, MD--Mayor Jacob R. Day
    Ely, MN--Mayor Chuck Novak
    Winona, MN--Mayor Mark Peterson
    New Ulm, MN--Mayor Robert J. Beussman
    Wasilla, AK--Mayor Bert Cottle
    Barre, VT--Mayor Thom Lauzon
    Yerington, NV--Mayor George Dini
    Taos, NM--Mayor Daniel Barrone
    Arlington, WA--Mayor Barbara Tolbert
    Boulder, CO--Mayor Suzanne Jones
    Pullman, WA--Mayor Glenn A. Johnson, Ph.D.
    Abilene, TX--Mayor Norm Archibald
    Monroe, NC--Mayor Bobby Kilgore
    Moscow, ID--Mayor Bill Lambert
    Georgetown, DE--Mayor William E. West
    Kenai, AK--Mayor Brian G. Gabriel, Sr.
    Riverton, WY--Mayor John 'Lars' Baker
    Grant, NE--Mayor Michael Wyatt
    Findlay, OH--Mayor Lydia Mihalik
    Martinsburg, WV--Mayor George Karos
    Bingen, WA--Mayor Betty J. Barnes
    Zephyrhills, FL Mayor Gene Whitfield
    Terre Haute, IN--Mayor Duke Bennett
    Carrollton, GA--Mayor Walt Hollingsworth
    Altus, OK--Mayor Jack Smiley
    Wheeling, WV--Mayor Glenn F. Elliott, Jr.
    Salinas, CA--Mayor Joe Gunter
    Hays, KS--Mayor Shaun Musil
    Augusta, ME--Mayor David Rollins
    Pendleton, OR--Mayor Phillip W. Houk
    Hot Springs, AR--Mayor Ruth Carney
    Fallon, NV--Mayor Ken Tedford Jr.
    Latrobe, PA--Mayor Rosie Wolford
    Le Mars, IA--Mayor Dick Kirchoff
    Hutchinson, KS--Mayor Jon Daveline
    Council Bluffs, IA--Mayor Matt Walsh
    Salina, KS--Mayor Kaye J. Crawford
    Henderson, KY--Mayor Steve Austin
    Kaua'i County, HI--Mayor Bernard Carvalho
    Natchitoches, LA--Mayor Lee Posey
    Jonesville, VA--Mayor Jim Ewing
    Cottonwood, AZ--Mayor Tim Elinski
    Tuscaloosa, AL--Mayor Walt Maddox
    Tucson, AZ--Mayor Jonathan Rothschild
    Clarksdale, MS--Mayor Bill Luckett
    Baker, MT--Mayor JoDee Pratt
    Great Falls, MT--Mayor Bob Kelly
    Middletown, RI--Town Council President Robert Sylvia
    Wichita, KS--Mayor Jeff Longwell
    Newport, RI--Mayor Henry F. Winthrop
    Cumberland, RI--Mayor William Murray

        Senator Blunt. Senator Inhofe.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, Mr. Baker, thank you for all your help in the
    efforts that we have put forth for general aviation. When we go
    back and review real quickly the Pilot's Bill of Rights that
    was successful 3 years ago, certainly your organization was
    instrumental in getting that passed.
        Then when we did the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2, there are
    certain things that were not properly addressed in Pilot's Bill
    of Rights 1 in terms of what the courts might do and all of
    that, so we had the second one.
        But the one issue in there that got everyone's attention,
    of course, was the reform of the third class medical.
        Now there are several other things that were in that bill,
    and we were considering bringing it up in a separate bill this
    week when we had a business session and decided we would wait
    until the next time to make sure that we did not overlook
    anything. So we have the second bill that is going to come up.
        It will take care of the problems that were addressed but
    were not acted upon when the third class medical reform went
    in, such as de novo review, so that if an appeal is made
    through the district courts, they have to start from scratch--
    they do not just automatically take what is handed to them by
    FAA or by NTSB; the transparency issue on re-examinations,
    which you are very familiar with; and then the last thing, the
    updates of the NOTAM program, that is Notice to Airmen.
        Since I had a personal experience with that a few years
    ago, only to find that there were no NOTAMs where they said
    they were NOTAMs, and yet we had no fallback position. That is
    a reform that is going to have to be done.
        All three of those reforms are going to be found in the
    bill that will be marked up by this committee at the next
    business hearing.
        Any comments on that bill?
        Mr. Baker. First off, to you, Senator Inhofe, and this
    Committee, it has been remarkable the difference we feel in
    general aviation with the support of the third class reform,
    which was signed into law last July. And by the way, the FAA
    has risen to the occasion and has met every deadline and maybe
    even exceeded it. It will be effective as of May 1st. And there
    are tens of thousands of aviators that will be back in the game
    over the next coming years, so thank you to this committee and
    to the full Senate for approving that, and your leadership
    particularly on it.
        The final part of the Bill of Rights 2, which you have been
    a leader on and we have been very concerned about, is this
    whole due process part. It is very important that as a citizen
    we have the opportunity to have real review of issues. And that
    is why we very much support the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 and
    getting it signed off, as well as understanding these NOTAMs
    and what they call at the very end of the NOTAM, which means
    Notices to Airmen, it says you cannot trust it at the very end,
    because we do not know if it has actually been depicted
    correctly, a Presidential TFR or any of these things. And yet
    the airmen can be violated for entering that airspace.
        So there is a lot of work that needs to be done to get that
    so that it is clear and concise, and for the pilot to have due
    process.
        So thanks for your leadership on that. We look forward to
    that passing.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes. And I think we have the support to get
    it passed, a lot of that thanks to you.
        They were talking about the NPE program. I was proud to be
    a part of that back in 2000. In fact, that was the amendment to
    bring the general aviation airports into a position where they
    could compete and have some benefits.
        Mr. Dickerson, I think sometimes about what would have
    happened in the State of Oklahoma had we not had the contract
    towers. Our two major cities, in terms of football games, are
    Norman, Oklahoma; and Stillwater, Oklahoma. On football day, it
    is swamped. We without the contracts alternative that we had,
    we would be stuck without any help during that time. Your
    friend Walt Strong tells that story all the time.
        So, right now, there are some problems with it that we are
    going to try to address having to do with some of the benefits
    and reforming the FAA's benefit and cost analysis process.
        Would you address that for us and the benefits that you see
    that need to be improved there?
        Mr. Dickerson. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator. And thank you
    for your leadership along with Senator Blumenthal on the
    contract tower funding letter that you generated 35 Senators on
    board----
        Senator Inhofe. Yes, that is right. The lead Democrat was
    Senator Blumenthal.
        Mr. Dickerson. So the benefit-cost ratio, we have had some
    specific recommendations, many of which, to Senator Cantwell's
    question, were included in the reauthorization bill last year
    and did not make it into the extension.
        What we think it does, right now, the FAA's thumb is on the
    scale against airport safety. It is leaning toward these broad,
    abstract economic models. And control towers provide such
    important, critical safety, we should be erring on the side of
    safety, not abstract economic models.
        Some of our specific recommendations are, unless you your
    traffic drops significantly at an airport, you should not be
    subjected to the annual benefit-cost ratios. The costs that
    would disappear from the FAA's budget if a tower was closed,
    those are legitimate costs to use in the analysis. But
    indirect, nonsite-specific costs that FAA wants to put in the
    model should not be included. Again, we should be erring on the
    side of safety.
        We have recommended lifting the cap on AIP use for building
    contract towers. Right now, it is $2 million.
        We think airports should have adequate time to respond to
    any BCs that the FAA puts out.
        So we have a number of measures that were in my written
    testimony, and many of which were in the bill last year that
    the Senate passed. We hope we can continue to work with the
    Commerce Committee to keep building on that success.
        Senator Inhofe. Excellent answer. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you.
        Senator Booker.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

        Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is so
    appropriate the order that you have chosen this morning:
    Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and New Jersey in that order. These
    are four states that have so much in common.
        But I do want to say that general aviation is of extreme
    importance to my state as well. And while most of our high
    school football teams drive to their games, the reality is we
    have about 2.5 million general aviation operations annually. It
    is a critical part of our overall economy.
        But more than that, more than the almost $3 billion of our
    economy, it has actually proved, and I saw this during
    Hurricane Sandy, as a critical way of getting resources in and
    out of our state.
        So it is something that is of great value and interest to
    me but also, as much as I might joke about the differences
    amongst our states, we are one United States, we are
    interwoven, integrated lifelines whose arteries are our rail
    systems, our intermodal freight operations, but also general
    aviation.
        And so I am very concerned about this as a part of our
    overall infrastructure view, and I have worried that it is not
    getting the kind of attention.
        I was really grateful that Ranking Member Cantwell and
    other Democratic leaders released a $1 trillion infrastructure
    blueprint that included $30 billion in funding and upgrading
    and improving our Nation's airports. We have even heard our
    President talk about our airports and often comparing them to
    what we are seeing in other nations, in terms of their
    infrastructure investments.
        So I was wondering, can any of you speak to me about the
    importance of public investment in the general aviation
    community and how that can help us become more productive
    economically, and how would the $30 billion investment that was
    put into our investment infrastructure vision help general
    aviation needs?
        Mr. Baker. I will take a first shot at that, if you do not
    mind.
        I think if you look at it strategically, and you point out
    very correctly, general aviation's relief to places that the
    highway infrastructure is interrupted, the rail infrastructure
    is interrupted, it is the only way to bring relief, whether it
    is in Louisiana with hurricanes, New Jersey, potentially
    earthquakes in Carolina. It is essential to have a high-quality
    airport with high-capacity in that zone of relief. It is the
    only way to bring in quick relief, whether it is medical,
    whatever kind of relief is needed, and supplies.
        So we are very much involved with the idea that we should
    make sure that that infrastructure is being invested in, and it
    can be supported for the long-term growth of aviation because
    businesses also tend to locate next to an airport. Whether it
    is a factory or warehouse or whatever it is, and I have done
    that myself running other businesses. You need to go in and
    out. You need to make sure you can get there effectively and
    efficiently, and make sure you have a safe flight.
        If we fail to invest in that infrastructure, we are losing
    commerce.
        Senator Booker. Thank you.
        Anybody else?
        Ms. Gill. Yes. Senator, I completely understand where you
    are coming from in terms of the economic importance of general
    aviation.
        In rural America, where we have large open areas and the
    towns are far between, without that aviation and air service,
    folks have to potentially travel hundreds of miles to get to
    other reliable service, which adds other safety concerns.
        But for us, we are talking about the thread that holds
    together economic development opportunities in small, rural
    communities. Modern business demands adequate air service, and
    we have many business operations that are going on in our
    community that depend upon the ability to be connected to the
    rest of the world.
        So in all parts of the Nation, depending on all our
    different scenarios, economic development is very much
    dependent on air service.
        Senator Booker. So then let me maybe--Mr. Dickerson, I
    really do appreciate that. I am one of these people that is
    appalled that we are still doing aviation in this country with
    1940s technology. It causes horrible environmental realities,
    in terms of the quality of the air that people in communities
    like mine and others breathe in. It is horribly inefficient.
        So the NextGen implementation, to me, it is something I
    have been pounding on since I have become a United States
    Senator.
        Can you just maybe conclude by telling me how NextGen would
    help the general aviation industry to improve? And what does
    Congress need to do? Do we need to be investing more to get
    this actually done and implemented nationally?
        Mr. Dickerson. Well, investing more Federal money is always
    important in the aviation sense. Congress has been very
    supportive of the NextGen efforts that FAA has put forward.
        In your area, in the Port Authority of New York and New
    Jersey, with Newark and Kennedy and LaGuardia, it is absolutely
    critical in New Jersey to get NextGen going. A rising tide
    lifts all boats. If we get NextGen going, it is going to
    provide a lot more efficiencies in the system, particularly
    dealing with the delays that we have in the New York-New Jersey
    metropolitan area, Chicago, L.A., and that is going to give
    more access for general aviation into larger communities.
        On the airport infrastructure side, we cannot forget about
    the ground. There is a lot of focus on the administration's
    proposal on ATC corporations in the air. We have to worry about
    what is on the ground, and we have to make sure that airports
    have the necessary funds to deal with the increased demand that
    we are all seeing.
        We mentioned the PFC adjustment we think is needed. AIP,
    the airport grant program, that FAA says there is a $7 billion
    a year in needs and eligible projects, and AIP right now is
    just a little bit over $3 billion, so we are not even quite
    halfway there.
        So more Federal resources would definitely be welcome.
        Senator Booker. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        I think you would probably want to correct for the record,
    out of deference to the Senator from New Jersey, he said the
    Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. He should have said
    the Port Authority of New Jersey and New York.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Dickerson. Corrected.
        Senator Blunt. I am glad to get that straightened out.
        Senator Hassan.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE

        Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Good morning to all of you.
        I am just going to echo the comments you have already heard
    from so many of us on the Subcommittee about the importance of
    rural airports and the EAS program.
        I also wanted to just touch on one point, to build on what
    we have been discussing around the contract towers. We have one
    in Nashua, New Hampshire, and one in Lebanon. And I was pleased
    to join my colleagues on the letter led by Senators Inhofe and
    Blumenthal in support of those.
        There is no question that they have a positive impact.
        I was hoping, Mr. Dickerson, that you could speak to the
    role these contract tower airports play in supporting the
    United States military.
        Mr. Dickerson. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that
    question.
        In fact, Senator Inhofe, Senator Manchin, and Senator
    McCain did a letter to the Commerce Committee in November 2015
    that outlined the critical importance of military and national
    security with contract towers.
        It is interesting. Forty-seven percent of all military
    operations, almost half of all the military operations at
    civilian airports, occur at contract towers.
        The other point about the program is the support of the
    program toward our veterans. Seventy percent--70 percent--of
    all the contract controllers are veterans.
        So the military counts on contract towers for their
    operations, and it makes sense because they do not want to be
    in the major metropolitan areas, in terms of training and
    flight operations, be in the smaller communities. So a very,
    very strong partnership between the Department of Defense,
    national security, and contract tower airports.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you very much.
        I will submit the remaining questions I have for the
    record.
        Thank you all for being here.
        Senator Blunt. Mr. Dickerson, did you say that 70 percent
    of people who operate contract towers are veterans? What was
    your 70 percent?
        Mr. Dickerson. Seventy percent of all contract controllers.
    So the 253 airports that have contract towers, there are about
    1,200 to 1,500 total controllers that work for these three
    companies, and 70 percent of those are veterans.
        Senator Blunt. And almost half of the military
    installations are supported by contract towers?
        Mr. Dickerson. Half of the military operations that occur
    at civilian airports, not bases, but civilian airports, are
    contract towers, correct.
        Senator Capito.

                STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman Blunt. And I would like
    to thank the Ranking Member for holding this hearing as well.
        I want to begin by flagging an issue of great importance.
    We all obviously talk about our states, but we had a very
    unusual occurrence at our Yeager Airport in Charleston.
        If any of you all have ever flown into Yeager Airport, you
    know it is on the top of three mountains. And a large portion
    in 2015, a large portion of the Yeager Airport EMAS, which is
    the emergency system to catch overruns, fell into the valley.
    And the collapse--luckily, nobody was hurt. But it collapsed
    onto a church and resulted in a major safety concern and has
    stymied our ability to grow at Yeager until we can fix this
    issue.
        You can imagine the expense of something like this and also
    making sure that we get it done right for the safety of that
    particular airport.
        We are hoping and we are working together, Senator Manchin
    and I are working together, to make sure that we can get the
    AIP program looking at this, maybe some of the reconfigured
    dollars, which brings me to the question that, Mr. Baker, in
    your testimony, you mentioned that you did not think--and I
    know Yeager does not get the NPE grants because it does not
    qualify for that. It gets the primary grants.
        But you mentioned in your testimony that some of this money
    is not used as efficiently, and it goes back into a national
    pool. Some people cannot get the match. The projects, the money
    that they are able to access is too small to be able to cover a
    larger project.
        Could you kind of expand on improvements that could be done
    to that, so that airports in and around all of our states could
    access these more efficiently?
        Mr. Baker. Sure can, Senator. As a matter of fact, I have
    used that airport, Yeager field, to fly Special Olympics kids
    into that event. It is a great airport. But, as you know, it is
    on top of a mountain, and you do need as much runway as you can
    get.
        Senator Capito. You do. You do not want to go over.
        Mr. Baker. That is right.
        So our proposal, our thinking here, is that, for the NPE
    airports, the $150,000 a year, which they can roll over for 4
    years, which equals $600,000, but also requires local support
    up to 10 percent, when we end up turning back in over $300
    million a year into the general fund, it seems like we are not
    doing what was intended.
        If you go back to when the NPE Program was started, only
    about $18 million a year were being carried over and that's
    because the airports could take on some of these smaller
    projects that would kind of fit into that couple hundred
    thousand dollar program.
        So I think there is an ask here for the Committee to look
    at and we want to work with you on this. How do we take that
    money and deploy it back in these airports that really need it
    and take bigger projects on and use the money where it was
    intended, to invest in those airports so that we can have an
    infrastructure that is sustainable for a long period of time?
        Senator Capito. Do you happen to know if primary and
    nonprimary dollars in that program can be interchanged if there
    is overflow from the year, or it is returned back because it is
    unused?
        Mr. Baker. As I understand it, the NPE dollars are carried
    over to the FAA's discretionary fund and, in some cases, are
    allocated to other non-NPE airports.
        Senator Capito. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Baker, we also suffered a pretty devastating flood in
    June 2016. Many of you all will remember. It resulted in the
    loss of 23 lives, and 1,200 homes were damaged in that flood.
        I really learned a lot during the flood process in terms of
    where you need to have resources and what type of resources you
    need to have. I was interested in your comments on the ability
    of some of these airports and certainly the resources there to
    be able to be used in emergency situations.
        You mentioned Hurricane Sandy, in particular. Could you
    talk a little bit about that as well?
        Mr. Baker. Sure can. It is a really important part. People
    do not necessarily understand the value until it is that time.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Mr. Baker. When I was living in Southern California back in
    the 1990s when we had the earthquake, that was very
    significant. The only way the first responders could get into
    that part of L.A. was using the Santa Monica Airport because
    the bridges were gone. They were not available to be used. So
    all first responders had to be flown into Santa Monica.
        As you look at those opportunities around the country and
    where that can happen, whether it is hurricanes, floods,
    tornadoes, that first response has to come through aviation,
    whether they are helicoptered in or flown in by fixed-wing,
    because the only way you can really bring in big volumes of
    relief is through fixed-wing aircraft, which require 3,000 to
    5,000 feet.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Mr. Baker. So we think of this as strategic relief, and too
    often, it is kind of forgotten about until the need occurs.
        And Hurricane Sandy is a perfect example where the only way
    you could get first responders in there, because the roads were
    destroyed, full of sand, was by using aviation.
        So we want to have a thought process about how we make sure
    that network is protected in those high-risk zones.
        Senator Capito. Right. Thank you.
        Thank you all very much.
        Senator Blunt. Senator Wicker.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

        Senator Wicker. Thank you.
        Mr. Dickerson, I understand the contract tower concept has
    been thoroughly discussed at this hearing, so I will not ask
    you about that except to note that, in my neck of the woods, it
    is quite popular among the people who use general aviation. So
    I just wanted to note that while I move on to other topics that
    perhaps have not been discussed quite as thoroughly.
        Mr. Baker, you know there is a proposed ATC reform that
    would create an independent private corporation to operate air
    traffic services and eliminate the FAA's ability to provide
    oversight of the ATC system. There has been a letter signed by
    Senators Cochran, Leahy, Collins, and Reed to the Chair of the
    Full Committee expressing opposition to this proposal. And
    there has been a good deal of discussion with regard to what
    this proposal would do to the general aviation community and to
    rural America.
        So would you discuss how this initiative would affect our
    economy and what changes would it result in, pros and cons?
        Mr. Baker. It is a very interesting question. Again, when
    we look at where we see problems, we do not see any from our
    perspective in general aviation and business aviation as it
    relates to air traffic control towers. They work very
    efficiently and very well for movements of hundreds of
    thousands of general aviation aircraft.
        We do think that if there are things that should be done
    differently, we should be open-minded about it. But one of the
    things we are not open-minded about at all is any kind of user
    fees.
        We have a fuel tax we think is very efficient. As we look
    around the world and what has happened with privatization, it
    has not been a positive for general aviation and business
    aviation. When they go to fees, if they are for an instrument
    flight, it could even reduce safety because of people making
    decisions not to pay that fee.
        There are things I think we can learn from and be smarter
    about how we become efficient and fund the ATC system and all
    of the FAA. But, at the moment, we do not see any issues with
    the current ATC system.
        I sit on the NextGen Advisory Committee as well, so I am
    pretty knowledgeable about where the airlines have made
    decisions about priorities for the FAA to be responsive. And I
    think so far, I think the FAA has been doing a pretty good job
    of doing that work. And the airlines and general aviation and
    the rest of business aviation sit alongside that and make those
    priorities pretty clear.
        So we remain concerned that if we are going to make a
    change, that the representation, the understanding of no user
    fees is clear.
        Senator Wicker. Would this proposal result in less
    congressional oversight? Would that be a good thing or a bad
    thing?
        Mr. Baker. I think when you look, in reflection, about the
    FAA and how it has been supported, it has been funded pretty
    clearly by Congress, over $16 billion this fiscal year. I do
    not see a shortage of funding for the FAA myself, and I think
    Congress has done a pretty good job of that oversight.
        Senator Wicker. Let me then switch, Mr. Baker, to another
    topic, and that would be pilot shortages.
        Between 1980 and 2015, the number of active pilots has
    decreased from more than 827,000 to just over 590,000, a 30
    percent decrease.
        So tell us about this. What does it portend for the future?
        Mr. Baker. I am very concerned about that. It is an
    important number. Some of it is generational. In 1980, we had a
    lot of World War II, Korean, Vietnam veterans that were flying.
    We have lost many in that great group, that great generation.
        I do not think we have to think about, call it boiling the
    ocean here and getting back to 800,000 pilots. What we are
    looking at is graduating, call it 17,000 or 18,000 pilots and
    we are still providing the best pilot training in the world
    here in the United States. And we export a lot of that training
    around the world.
        I think we would be quite pleased if we get back to 25,000
    or 30,000 net new pilots a year.
        For civil aviation and for military aviation to get into
    the airline or business aviation world, it probably has never
    been a better time in my experience of flying for 40 years. The
    careers are finally starting to evolve, whether it is
    engineering or actually flying or being a controller.
        Senator Wicker. How are we going to do that?
        Mr. Baker. We are going to need a big, significant program.
    We, AOPA, are starting a program for high schools called STEM,
    actually what we call STEAM--science, technology, engineering,
    aviation, and math.
        We are kicking that off this fall in a number of high
    schools, because we need to introduce young people to the
    careers in aviation that can be profitable and engaging levels
    of potential pilots that have not occurred for probably 30 or
    40 years.
        We are going to need a lot of help to get this kicked off
    at the high school level. We want to work with industry and
    government to make sure that aviation careers and opportunities
    can be significant here in the U.S. I am pretty excited about
    the growth in the pilot population that we can help impact.
        But we are also concerned about costs in aviation, whether
    it is a consolidation of some FBOs, some other things that are
    occurring that impose high costs in aviation and that are
    important for us to manage and maintain, because this is not an
    inexpensive journey to become a pilot.
        Senator Wicker. If anybody wants to weigh in on the 1,500-
    flight-hour rule, I would be happy for you to do that on the
    record. That would be helpful to us.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
        Senator Peters, then followed by the Chairman of the Full
    Committee, Senator Thune.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thanks to each of our panelists here today for your
    testimony. It is important.
        I may sound like I am belaboring an issue, but I think it
    is worth belaboring, and that is Essential Air Service, and
    certainly the fact at how floored I was to have the Trump
    administration basically zeroing out this money.
        To me, the title speaks for itself as ``essential.'' This
    is the Essential Air Service for our rural areas. And in the
    state of Michigan, I actually have nine airports that would be
    impacted as a result of these cuts.
        I think we are second only to the state of Alaska, in terms
    of the impact on it. Many people think of Michigan as an
    industrial manufacturing state, which we are. We are proud of
    it. But we are also a very rural state. It is the largest state
    east of the Mississippi with very large rural areas that are
    served by Essential Air Service carriers.
        And certainly, the panel has talked about the economic
    impact this would have. And certainly, Mayor Gill, you spoke
    quite a bit, and others, about the economic impact to these
    areas.
        At a time when our rural communities are hurting now, we
    have actually seen declines in our rural areas, this is quite a
    slap in the face to something that is absolutely critical for
    their continued economic development.
        This morning, I sent a bipartisan letter, so we came
    together in a bipartisan way, to the Senate appropriators,
    calling for the continued support and funding of this program.
    We have 19 Senators on board. And I am sure if we had the
    letter out further, we would have a whole lot more on board. I
    think there is strong support here.
        But I think it is important that we continue to put in the
    record as to how important, essential, again, with the focus on
    Essential Air Service is.
        I know many of you have already made comments, but I want
    to give you an opportunity. Is there anything else that we
    should have in the record to make it crystal clear how
    devastating this cut would be to many of our rural areas?
        I will start with you, Mayor Gill, because I know you deal
    with this on a regular basis.
        Ms. Gill. Yes, thank you. Senator, I have been talking
    about the impact of air service on rural America.
        I just would like to reiterate that if you want us in rural
    America and towns like Pierre to be economic contributors, then
    we need to have access to air service to keep us connected to
    the rest of the Nation.
        With that, I believe that there are things that Congress
    can do. They can keep safety at the very front of the
    decisionmaking, but yet make some other modifications that can
    allow us to have meaningful air service. The pilot shortage, we
    have talked about that. There are things we can do to try to
    get more pilots into the pipeline, and staying there, and
    making it a viable career for them.
        We need to be connected to the FAA, so that there is
    oversight, safety oversight, to those kinds of modifications.
        But with all of that said, I think that we need to consider
    fully funding the EAS program, because EAS does provide that
    lifeline to rural America. And I think there are ways to review
    it, make sure it is sustainable and functioning efficiently,
    but yet it is very important to our economic feasibility.
        Thank you.
        Senator Peters. Thank you.
        Just one other issue, and that is small airport
    enplanement, AIP eligibility. I know some of my colleagues have
    brought up this issue as well.
        We have a situation in Michigan as well where airports face
    this cliff, if they do not hit the 10,000, and often through no
    fault of their own, but it is pretty significant. We have been
    able to postpone that for a period of time. I do not know how
    long that will continue.
        Perhaps some thoughts from the panel as to, is there an
    alternative? Should we perhaps have a gradual, proportionate
    change?
        But certainly, I would think all of you agree that the
    cliff that we have right now is simply not fair. It really is
    detrimental to our smaller, rural airports. If anyone would
    care to comment?
        Ms. Gill. Well, I would just make a quick comment on that,
    that, yes, when we are threatened with going below 10,000
    enplanements in a small airport, the difference between $1
    million annually and $150,000 is huge.
        Senator Peters. It is a big deal.
        Ms. Gill. It makes it very difficult for an airport to be
    able to continue to make those infrastructure improvements.
        So a recommendation that I would suggest would be to look
    at legislation that should establish a more gradual reduction
    or a delay in reduction or some other meaningful response to
    the problem.
        Mr. Dickerson. Senator, one of the obvious ways to address
    this is increase AIP funding. I mean, we are a little bit over
    $3 billion. We talked about earlier the $7 billion in needs
    that the FAA has identified.
        This Committee has always been a great supporter of AIP. We
    hope, in the next reauthorization bill, you can get to at least
    $4 billion in AIP annually. That would help a lot in terms of
    small airports. As you said, they are so dependent upon the
    airport grant funding.
        Senator Peters. Thank you very much.
        Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Peters.
        Senator Thune.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to appreciate
    you holding this hearing on these very important subjects in my
    state of South Dakota.
        I especially want to thank the distinguished panel of
    witnesses, and particularly Mayor Laurie Gill from our State
    capital of Pierre.
        It is nice to have you here. Welcome, Laurie.
        Access to the national air transportation system is a
    serious concern for those who live or work long distances from
    even the smallest airports, so connectivity is, for small and
    rural communities, vital to the economy. Those important
    connections can take many forms. Sometimes it is in the form of
    reliable and timely passenger air service by airlines.
    Sometimes it is in the form of a robust general aviation
    community. But all depend upon solid infrastructure.
        And the condition of the regional airline industry, which
    has changed quite a bit in the last decade, is an important
    factor in maintaining that connectivity. One of the issues that
    we keep hearing about is the ability of those carriers to hire
    and retain a quality supply of pilots.
        I hope we can learn a little bit more about that issue
    today. I know that many of you have spoken on that on some
    level already.
        But safety is always the top priority when it comes to air
    travel. I want to be sure that safety measures are put in place
    that are having their intended effects. And that is actual
    safety, not the appearance of safety, which is most important.
        So, Mayor, I would just ask you first off--and thank you by
    the way for participating in the DOT Small Community Working
    Group. As the author of that provision, I look forward to
    hearing more about the working group's recommendations when
    they are released.
        As we think about the issue of pathways for individuals to
    become commercial airline pilots, do you agree that safety
    remains the most important consideration?
        Ms. Gill. Thank you. Chairman Thune, first of all, I want
    to say thank you for your ongoing efforts to continue to
    improve air service in rural America. Your efforts have been
    duly noted. Thank you.
        I think that part of what we are facing and what has put
    pressure on the carriers that have served Pierre have been the
    issue of finding enough pilots. So I absolutely agree that we
    need to do things that can continue to look at ways to get,
    first of all, people interested in being a pilot as a career
    knowing the current environment coming in. They have to, first
    of all, want to do that.
        And then when they get into the training programs, to
    continue to look at ways to modify what counts toward the 1,500
    hours that pilots currently need for certification. And I do
    believe that there might be ways to look at, for instance,
    allowing training provided by the industry to be able to use in
    ways that it is not now to count for those hours.
        We need safety to remain first in the forefront, so any
    recommendations I would make would be connected to FAA approval
    for safety and FAA determination of the number of hours to be
    credited.
        Another thing regarding pilots that comes to mind for me is
    having FAA consider broadening its view of what qualifies as
    academic experience worthy of credit hours. Again, FAA would
    make a safety determination as to what would qualify and how
    many hours.
        So those are just thoughts that come to mind, but I do
    think there needs to be an emphasis on looking at how we can
    continue to have pilots funneling into that pipeline because we
    are going to see more and more retirements coming that are
    going to help make this problem even deeper.
        The Chairman. With safety being the number one
    consideration.
        Ms. Gill. Absolutely. Safety, and everything that I would
    recommend would be tied in some way to FAA oversight to
    determine if any changes that are being made keep safety at the
    first, very first forefront.
        The Chairman. As the Mayor of Pierre, you are no doubt
    helping lead the economic development efforts of the city. Can
    you give any real-world examples of how access to and
    reliability of air service has impacted the community's
    economic development efforts, especially with respect to
    attracting businesses and employees to the community?
        Ms. Gill. Certainly. You know, we are the State capital,
    and so, obviously, we are a government town. In our top 10
    employers, we have State Government, Federal Government, and
    city government. There are a lot of those folks that need to
    get in and out to do business, whether it be at a regional
    office in Denver or in Washington, D.C. So we have the need to
    do that.
        We also are the gateway many times into the state of South
    Dakota, and people are coming from all over the world to come
    in to do their business.
        We have people that live in our community that work all
    over the Nation. And it is a wonderful thing about our country,
    that people can live where they want to and fly in and out and
    do the work that they need to do, whether they be a consultant
    or work for a national company. And many people live in central
    South Dakota and depend on that air service to get to where
    they need to.
        Then we also have talked to many businesses that we are
    working to entice to come into our community, and one of the
    things that they are checking out as they are looking at a
    community is they are checking out what the access to service
    is, where they can get to, how many flights, and is it
    accessible.
        So that very much is on the forefront of any decisions for
    a company that is making a business decision, looking at our
    community.
        The Chairman. Dr. Smith, we are glad to have your expertise
    representing Embry-Riddle, which is in aviation, obviously, a
    key institution in our country when it comes to these issues. I
    know on aviation safety, you have been a leader, in terms of
    the research there.
        Could you perhaps give us some idea about what factors to
    weigh most or least when it comes to producing the best and the
    safest pilots possible? What are some of the things that you
    think that we need to be focused on?
        Dr. Smith. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your emphasis on
    safety because everything that we do in university education,
    aviation education, and what we did in the pilot source study
    focused on the concept of safety first.
        What we found in the study, that hours themselves was not
    an indicator of performance, just the term hours. We felt that
    we really needed to go back and look at, where did those hours
    come from? What was the kind of experience that those pilots
    had in order to make them eligible to become first officers?
        In the industry, we are looking at two possible descriptors
    of training or background that would help. One of them is the
    concept of structured flying, structured flying under some kind
    of operating manual, under some kind of supervision.
        The other one is called ``disciplined flying.'' It is one
    of the reasons why the FAA allowed the military pilots to be
    eligible at 750 hours, because they know that all of the flying
    those pilots do is disciplined.
        So what I would like you to look at is the concept that
    hours themselves without any kind of descriptor of where those
    hours come from is insufficient evidence that a pilot is either
    going to perform well or is going to be safe.
        The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate, again,
    you having this hearing.
        Great panel. I know there will be a lot of questions for
    the record, and I know that you have had to expedite this
    because of votes.
        But we appreciate your flexibility and understanding that,
    and I look forward--I know I have some questions I would like
    to submit for the record too, as well.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. I think we have put a
    lot of information on the record today with the help of our
    witnesses.
        Let me ask two or three more questions, since I have not
    done that yet.
        So, Dr. Smith, you are saying that the quality of hours is
    every bit as important as the number of hours.
        Dr. Smith. And probably more important because some of our
    young folks have figured ways to get hours. They go to the
    airline, and they are totally unprepared because they have not
    had those quality hours.
        Senator Blunt. So I am assuming from that that if you go to
    the airport and rent a little plane and fly around for some
    hours, that is not necessarily the kind of disciplined hours
    that you think matter.
        Dr. Smith. That is right, not disciplined or structured.
    Whereas flight instruction (many of our students graduate from
    college, get their certificates and become flight instructors)
    under most of those circumstances, that is a very disciplined
    way of flying, and it is very structured. And those flight
    instructors in our study did show that they performed better
    than those who did not have that kind of experience.
        Senator Blunt. So you mentioned military hours. Are there
    other background influences that are likely to create a better
    pilot than others?
        Dr. Smith. We had several of them in our study.
        Number one, the one that showed the most effect size, was
    the years since graduation, so that gap that the rule put into
    place between when a pilot gets his or her certificates and
    when a pilot is eligible for hiring at a regional airline, what
    do they do during that gap? And that is what we are looking at,
    the possibility that this flying experience is disciplined or
    structured.
        We found that those who filled that gap very quickly, most
    of them are doing it by flight instruction, performed better.
        Pilots who had total time, surprisingly less than 1,500
    hours in many cases, did better. And that is because they went
    straight from their training program through some kind of
    flight instruction or some kind of experience like that, and
    directly into airlines, whereas many of the pilots in this
    study were second-career pilots, did something else for quite a
    bit of time before they went to work for the regional airlines.
        Senator Blunt. OK. I think we have to figure out how we
    qualify what creates the safest pilot here as much as we can
    and err on the side of that rather than on the side of just
    accumulating time. That is what your study appears to verify.
        Dr. Smith. And the FAA instituted the restricted ATP to
    give credit to pilots who come from the structured type of
    programs and education efforts, and also to military pilots. I
    think they could look at more of those, that the restricted ATP
    could be expanded to more of those organizations that provide
    structured or disciplined type of flying experience.
        Senator Blunt. Mr. Baker, you said you are on the NextGen
    Advisory Committee?
        Mr. Baker. That is correct.
        Senator Blunt. Are you satisfied with the speed of progress
    there up until now?
        Mr. Baker. The speed is never fast enough, and the cost is
    always higher than you would like. But I do think the NAC
    actually works pretty well at identifying the priorities, and
    the workgroups identify the pathways to get those priorities
    accomplished.
        The feedback loop that occurs with all my partners in the
    airlines and business aviation and others in the industry, I
    think there is general agreement that the NAC, as a committee,
    is a pretty successful one. I think the leadership--currently,
    we have FedEx leading that group and previous to that was
    Delta, and Alaska before that.
        I see the way the NAC works and it creates good consensus,
    and then the FAA knows what the priorities are, so it does
    work.
        Senator Blunt. And what do we need to do to make it work
    more quickly? Should the Congress be providing more incentive?
    More funding? More oversight? What do you think we need to do
    to close the gap between where we are now and where we would
    like to be?
        Mr. Baker. In some cases, I think that communication could
    be much improved but it is actually working, whether it is the
    PBN, the performance-based navigation systems, at some airports
    or understanding some of the other system complications.
    However, we are going to need Congress to weigh in on some
    others--noise and other things that are not part of the
    purview, if you will, of the NextGen Advisory Committee. When
    you are trying to make more efficient approaches and departures
    from these airports, some of the other challenges that seem to
    get rolled into this thing are noise and other kinds of
    performance issues that are outside of the purview.
        Senator Blunt. And you mentioned the amount of money in, I
    believe, the Airport Improvement Program funding. I think at
    that point you said that perhaps the local match was too high
    for small airports. Do you think there should be a local match?
        Mr. Baker. I do think there should be some, call it skin in
    the game, that this group has to align and say that these
    projects are recognized as adding value to that community. But
    maybe it can be spread out over some period of time. It can be,
    instead of being 10 percent, something less than that,
    particularly when you have safety opportunities to improve for
    the national network, for the transient neighbors coming in and
    out of that airport.
        So I think there is a way to look at it that would be much
    improved.
        I do want to add one other comment about safety, if you
    have one second, which is general aviation just came through
    its safest year ever in 2016 in terms of general aviation
    safety. I think it was a recognition from the work that FAA had
    done, NTSB, AOPA, and others. But general aviation has become a
    lot safer over the last half-dozen years.
        Senator Blunt. And, Mr. Dickerson, did you say that you
    thought the FAA had a thumb on the scale against safety?
        Mr. Dickerson. Yes, sir. I think in terms of their
    analysis, they want to focus more on, as I said earlier,
    abstract economic models in terms of benefit-cost versus the
    benefits of a control tower.
        Senator Blunt. I think at the time you also mentioned these
    abstract models included things that were not near the site
    where the aviation question was to be engaged, right?
        Mr. Dickerson. That is correct, nonsite-specific, indirect
    costs. No problem with costs associated with that tower,
    controller costs, telecommunication costs. But as I said, if we
    are going to err, we need to err on the side of safety, not on
    the these broad, abstract economic----
        Senator Blunt. And the nonsite-specific costs would include
    things like what?
        Mr. Dickerson. Depreciation costs, airway facility costs,
    things that are spread across the whole system of FAA, not
    specific to that airport.
        Senator Blunt. OK.
        Well, I am sure there will be questions for the record. I
    think we put a lot on the record today. The hearing record will
    remain open for 2 weeks. Senators will be asked to submit any
    questions, and, hopefully, you will be responsive to those.
        We want to conclude the hearing and thank our witnesses.
    The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Laurie Gill, Mayor, Pierre, South Dakota
        Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
    Subcommittee:

        I am Laurie Gill, Mayor of Pierre, South Dakota. Through my
    statement today, I hope to add to the subcommittee's understanding of
    the challenges facing rural communities in achieving and maintaining
    reasonable air service. I'll also offer some thoughts on how Congress
    can address these challenges. At the outset, I also want to thank
    Chairman Thune for his sustained efforts to maintain and improve rural
    air service.
    Air Service and Pierre
        Pierre is the capital of South Dakota and has a population of
    approximately 14,000. It is located in the center of our state, far
    from our state's population centers and from large hub airports.
    Without adequate air service to Pierre, our citizens and businesses
    face the following drives for meaningful scheduled air service options:

                                    Sioux Falls, 226 miles;

                                    Rapid City, 171 miles;

                                    Minneapolis, 453 miles; and

                                    Denver, 540 miles.

        The distances alone make clear that our citizens and our State
    Government need reasonable air service in Pierre to be connected.
        But distances are only part of the story. What's important is that
    businesses and people and communities be connected to the region, the
    country, and the world though reasonable air service. Businesses are
    not eager to locate or stay in communities with inadequate air service.
    Whether a business locates, leaves, or stays in Pierre or similar small
    cities has a very important multiplier effect on the local economy. In
    addition, growth breeds growth; losses can be hard to stop once they
    begin. So, achieving and maintaining reasonable air service is
    important to our economy. Air service is also important to individuals.
    Our residents, like people everywhere, sometimes have to travel long
    distances to visit family or medical specialists, attend special
    events, or meet other needs.
        In short, air service is a necessity for Pierre and similar cities
    and the program to help ensure such service is aptly named the
    Essential Air Service program.
        Let me turn now to a summary of recent air service in Pierre,
    beginning with annual enplanement data.

    2013                                                              14,507
    2014                                                               9,504
    2015                                                               6,572
    2016                                                               6,382

        The numbers show a huge decline in enplanements after 2013. It was
    in the summer of 2013 that FAA rules took effect that require a first
    officer in a 14 CFR part 121 air carrier operation to have 1,500 flight
    hours (or flight hours plus certain credits toward flight hours
    equaling 1,500 hours).
        There was also a decline in the reliability of air service to and
    from Pierre after the rule took effect. More flights were canceled and
    fewer were on time. In 2015 nearly one in five flights was canceled and
    over 40 percent were not on time. The number of daily flights plummeted
    from 8 to 3. Commercial air service was challenged to find a sufficient
    supply of pilots that qualified under the new rule. Prior to the rule's
    effect, Pierre had 19 seat service four times a day to Minneapolis and
    four times a day to Denver. After the change, the carrier tried to cope
    in part by changing the service to offer only 9 seats. That may have
    put that plane outside the reach of the 1,500 hour rule, but the
    smaller configuration did not inspire confidence in the community in
    the service.
        As commercial air services continued to degrade, our customer
    complaints skyrocketed and enplanements at Pierre plummeted.
    Individuals responded in part by making the long drives to other
    airports. And long drives in winter weather are an additional safety
    concern. This trend placed further downward pressure on enplanement
    totals in Pierre and carrier profitability, which can have a downward
    pressure on service. During this period, Pierre lost eastbound service
    to Minneapolis and Denver service frequency was reduced.
        That kind of decline in service triggers additional problems. It
    has adverse implications for the physical infrastructure of our
    airport. Under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), an airport with
    10,000 or more enplanements in a year receives an annual apportionment
    of at least $1,000,000 for eligible airfield infrastructure. To fall
    below 10,000 enplanements drops the minimum annual apportionment to
    $150,000--a reduction of 85 percent. With this steep cliff in the
    structure of the apportionments to airports, over the long term, an
    airport with fewer than 10,000 enplanements faces challenges in
    obtaining funds to maintain infrastructure that will attract or retain
    scheduled air service providers.
        Lack of reliable air service has additional implications for EAS
    communities. As I've mentioned, unreliable service can lead to fewer
    passengers, leading to higher per passenger EAS subsidy costs and,
    ultimately, a risk that EAS payments for service could be terminated if
    per passenger costs exceed per passenger subsidy maximums applicable to
    the EAS program.
    Important Help From the EAS Program
        From 2006 through the summer of 2016, Pierre was an EAS eligible
    community but did not receive EAS subsidy. After the 1,500 hour rule
    took effect and reliability plummeted, in 2016 the City of Pierre
    requested EAS subsidy in an effort to regain air service reliability.
    The request for EAS funding was granted. As a result, last summer
    Pierre began to receive service from a new carrier using 50 seat
    regional jets, in twice daily service to Denver. The more modern and
    larger plane has increased community and passenger confidence.
    Enplanements are recovering and may well exceed 10,000 in 2017. It is
    important to note that this development is directly related to Pierre
    service receiving subsidy under the EAS program. EAS payments
    facilitate the carrier's use of the larger plane and pilot staffing and
    service has been much more reliable. Given the long history of
    uncertainty surrounding air service in Pierre after implementation of
    the 1,500 hour rule, we remain very alert to air service issues and
    simply cannot assume that we've achieved a permanent solution.
    Moreover, at this point the improvement is only westbound to Denver. We
    still have no eastbound service to Minneapolis out of Pierre.
    Rural America Deserves a Prompt and Constructive Response from
            Congress
        There are ways Congress can address the small community air service
    issues I've described today.
        Congress should respond to the service declines that followed
    implementation of the 1,500 hour rule. This must be done in a way that
    maintains safety--and as a public official, and as a wife, mother, and
    grandmother, I am absolutely committed to safety. And that includes
    concern over long winter drives.
        Possibilities include allowing hours of credit towards the 1,500
    hours for training provided by air carriers in their training programs,
    subject to FAA approval. Such training clearly has at least the
    potential to be valuable and highly professional, just as current rules
    have found value in experience in the military and in graduating from
    certain institutions of higher education. This new approach to
    receiving credit hours towards the 1,500 hours should be subject to FAA
    approval, however, as well as to an FAA determination of the number of
    hours to be credited. In addition, the FAA, with or without direction
    from Congress, should consider providing additional hours of credit for
    academic and military training and consider broadening its view of what
    qualifies as academic experience deserving hours of credit. Again, all
    such actions would be subject to FAA making a finding supporting the
    safety of the approach, including as to the hours to be credited
    towards the 1,500 hours.
        Financial support for students studying to be pilots, or for pilots
    struggling to pay back student loans, could also help address pilot
    supply. Such actions could well encourage individuals to pursue, or
    continue to pursue, a career as a pilot.
        What I am sure of as to pilot supply is that rural America's
    aviation needs are for safety and service, not safety and less service.
    So, I have offered some ideas that should help improve service and that
    are fully consistent with safety.
        Similarly, full funding for the EAS program is warranted and very
    important. Congress should address the unforeseen consequences of the
    1,500 hour rule on service before considering reductions in EAS
    funding. Such an approach could well increase enplanements, help
    contain costs, and reduce long drives to other airports. It would be a
    win, win. There would be better service, bringing about economic growth
    in the affected communities. The likely increased ridership would hold
    down budget costs. If constructive reforms to EAS can be fashioned,
    fine. Some points may warrant more service, others may warrant a
    seasonal reduction in service. But now, of all times, is not the time
    for EAS reductions, much less wholesale reductions.
        In addition, AIP funding distribution should be crafted in a way
    that recognizes that small community airports may have suffered
    enplanement reductions due to pilot supply issues following
    implementation of the 1,500 hour rule. A drop in annual apportionments
    from $1 million to $150,000 is extreme. Legislation should establish a
    more gradual reduction, or a delay in reduction, or some other
    meaningful response to this problem.
    Conclusion
        Rural small communities face aviation service challenges but there
    are sound ways for Congress to respond, as I have outlined today. Your
    consideration is deeply appreciated.
        That concludes my statement. Thanks very much for the opportunity
    to testify.

        Note: Mayor Gill is a Member of the Working Group on Improving Air
    Service to Small Communities authorized by section 2303 of the FAA
    Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016, Public Law No. 114-190.
    This statement is presented in her capacity as Mayor of Pierre, SD, and
    does not purport in any way to speak for any other entity.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Spencer Dickerson, Senior Executive Vice
                                   President
     --Global Operations, American Association of Airport Executives, and
              Executive Director, U.S. Contract Tower Association
        Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Senate
    Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security,
    thank you for inviting me to participate in today's hearing on rural
    air service. It is an honor for me to be here today.
        My name is Spencer Dickerson. I am the Senior Executive Vice
    President--Global Operations for the American Association of Airport
    Executives (AAAE) and the Executive Director of the U.S. Contract Tower
    Association. AAAE is the world's largest professional organization
    representing the men and women who manage commercial service, reliever,
    and general aviation airports.
        The Contract Tower Association represents 253 airports that
    participate in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Contract Tower
    Program. This cost-effective program allows commercial service airports
    in smaller communities and general aviation airports to have air
    traffic control services. AAAE created the Contract Tower Association
    in 1996 to promote the program and to enhance aviation safety at
    smaller airports around the country.
        Mr. Chairman, before discussing the Contract Tower Program in
    greater detail, I would like to thank you and your colleagues for your
    leadership on small community air service issues. The Senate Commerce
    Committee has a long tradition of standing up for small communities and
    supporting those programs that enhance aviation safety and ensure that
    people who live in rural parts of the country are connected to our
    national aviation system.
        One example stands out for our members who participate in the
    Contract Tower Program: Four years ago during the sequestration battle,
    members of this subcommittee played a critical role to beat back
    efforts to close 149 contract towers. We deeply appreciated your
    leadership then and all the steps that you have taken since then to
    ensure the long-term viability of the Contract Tower Program.
        I would also like to thank all you for the enormous amount of work
    that you and staffs did on the FAA reauthorization bill and the
    temporary extension last year. The bipartisan FAA bill that this
    subcommittee and the Senate overwhelmingly approved last year included
    a number of welcome provisions to help small communities. Our members
    appreciate that they have lawmakers who are looking out for them and
    the small communities they serve.
        We undoubtedly will need your leadership on rural air service
    issues again this year. As all you know, the Administration is
    proposing to reduce transportation spending by 13 percent in Fiscal
    Year 2018 and eliminate the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. If
    enacted into law, this proposal would likely end commercial air service
    at many airports around the country.
        We look forward to working with you to determine how the
    Administration's complete budget request could impact rural air service
    and airport-related programs. We also hope to work with you on two
    broader airport initiatives that would help large and small airports--
    eliminating the Federal cap on local Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs)
    and increasing funding for the Federal Airport Improvement Program
    (AIP).
        Today, I would like to focus on how the FAA's Contract Tower
    Program improves aviation safety at participating airports and benefits
    small communities in rural America and less populated areas of the
    country. I would also like to touch on the EAS and Small Community Air
    Service Development Programs and describe some of our recommendations
    for the next FAA reauthorization bill.
    Help Preserve Safe Operations at Airports By Preserving the Contract
            Tower Program
        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the airports with FAA contract towers at
    their facilities, I would like to thank members of this subcommittee
    for your strong support for the Contract Tower Program. This successful
    public-private sector partnership allows airports to have cost-
    effective air traffic control services that enhance aviation safety and
    improve air traffic efficiency.
        Currently, 253 airports in 46 states participate in the program,
    including 237 that participate in the fully funded program. Another 16
    airports participate in the cost-share program, which requires local
    airports to pay for a portion of their contract controller costs. Every
    Commerce Committee member has at least one contract tower in his or her
    state. A total of 126 contract towers are located in your states,
    including 23 in Texas and 25 in Florida.
        As you know, the Contract Tower Program continues to enjoy strong
    bipartisan and bicameral support for the way it enhances aviation
    safety and provides significant cost savings to the FAA and U.S.
    taxpayers. The significant benefits of this highly-regarded government-
    industry partnership have been validated repeatedly by audits of the
    Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Inspector General.
        To illustrate the cost-effectiveness of the program to taxpayers,
    contract towers handle approximately 28 percent of all U.S. tower
    operations, but they account for just 14 percent of FAA's overall
    budget allotted to air traffic control tower operations. Additionally,
    the Contract Tower Program provides FAA and taxpayers annual savings of
    approximately $200 million.
        The FAA controls and oversees all aspects of the contract tower
    program, including operating procedures, staffing plans, certification
    and medical tests of contract controllers, security and facility
    evaluations. All contract controllers are certified by the FAA, and
    they meet the identical training and operating standards as FAA
    controllers.
        It is important to note that contract tower airports provide
    significant funds to operate and maintain their towers, including
    maintenance, utilities, janitorial and other expenses. Additionally,
    many participating airports have provided substantial local and state
    funds to construct their towers over the past 10 to 15 years.
        Contract towers operate together with FAA-staffed facilities
    throughout the country as part of an integrated national air traffic
    control system. The Contract Tower Association works closely with our
    friends and colleagues at the National Air Traffic Controllers
    Association to find ways that contract towers and FAA-staffed towers
    can work together effectively and efficiently for the traveling public.
        The contract tower program enjoys strong support from a wide array
    of aviation groups, including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
    Association, Regional Airline Association, Airports Council
    International-North America, National Air Transportation Association,
    Cargo Airline Association, National Business Aviation Association,
    National Association of State Aviation Officials, and Air Traffic
    Control Association.
        Contract Towers at Commercial Service and Reliever Airports: Mr.
    Chairman, contract towers are widely known for providing air traffic
    services for small airports including those in rural America. Some who
    may not be familiar with the program may get the wrong impression that
    airports with contract towers are largely general aviation facilities.
    But there are a number of contract tower airports with a significant
    amount of commercial airline traffic.
        Of the 253 airports that participate in the Contract Tower Program,
    almost 90 are small hub or non-hub commercial service airports. For
    instance, the Lihue Airport in Kauai and the Kona International Airport
    on the Big Island are two small hub airports that are served by
    contract towers. According to the FAA, each Hawaiian airport had almost
    1.5 million enplanements in 2015.
        The Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport is another small hub
    airport that participates in the Contract Tower Program. The Arkansas
    airport had 629,000 enplanements in 2015. Needless to say, contract
    towers play a key role at those airports and their ability to have safe
    and reliable commercial airline service, which directly impacts their
    local economies.
        Contract towers also play an important role in reducing congestion
    at large commercial service airports. Many reliever airports scattered
    throughout the country participate in the Contract Tower Program. These
    airports relieve air traffic in major metropolitan areas including
    Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, Las Vegas,
    Phoenix, Miami, Seattle, and Minneapolis.
        Without our system of reliever airports--including those with
    contract towers--large commercial service airports around the country
    likely would face increasing congestion and delays. At a time when
    passenger boardings and operations are rising, it's critical that we
    continue to increase aviation capacity. We can do that, in part, by
    expediting the implementation of NextGen, increasing funding for
    airport infrastructure projects, and by maintaining a strong contract
    tower program.
        Contract Towers Serve Our Military: The United States military is a
    long-time partner with airports that participate in the Contract Tower
    Program. According to the FAA, 47 percent of all military operations at
    civilian airports in the United States occur at contract tower
    airports.
        That's why any proposal to shutter or cut the Contract Tower
    Program could have a significant impact on our Nation's military and
    national security.
        In a letter to Senate Commerce Committee leaders in late 2015,
    Senators James Inhofe, Joe Manchin, and John McCain described how many
    contract tower airports are located near military bases and ``serve as
    significant readiness or training facilities'' for active military,
    national guard, and reserve units. They pointed out that the
    collaboration between civilian contract towers and military units
    strengthens our national security.
        ``Without the Federal Contract Tower Program, the vast majority of
    these airports would be unable to continue operating a tower,'' the
    three Senators wrote. ``As a result, the military units actively using
    these airports would be forced to significantly curtail their
    activities or operate from more distant, busier airports that support
    substantial commercial aviation operations.''
        Since the 1980s, the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, National
    Guard, and Reserves also have recognized that airports with contract
    towers provide cost-effective and reliable solutions for flight
    operations and pilot training. The following list includes some of the
    contract tower airports with extensive military and national security
    operations:

       Kenai, Alaska: U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard.

       Jacksonville Cecil Field, Florida: U.S. Coast Guard, Customs
            and Border Protection, Army National Guard.

       Kona, Hawaii: Air National Guard (154th Wing) Air Force
            (15th Wing), Coast Guard (District 14).

       Bloomington, Indiana: Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane
            Division.

       Topeka, Kansas: Air National Guard (190th Air Refueling
            Wing), Air Force Reserve (KC-135 Tanker Squadron).

       Columbus, Mississippi: Pilot training for Columbus Air Force
            Base.

       Branson, Missouri: Pilot training for Vance, Columbus and
            Randolph Air Force Bases.

       Lawton, Oklahoma: Aerial point of embarkation for Ft. Sill
            Air Force Base.

       Rapid City, South Dakota: Ellsworth Air Force Base and
            National Guard.

       Ogden, Utah: Flight training for Hill Air Force Base, Army
            National Guard.

        In addition to providing a critical service for the United States
    military, the contract tower program supports our Nation's veterans.
    Approximately 70 percent of all contract controllers are veterans. The
    fact that so many men and women who have served our country find a home
    in the Contract Tower Program is a key reason why many of us believe
    this the program is so successful.
        Cost-Benefit Eligibility Criteria: The FAA has been working to
    revise the cost-benefit eligibility criteria for the contract tower
    program in a manner that could close some contract towers and/or
    unfairly shift tower staffing costs to contract towers airports. The
    airport industry has tried extremely hard over the past few years to
    work collaboratively with FAA on these reforms without any tangible
    results.
        To complicate matters, the FAA in 2014 placed a moratorium on new
    airport applicants and cost-share applicants for the program. This has
    prevented some airports currently without air traffic control services
    from being able to participate in the Contract Tower Program. The
    moratorium has also prevented some airports from possibly being able to
    move from the cost-share program to the fully-funded Contract Tower
    Program.
        Our members strongly believe that the FAA should err on the side of
    safety, not abstract economic models when considering the future of the
    Contract Tower Program. This program is not just about dollars and
    cents--it is about what's in the best interest of advancing aviation
    safety throughout the Nation. That's why we continue to seek your help
    to preserve this program.
        The Contract Tower Association is continuing to propose a number of
    cost-benefit reforms that would provide stability for contract tower
    communities and promote aviation safety and economic growth. We
    continue to believe that a fair and balanced cost-benefit analysis for
    contract towers should take into account the broad array of significant
    benefits the program provides to individual communities and to the
    Nation in terms of enhanced safety, cost savings, economic development,
    and job creation.
        Recommendations for the FAA Reauthorization Bill: We are grateful
    that the FAA reauthorization bill that this subcommittee and the Senate
    approved last year included a number of welcome provisions to help
    contract towers and their surrounding communities. I hope that we can
    continue to work together to build on that legislation as you resume
    consideration of the FAA bill this year.
        Mr. Chairman, the following includes some of the specific
    recommendations that the Contract Tower Association is proposing again
    this year. You'll notice that our list hasn't changed in the past year.
    Many of our proposals still are aimed at ensuring that the FAA moves
    forward with a fair and balanced cost-benefit analysis to ensure that
    small airports can continue to participate in the successful and cost-
    effective program.
        First, we believe that fully funded contract towers should not be
    subject to unnecessary annual cost-benefit analyses unless their
    traffic drops by more than 25 percent in single year or 60 percent over
    a three year period. Once the FAA accepts an airport into the Contract
    Tower Program, the airport should be allowed to continue to participate
    in the program unless it suffers a significant decrease in aircraft
    traffic. Additionally, we support the provision in the Senate-passed
    FAA bill that proposed to exempt airports with more than 25,000
    passenger enplanements from cost share payments.
        We also urge you to prohibit the FAA from adding non-site specific
    or indirect costs to its cost-benefit analysis. The agency should be
    allowed to consider those costs that would disappear if the tower
    closed. But the FAA should not be permitted to consider indirect costs
    as a basis for closing a contract tower since those costs will remain
    in FAA's operations budget even if the tower is closed.
        When the FAA performs a cost-benefit analysis it should give full
    consideration to the safety and economic benefits of having an air
    traffic control tower. We recommend that the agency do this by adding a
    10 percentage point margin of error to its cost-benefit calculations to
    account for these hard to quantify benefits. The Senate-passed FAA bill
    would have added five percentage points.
        The FAA should have procedures in place to ensure that airports
    have an adequate opportunity to respond to an unfavorable cost-benefit
    analysis before they lose their air traffic controllers. The Contract
    Tower Program is a successful public private partnership. But in order
    for that partnership to continue to succeed, contract towers should be
    allowed to provide their side of the story when the FAA conducts its
    costs-benefit analysis.
        We also urge you to remove the $2 million cap on AIP eligibility
    for contract tower construction. Eliminating that unnecessary cap would
    make contract tower construction consistent with other AIP-funded
    projects. Although the FAA bill that the House Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee approved last year proposed to eliminate the
    $2 million cap, the Senate-passed version of the bill would have raised
    it to $4 million.
        Finally, we continue to urge Congress to end the moratorium on the
    FAA for considering applicable non-towered airports and non-federal
    towered airports for the contact tower program and run cost-benefit
    ratios on the cost-share contract towers.
        Air Traffic Control Reform: Mr. Chairman, we realize that Congress
    and the Administration will continue to debate a proposal that calls
    for a not-for-profit corporation to operate our air traffic control
    system. If Congress moves forward with this plan in the next FAA
    reauthorization bill, we urge you to include explicit protections for
    the Contract Tower Program. Whether Congress decides to have the FAA or
    a non-for-profit corporation in charge of our air traffic control
    system, we hope all of you will agree that the Contract Tower Program
    should remain intact.
        Our members are concerned that an air traffic control corporation
    could unilaterally decide to close some or all contract towers. To
    avoid that possible scenario, we believe that Congress should require
    the corporation to receive approval from the local airport operator
    before being allowed to close its contract tower. Since the 253 FAA
    contract towers represent half of all towers in the country, handle
    almost 30 percent of all tower operations nationwide, and control 47
    percent of military traffic at civilian airports, we firmly believe
    there contract towers should be protected.
        In an increasingly global marketplace, we cannot afford to take a
    step backward. Our communities desire and deserve the benefits that FAA
    contract towers provide. We are encouraged by the successful and highly
    effective partnership that airports, contract controllers, air traffic
    control contractors, and the FAA have developed over the past three
    decades, and we urge this subcommittee and Congress to continue to
    support this vital program.
    Support Other Small Community Air Service Programs
        Fully Fund Essential Air Service Program: We would like to thank
    this subcommittee for its long-standing support for the EAS program.
    The FAA reauthorization bill that this committee and the Senate
    approved last year authorized $155 million in discretionary funding for
    EAS in Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017.
        Congress created the EAS program as part of the Airline
    Deregulation Act of 1978 to ensure that small communities could
    maintain a minimal level of scheduled air service. Since then, this
    program successfully has allowed people who live in rural and less
    populated areas to have access to our national aviation system.
        According to DOT, 173 communities participate in the EAS program,
    including three in South Dakota, four in Missouri, and 61 in Alaska.
    However, President Trump's Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request proposes to
    eliminate funding for this program--a move that would likely end
    commercial air service to EAS communities around the country.
        As members of this subcommittee well know, commercial air service
    is not just a matter of convenience for leisure travelers. It is also
    critical to economic development efforts in communities around the
    country. Without the EAS program it would be difficult for many small
    communities to retain commercial air service and attract businesses
    that promote economic development and support jobs.
        The EAS program is funded by a combination of annual appropriations
    and revenue from overflight fees. On behalf of EAS communities around
    the country, we urge you to continue to support this program and reject
    the Administration's proposal to eliminate commercial air service to
    communities around the country.
        Continue to Back the Small Community Air Service Development
    Program: AAAE has been a strong supporter of the Small Community Air
    Service Development Program. Since Congress created the program in
    2000, it has helped numerous small communities suffering from
    insufficient air service or unreasonably high fares.
        DOT officials have pointed out that small community grants fund a
    variety of projects, including financial incentives for airlines and
    marketing initiatives. At a time when small airports are trying to do
    everything they can to hold on to commercial air service and attract
    new service, the Small Community Air Service Development Program can
    provide small communities with a much-needed boost.
        It is worth noting that small communities that participate in the
    program bring significant local funds to the table. When announcing new
    grant recipients last year, DOT noted that ``nearly all the communities
    pledged local cash and/or in-kind contributions from local, state,
    airport, or private sources to complement their requests for Federal
    assistance.''
        The FAA reauthorization bill that the Senate approved last year
    included $10 million for the Small Community Air Service Development
    Program in both FY16 and FY17. That amount is $4 million more than the
    previous authorized level and $5 million more than Congress
    appropriated for the program in FY16. I urge you to include at least
    that amount in the next FAA reauthorization bill.
        Additionally, we would like to thank this committee for including a
    provision in the Senate-approved FAA bill to allow current small hub
    and smaller airports to be eligible to participate in the program--not
    just those that were classified as small airports in 1997. We encourage
    you to include that same provision in the next FAA bill.
        Address Small Community Challenges: Airport operators around the
    country also urge this subcommittee to work with them, airlines, and
    other aviation stakeholders to address the ongoing pilot shortage and
    other small community challenges while maintaining the highest level of
    aviation safety.
        There may be a number of reasons why many small communities are
    struggling to retain and attract commercial air service, including
    industry consolidation and the changing fleet size. But small and
    medium-sized communities are continuing to experience commercial air
    service reductions, in part, because carriers say that there are not
    enough qualified pilots to operate their flights.
        The last FAA extension required DOT to establish a ``Working Group
    on Improving Air Service to Small Communities.'' As part of its
    assignment, the panel is expected to examine ``obstacles to attracting
    and maintaining air transportation services to and from small
    communities.'' It is our understanding that the group has been working
    hard and meeting regularly. Airport operators look forward to its
    findings and recommendations.
        We are hopeful that the small community panel can help Congress,
    the Administration, and other aviation stakeholders come up with
    reasonable proposals that enhance small community air service and
    ensure that we have enough pilots in the pipeline while maintaining the
    highest level of aviation safety.
    Help General Aviation and Commercial Service Airports Repair Aging
            Facilities; Build Infrastructure Projects
        Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee also can help small commercial
    service and general aviation airports by providing them with the
    resources they need to repair aging facilities and build critical
    infrastructure projects. The following includes some key actions that
    this subcommittee can take to prepare airports for the challenges
    ahead.
        Increase AIP Funding: Increasing AIP funding, which this
    subcommittee proposed to do last year, would help fund critical safety,
    security, and capacity projects at all sizes of airport. AIP is a
    particularly key source of revenue for general aviation and smaller
    commercial airports that have limited funding options.
        The Senate-passed version of the FAA reauthorization bill proposed
    to increase AIP funding from $3.35 billion to $3.75 billion in FY17--a
    welcome $400 million increase. The bill that the House Transportation
    and Infrastructure Committee approved last year called for a slightly
    higher $4 billion funding level by FY22.
        The FAA's 2017 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
    indicates that airports will have $32.5 billion in AIP-eligible
    projects between 2017 and 2021--approximately $6.5 billion per year.
    That's twice the $3.2 billion designated for airport capital projects
    as part of the program's $3.35 billion annual funding level.
        Considering the enormous amount of capital needs, airports are
    encouraging Congress to increase AIP funding to at least $4 billion
    annually--the same amount that the House Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee approved last year.
        Eliminate the PFC Cap: Perhaps the single most important action
    that Congress can take to help build airport infrastructure projects is
    by eliminating the PFC cap. Congress hasn't adjusted the cap in 17
    years. Eliminating the cap now would be the easiest way to provide more
    funding for capital projects at airports throughout the country.
        PFCs are an important source of revenue for large and small
    airports alike. As members of this subcommittee know, small commercial
    service airports often rely on PFCs to pay their local match for
    Federal AIP funds, to upgrade aging facilities, and to pay for other
    critical infrastructure projects.
        Although general aviation airports don't collect PFCs, they benefit
    from those commercial services airports that do. Large and medium hub
    airports that collect PFCs have up to 75 percent of their AIP
    entitlements withheld. The FAA then distributes 87.5 percent of those
    funds to general aviation and small commercial service airports through
    the Small Airport Fund.
        Small airports currently receive about $500 million annually from
    the Small Airport Fund. But they could benefit even more if Congress
    adjusted the PFC cap and focused limited Federal funds on smaller
    airports that need Federal assistance the most. Airport executives are
    continuing to urge Congress to eliminate the PFC cap as part of the
    next FAA reauthorization bill.
    Conclusion
        Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
    Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security, thank you
    again for inviting me to participate in this important hearing on rural
    air service and contract towers. We greatly appreciate your long-
    standing support of the Nation's airports and look forward to working
    with you and your staff as we seek to enhance rural air service and
    general aviation operations nationwide.
                Attachments: map and list of FAA contract towers
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of Mark Baker, President and CEO,
                     Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
    General Aviation and Airports in Rural America
        The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) represents more
    than 300,000 of America's pilots and aviation enthusiasts and we
    believe that nothing better represents the foundational spirit of
    freedom than taking to America's skies. And the most necessary element
    of the freedom to fly is America's network of airports. Local airports,
    many of which are in rural communities and are not served by commercial
    aviation, are economic engines that allow towns to tap into the 1.1
    million jobs and $219 billion in economic output that general aviation
    (GA) is responsible for in today's economy.
        The national network of airports is made up of some 5,200 public-
    use community airports and only around ten percent of those airports
    have commercial service, meaning they rely on GA alone to connect the
    170 million GA passengers every year and serve the needs of the medical
    and law enforcement communities as well as support everything from
    agriculture, fishing, and pest control to forestry and wildlife
    management. It all comes down to access and rural America relies on GA
    airports.
        The following are the four categories of GA Airports according to
    the FAA and a map of the airports from the FAA 2012 ASSET Report.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    General Aviation Airport Funding
        The Federal Aviation Administration's National Plan of Integrated
    Airport Systems (NPIAS) consists of 3,340 airports including 2,950 non-
    primary airports most of which do not have commercial service. Funding
    for these non-primary airports comes from Non-Primary Entitlement (NPE)
    grants under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) to improve safety,
    capacity, and security or meet environmental concerns. The AIP does not
    receive any general fund revenue and instead is financed by a series of
    national airspace system fees including taxes on aviation fuels.
        Under NPE, each non-primary airport receives $150,000 per year for
    capital projects. An airport may ``bank'' their unspent NPE for up to
    four years for a potential total amount of $600,000 in the fourth year.
    By the fifth year, the amount available to the airport returns to
    $150,000. Considering the NPE is not indexed, the value of grants has
    been decreasing since inception of the program in 2001.
        Many GA airports have had difficulty using their NPE funds for two
    reasons. First, the amount available in any given year is too low to
    complete needed projects. Second, often the cash strapped airport
    sponsors struggle to provide the ten percent local match requirement
    for a project. Also, NPE funds are limited to airside projects such as
    lighting, runways, and taxiways and cannot be used for other airport
    projects such as terminals or hangar construction.
        When a non-primary airport does not use its entitlement in a fiscal
    year, the funds are returned to the FAA discretionary fund and spent on
    current year projects including at larger primary airports which
    benefit from this cycle. As a result, hundreds of millions of NPE
    dollars are not being spent on their intended purpose, to help small GA
    airports, mostly in rural America. Of the $442 million in total NPE
    funds last year, 2016, $329 million were carried over to the
    discretionary fund. Between 2006 and 2016, more than $2 billion in NPE
    funds have been carried over. AOPA would like to work with the
    Committee to ensure that NPE funds are being used as Congress intended
    and to protect the airport ecosystem for small communities across the
    United States.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Source: CRS Report titled ``Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation
    Administration in the 115th Congress'', March 20, 2017.
    Public-Private Partnerships
        Certain airports have recognized the advantages of establishing
    public-private partnerships to meet the needs of the local aviation
    community and generate additional revenue. The result is a win-win--
    businesses realize and capitalize on opportunities and the airport
    becomes more self-sustaining. However, many airports lack the resources
    to effectively market these opportunities to the private sector. The
    Metropolitan Airport Commission, which owns and operates seven airports
    in the Minneapolis area, has proven the concept and accomplished
    extensive hangar development at their GA airports relying solely on
    private capital.
        Public-private partnerships can go a long way to help cash strapped
    local communities rebuild and reinvigorate their airports and increase
    economic output to the benefit of taxpayers and users of the airport.
        There is significant demand for hangar development at airports
    across the country but in most cases their construction and
    refurbishment may not be financed by AIP grants. Many airports have
    long waiting lists for hangars and what hangars they have are often old
    and in need of repair.
        AOPA would like to work with the Committee, the FAA, and industry
    to help airports take advantage of public-private partnership
    opportunities to increase traffic, expand facilities, and maximize
    revenue potential.
    General Aviation Airports--Health, Safety, and Security
        General aviation airports play a vital role in our national
    airspace system especially during emergencies. Professionals in law
    enforcement, national security, border security, and healthcare use GA
    airports, even where larger airports are available, because of
    accessibility and lower costs and congestion. As the FAA said in a 2012
    report on GA airports, ``It is faster, easier on the patient, and far
    less expensive to operate these lifesaving services from a general
    aviation airport.''
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        In natural disasters, including earthquakes, hurricanes, floods,
    and wildfires, the extensive system of GA airports provides a staging
    area to support relief and rescue efforts. For example, Eagle's Nest
    Airport in New Jersey became one of the only ways to quickly and
    efficiently deliver supplies to the area in the aftermath of Hurricane
    Sandy.
        Volunteers, not just professionals, use GA airports every day to
    provide services and care. Programs including the Civil Air Patrol,
    Pilots & Paws, Patient Airlift Services, Veterans Airlift Command to
    help transport wounded warriors, the Air Care Alliance, Disaster
    Airlift Response Teams, and many others help those in need connect with
    those who have a passion for aviation and giving back.
        GA airports also serve as an emergency diversionary location. From
    passenger illness to deteriorating weather, there are times in all
    segments of aviation where an aircraft needs to land quickly, and a
    broad system of airports gives pilots better options in emergencies.
    For example, the U.S. Forest Service has designated certain GA airports
    as staging areas to fight fires. Using aircraft to fight large fires
    spread over a wide geographic area is often the safest and most cost-
    effective solution, saving property and lives.
        As indicated by the FEMA chart below of Presidential Disaster
    Declarations from 1964 to 2013, every region of the U.S. has been
    impacted by some type of natural disaster. Again, AOPA would like to
    work with the Committee to ensure that GA airports are available and
    prepared to assist in times of natural disasters.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Contract Towers
        AOPA strongly supports the Contract Tower Program, which is one of
    the FAA's most effective public-private partnerships. The program
    provides essential air traffic services at 253 airports in 46 states,
    and handles approximately 28 percent of all air traffic control tower
    aircraft operations in the U.S. but only accounts for around 14 percent
    of FAA's overall budget allotted for tower operations. Federal contract
    towers operate together with FAA-staffed facilities throughout the
    country as part of a unified national air traffic control system that
    benefits and connects smaller airports and rural communities.
        Contract towers have also produced a stellar safety record equal to
    or better than FAA-run control towers based on FAA audits and reviews
    by the Department of Transportation Inspector General, and the National
    Transportation Safety Board. In addition, numerous studies have
    validated what we in GA know to be true, that airports are economic
    engines for communities, and establishing an air traffic control tower
    drives even greater economic development and job creation. Maintaining
    funding for the contract tower program is vital to aviation safety and
    the economic viability of countless communities.
    General Aviation Pilot Population
        Whether individuals fly for business, personal reasons or intend to
    fly for a living one day, most pilots start out in general aviation. GA
    faces a number of very real challenges including rising costs of
    aircraft ownership and training as well as a burdensome regulatory
    environment and subsequently the U.S. pilot population has been
    declining for decades.
        According to the FAA, in 1980 there were 827,071 active pilots. By
    2015 that figure had fallen to 590,039--a nearly 30 percent decline.
    The FAA issued 50,458 private pilot certificates in 1980 and by 2015
    that number was just 16,473--a 67 percent decline. Additionally, AOPA
    estimates there were almost 500,000 lapsed pilots under the age of 70
    in 2015 and 70 to 80 percent of students who start flight training drop
    out without earning a pilot certificate. This drop in the number of
    pilots comes as demand and job opportunities are on the rise; the U.S.
    airline industry will need 95,000 new pilots between 2015 and 2034
    according to a Boeing analysis.
        AOPA is also committed to helping all pilots fly more safely which
    is why the AOPA Air Safety Institute has been producing free safety
    education programs for over 60 years. From groundbreaking online
    courses to popular live seminars and videos, ASI covers the spectrum of
    aviation safety education. AOPA is committed to safety and it is
    embedded in our organization's culture.
        To reverse the decline in the pilot population, AOPA created the
    You Can Fly program to build a stronger, more vibrant, and more
    resilient pilot community. You Can Fly is based on extensive research
    and real-world experience and is made up of a series of initiatives to
    support flying clubs, encourage best practices in flight training, get
    lapsed pilots back in the air, bring AOPA's resources and expertise to
    pilot groups across the country, and invite high school students to
    learn more about careers in aviation and aerospace.
        Congress, and more specifically this Committee, has already taken a
    big step to reduce costs and bureaucracy for pilots by passing third
    class medical reform legislation last year which was signed into law by
    President Obama. This was the biggest reform for pilots in recent
    history and this Committee work will have an enormous positive impact
    on GA for decades. The FAA's Regulatory Impact Analysis estimates that
    327,324 pilots that have a valid FAA medical certificate may benefit
    from and utilize the improved regulations, now called BasicMed, that
    could save pilots over $380 million from 2017 to 2026.
        General aviation airports play a crucial role in the economy and
    the daily lives of millions of people. They make a multi-billion impact
    on America's GDP and contribute more than one million jobs. Much of
    this directly supports rural communities. We support needed reforms to
    the Non-Primary Entitlement program to ensure continued access to these
    communities, and we strongly encourage public-private partnerships to
    help relieve the financial burden on airport sponsors and to build our
    airports of the future. We need to move America's small airports to a
    place beyond simply surviving and toward thriving. Additionally, by
    understanding the role of general aviation in the economy and the
    access that small airports provide, as well as their importance to our
    citizens when disasters strike, we gain perspective on what our small
    airports do for us today and their incredible future potential.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of Dr. Guy M. Smith, Professor Emeritus,
                      Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
                            2015 Pilot Source Study
    Co-Principal Investigators:
    Dr. Guy M. Smith--Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
    Dr. Elizabeth Bjerke--University of North Dakota
    Research Team:
    Dr. MaryJo Smith--Ypsilon Associates
    Dr. Cody Christensen--South Dakota State University
    Dr. Thomas Carney--Purdue University
    Dr. Paul Craig--Middle Tennessee State University
    Dr. Mary Niemczyk--Arizona State University
    Background
        In February 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued
    an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) titled ``New Pilot
    Certification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations'' that proposed
    changes to regulations relating to the certification of pilots
    conducting domestic, flag, and supplemental operations. Industry and
    educator members commissioned the first Pilot Source Study (PSS) 2010
    to answer one ANPRM question, ``Are aviation/pilot graduates from
    accredited aviation university degree programs likely to have a more
    solid academic knowledge base than other pilots hired for air carrier
    operations?'' The research question was, ``What are the background
    characteristics (education, flight experience, etc.) of pilots and how
    did their backgrounds (source) influence their success in regional
    airline training? Background and performance data for 2,156 pilots
    hired by regional airlines between 2005 and 2009, a convenience
    sampling of six regional airlines, showed that pilots who experienced
    fewer extra training events and fewer non-completions were pilots who:
    (a) graduated from a flight program accredited by the Aviation
    Accreditation Board International (AABI), (b) had an aviation degree,
    (c) completed their flight training in a collegiate program, (d) had a
    CFI certificate, or (e) had between 501-1,000 total flight hours.
        In February 2012, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    (NPRM) that would require first officers in Part 121 operations to hold
    an ATP certificate and type rating for the aircraft to be flown, with
    restricted privileges for pilots with an aviation degree or military
    pilot experience. Industry and educator members commissioned the second
    Pilot Source Study 2012 with the same research question, expanding the
    data to include other regional airlines. Background and performance
    data for these 4,024 pilots hired between 2005 and 2011, a convenience
    sampling of seven regional airlines not included in the previous study,
    showed that pilots who experienced fewer extra training events and
    fewer non-completions were pilots who: (a) graduated from an AABI-
    accredited flight program, (b) had an aviation degree, (c) completed
    their flight training in a collegiate program, (d) had a CFI
    certificate, or (e) had between 1,001-1,500 total flight hours. With
    the exception of total hours, the results of PSS 2012 were consistent
    with the results of PSS 2010.
        On August 1, 2010, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 111-216,
    titled the ``Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration
    Extension Act.'' On July 15, 2013, the FAA issued the ``Pilot
    Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier
    Operations'' rule (FOQ Rule) that abruptly changed the pilot hiring
    situation for U.S. air carriers operating under Part 121. The FOQ Rule
    required all pilots operating in a Part 121 airline to have an ATP
    certificate that requires them to be at least 23 years old and have at
    least 1,500 hours total flight time. Other changes required by the FOQ
    Rule were that all Part 121 pilots must complete the Airline Transport
    Pilot Certification Training Program (ATP CTP), have 50 hours of
    multiengine experience, and possess an aircraft type rating. The FOQ
    Rule which became effective on August 1, 2013, provided an avenue for
    alternatively-trained first officers to fly as required crewmembers
    under Restricted Airline Transport Pilot (R-ATP) privileges at the age
    of 21 instead of 23 years old if they:

       graduated from an FAA-approved R-ATP Bachelor's degree
            program with 60 approved credit hours and had 1,000 hours total
            time, or

       graduated from an FAA-approved R-ATP Bachelor's degree
            program or Associate's degree program with 30 approved credit
            hours and had 1,250 hours total time, or

       were prior U.S. Military pilots and had 750 hours total time

        In essence, P.L. 111-216 and the FOQ Rule inserted a gap between
    completing pilot certification and becoming eligible to be an airline
    first officer. The Pilot Source Study 2015 collected data on this
    ``Gap''--what pilots did between earning their certificates and being
    eligible for airline training.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    PSS 2015 Protocol
        In January 2015, industry and educator members at the ``Pilot
    Supply Summit'' requested the Pilot Source Study researchers to conduct
    a new study to answer the question, ``What is the effect of P.L. 111-
    216 and the FOQ Rule on pilot hiring and pilot training in U.S.
    regional airlines?'' The new study, Pilot Source Study 2015, was
    conceived as a replication study, involving the same 13 airlines that
    provided data for the two previous studies. To accommodate a very
    condensed timeframe, two research teams were assembled--a Data
    Collection Team and a Data Analysis Team, both led by co-principal
    investigators, Dr. Guy M. Smith from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
    University and Dr. Elizabeth Bjerke from the University of North
    Dakota. In May, the PSS Data Collection Team, at the Regional Airline
    Association (RAA) Annual Convention in Cleveland, OH, briefed the RAA
    Board of Directors, the Regional Operations Council, and the Flight
    Training Committee to request permission to come to the airlines to
    collect data for the study. Acknowledging an urgent need for the study,
    the senior management of many airlines applauded the research effort,
    promising to cooperate with the Data Collection Team, including
    airlines not included in Pilot Source Study 2010 or 2012. Urged by this
    enthusiastic response, the PSS Data Collection Team redesigned the
    study into a population study that would include virtually all U.S.
    regional airlines and all pilots hired by these airlines from August 1,
    2013 to the date of data collection. AABI managed a separate Pilot
    Source Study fund to cover travel costs for the Data Collection Team--a
    principal investigator (professor), a data collection manager (graduate
    student), and additional data collectors, as necessary. The data
    collection manager and additional data collectors received a stipend of
    $100 per day; the principal investigators did not receive any payment
    beyond reimbursement of travel expenses. The researchers on the Data
    Analysis Team did not receive any payment for their work on the Pilot
    Source Study. The donors to the Pilot Source Study fund were two
    universities, five major airlines, an association, and a consulting
    firm. To maintain objectivity, the Pilot Source Study fund did not
    request or accept any contributions from AABI, RAA, or any regional
    airline.
        Two documents were critical to the study. At the beginning of every
    visit, all members of the Data Collection Team signed a non-disclosure
    agreement, asserting that ``all data shall remain in the airline's
    control, except de-identified data specifically released by the airline
    for the purposes of the Pilot Source Study.'' Another document
    explained the research protocol that would be strictly followed at each
    airline: the Data Collection Manager would collect identified
    background data from Human Resources or Pilot Recruiting records; the
    Principal Investigator would collect identified performance data on
    Training, Initial Operating Experience (IOE), and Recurrent Training
    from training or operational records; the Data Collection Manager,
    after combining the two identified records, would delete all
    identifying information (name, ID number, age, gender, ethnicity, etc.)
    and deliver the de-identified dataset to the Pilot Source Study data
    repository. The Data Collection Team visited 22 U.S. regional airlines
    from April to October 2015, collecting 7,073 pilot records. These data
    were combined into two composite spreadsheets for analysis. The data
    from 19 Part 121 airlines (6,734 records) were analyzed by the Data
    Analysis Team consisting of six researchers from different universities
    and one independent research consultant. The data from three Part 135
    airlines (339 records) were analyzed separately because the
    restrictions of the FOQ Rule did not pertain to these airlines.
    PSS 2015 Results--Part 121 Airlines
        For analysis, the background data was combined into two categories:
    Educational Background (college degree, AABI-accredited flight degree,
    aviation degree, and college GPA) and Experience Background (years
    since graduation, previous employment, CFI certificate, military pilot,
    ATP certificate, and aeronautical experience). Four indicators of
    performance (outcomes) were analyzed: non-completions, extra training
    events, extra IOE, and extra recurrent training. Significant results of
    the study are summarized in Table A at the end of the document and are
    described here.
        For College Degree (graduate 8 percent, bachelors 63 percent,
    associate 9 percent, high school 18 percent, unknown 2 percent), pilots
    with a bachelor's degree had fewer non-completions and less extra
    training than expected; pilots with an associate degree had more non-
    completions, more extra training events and more extra IOE than
    expected; and pilots with no degree (high school) had more non-
    completions and more extra training events than expected.
        In the dataset, 23 percent of the pilots graduated from AABI-
    accredited flight programs. These pilots had fewer non-completions,
    less extra training, less extra IOE, and less extra recurrent training
    than expected.
        The variable, Aviation Degree (48 percent), included graduates from
    AABI-accredited flight programs, graduates from other flight programs,
    and graduates from aviation disciplines other than flight. Pilots with
    an aviation degree had fewer non-completions, less extra training, and
    less extra recurrent training than expected. Pilots with a non-aviation
    degree had more non-completions, more extra training events, and more
    extra recurrent training than expected.
        Only 38 percent of the pilot records had college GPA information.
    Pilots whose college GPA was 3.0 or lower had more extra training
    events, more extra IOE, and more extra recurrent training than
    expected.
        In the dataset, 55 percent of the records included graduation
    dates, which was converted to Years since Graduation. Pilots with fewer
    than four years since graduation had fewer non-completions, less extra
    training, and less extra recurrent training than expected. Pilots with
    more than 10 years since graduation had more non-completions, more
    extra training events, more extra IOE, and more extra recurrent
    training than expected.
        For Previous Employment (26 percent Part 121, 16 percent Part 135,
    8 percent Part 91, 36 percent flight instructor, and 14 percent other),
    pilots who were previously flight instructors had fewer non-completions
    than expected but they required more extra IOE and more extra recurrent
    training than expected. Pilots who were previously employed in Part 121
    operations had less extra training, less extra IOE, and less extra
    recurrent training than expected. Pilots who were previously employed
    in Part 91 operations had more non-completions and more extra training
    events than expected.
        In contrast with Pilot Source Study 2010 and 2012, having a CFI
    certificate did not show any significant advantage over the expected
    outcomes for pilots in the 2015 study. However, pilots who did not have
    a CFI certificate had more non-completions and more extra training
    events than expected.
        In the dataset, 12 percent were prior military pilots. They had
    less extra training than expected.
        As required by the FOQ Rule, all pilots had an ATP certificate (2
    percent military R-ATP, 15 percent institutional authority R-ATP, and
    83 percent traditional ATP). Pilots with an institutional authority R-
    ATP had fewer non-completions, less extra training, and less extra
    recurrent training than expected.
        Total Time was binned into the following categories: 27 percent
    with 1,500 hours or fewer; 42 percent between 1,501 and 3,000 hours; 14
    percent between 3,001 and 4,500 hours; and 17 percent with more than
    4,500 hours. Pilots with 1,500 hours or fewer had fewer non-
    completions, fewer extra training events, and less extra recurrent
    training than expected. Pilots with more than 4,500 hours had more non-
    completions but less extra recurrent training than expected. Pilots
    with between 1,501 and 3,000 hours had more extra recurrent training
    than expected.
        Pilots with less piloting experience (instrument hours, cross-
    country hours, pilot-in-command hours, second-in-command hours, multi-
    engine hours, turbine hours, dual-given hours, and total time) had
    fewer non-completions and fewer extra training events than expected.
    Pilots with more experience had less extra IOE and less extra recurrent
    training than expected.
        Comparing the backgrounds of the pilots in PSS 2015 to pilots in
    the combined 2010 and 2102 datasets, there was no difference in highest
    degree (bachelor, associate, or no degree). There were significantly
    fewer pilots with an aviation degree, fewer pilots with an AABI-
    accredited flight degree, more military pilots, and fewer CFI
    certificates with more hours of dual-given. By law, none of the 2015
    PSS pilots had commercial pilot certificates but 17 percent had R-ATP
    certificates. Also by law, the 2015 PSS dataset had significantly fewer
    pilots with less than 1,500 total flight hours.
        Comparing outcomes between the PSS 2015 pilots (Post-Law) and the
    2010/2102 pilots (Pre-Law), Post-Law pilots had more non-completions
    and required more extra training. Having an AABI-accredited flight
    degree, an aviation degree, or a CFI certificate had a positive effect
    on the number of extra training events for Post-Law pilots. Post-Law
    completions were positively affected by having a bachelor's degree, an
    AABI-accredited flight degree, an aviation degree, or being a CFI. The
    additional total hours required by the FOQ Rule was less beneficial to
    regional airline training for Post-Law pilots; as the number of total
    hours increased, so did the proportion of non-completions and extra
    training events. Most importantly, completions decreased from 93.4
    percent in the Pre-Law dataset to 83.6 percent in the Post-Law dataset,
    and the Post-Law pilots required significantly more extra training.
    Using approximate costs of training from seven regional airlines, the
    Data Analysis Team estimated an airline's average expenditure per pilot
    who did not complete training to be $38,464 with zero return-on-
    investment to the airline.
        In Summary, ranked by the magnitude or size of the effect, in the
    Pilot Source Study 2015, pilots with best training performance in Part
    121 airlines (fewer non-completions and fewer extra training events)
    were:

       pilots with fewer than four years since graduation,

       pilots with 1,500 or fewer total flight hours,

       pilots who graduated from an AABI-accredited flight program,

       pilots with an institutional authority R-ATP,

       pilots with an aviation degree,

       pilots with a bachelor's degree,

       pilots whose previous employment was in a Part 121
            operation, and

       prior military pilots
    PSS 2015 Results--Part 135 Airlines
        Three airlines, operating under 14 CFR Part 135, were included in
    the Pilot Source Study 2015. These airlines were not restricted by P.L.
    111-216 or the 1,500-hour FOQ rule; however, they were impacted by some
    unintended consequences of the law. Most Part 135 operations do not
    need first officers; they are single-pilot operations requiring a
    captain (with ATP and at least 1,500 flight hours). So, first officers
    fly for these airlines in training to become captains. Part 135 first
    officers do not need an ATP certificate or even an R-ATP certificate;
    they must have a commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating
    and at least 250 flight hours. Part 135 pilot training is nearly
    identical to Part 121 pilot training. Therefore, the Pilot Source Study
    used the same protocols, data, and procedures for both Part 135 and
    Part 121 airlines. The Part 135 research question was: How do the
    background characteristics of the Post-Law pilots affect their success
    (outcomes) at a Part 135 Regional Airline? The population was 339 new-
    hire first officers hired by three Part 135 airlines from August 1,
    2013 to summer 2015.
        For the educational background variables, the following significant
    results were noted: 1) Pilots who performed best in Part 135 airline
    training were graduates from AABI-accredited flight programs and pilots
    who graduated after 2010, or more recently. 2) Pilots who needed
    significantly more extra training were pilots who had only high school
    diplomas and pilots with a GPA less than 3.0.
        For the experience background variables, the following significant
    results were noted: 1) Pilots who performed best in Part 135 airline
    training were those who had previous employment experience as flight
    instructors, and had fewer than 500 total flight hours. Pilots who
    required significantly more Extra Training were the pilots who held CFI
    certificates but had no flight instructor experience.
        The most important results from Part 135 airlines are in the
    outcome variables (Completions and Extra Training). A startling result
    is that 42 percent of the pilots, hired in the two-year period, 2013-
    2015, left the airline. Many of these pilots did not fail training;
    they most likely opted to leave the Part 135 airline because they had
    the necessary flight hours to apply to a Part 121 airline.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Only 37 percent of the Part 135 pilots did not need any extra
    training. In fact, 18 percent of these pilots needed 7 or more extra
    training events. In summary, for Part 135 airlines, the training
    investment is analogous to pouring water on sand.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Conclusions

       The study affirmed the value of a college degree. The most
            successful pilots had a bachelor's degree, principally from an
            AABI-Accredited Flight Program or at least a degree in
            aviation. Recent college graduates were more successful than
            second-career pilots.

       The FOQ Rule requires only 50 hours of multiengine flight
            time. Many pilots in the study had minimal multiengine
            experience. An unintended consequence of the FOQ Rule is a
            shortage of multiengine flight instructors throughout aviation
            education. Also, the reduction of pilot-in-command multiengine
            experience requires additional training at the airline.

       Most importantly, all three Pilot Source Studies concluded
            that ``FLIGHT HOURS'' is not a reliable predictor of
            performance by pilots.
            [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

                                Alaska Air Carriers Association
                                           Anchorage, AK, April 4, 2017

    U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.),
    Chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and
                Security

        The Alaska Air Carriers Association (AACA) is a membership
    organization whose mission is to support and advocate for the
    commercial aviation community. Our members include Part 121, 135, 125,
    and commercial Part 91 Alaskan air carrier operators and associate
    members that support them.
        The most current economic data representing the Alaskan aviation
    industry estimates there is about $3.5B worth of economic activity,
    generated through 47,000 jobs and comprising 8 percent of Alaska's
    gross state product. 82 percent of the communities in Alaska are
    dependent on commercial air carrier transportation for routine
    transportation.
        AACA is writing to you today regarding issues important to Alaskan
    air carriers and the communities they serve.
    Essential Air Service
        Essential Air Service program allows 61 communities in Alaska to be
    connected to life-sustaining services. The EAS program underwrites
    scheduled flight service where it may otherwise prove economically
    infeasible. EAS provides a vital lifeline for communities off the road
    system, offering regular U.S. mail service, transportation for business
    and leisure travelers who support these fragile rural economies, and
    the most fundamental link--connection to a larger city with healthcare
    and emergency resources.
        The role of Essential Air Service in Alaska lies in sharp contrast
    to its function in the Lower 48. While some Alaska EAS communities may
    be totally inaccessible except by an hours or days-long boat or snow
    machine ride, several EAS communities in the Lower 48 lay within a
    reasonable drive from an international airport.
        This disparity underscores the need for the U.S. Department of
    Transportation (USDOT) to prioritize Alaska EAS funding when making
    decisions about where to preserve service, and where to allow market
    forces to take over routes which have outlived the need to remain
    federally subsidized.
        We appreciate all the time and effort the USDOT Essential Air
    Service program administrators spend on maintaining these critical air
    service links in our vast state. We stand ready to work with them, and
    you, to ensure our rural Alaska communities' lifelines are protected as
    you work through the FAA reauthorization process.
        Alaska includes approximately 1/3 of the communities served under
    EAS contracts. Eighty-two percent of our communities are not accessible
    by road and rely on air transport for all life sustaining goods and
    services. Alaska's people travel by air eight times more often per
    capita than those in rural areas of the Lower 48, and ship 39 times
    more freight per capita--nearly one ton per person per year.
        Please help insure that the viability of communities in Alaska and
    small businesses struggling to survive are not categorized alongside
    communities on road systems in the contiguous 48 states.
        AACA urges the sub-committee consider creating two categories of
    EAS. EAS would provide for transportation support in communities with
    other forms of public transportation such as roads and Alaska EAS would
    provide assistance to communities that rely solely on air
    transportation.
    Aviation Weather, Procedure Development and Infrastructure Outages
        Aviation weather information is limited in Alaska! It's been
    estimated that over 200 new Automated Weather Observation Stations
    (AWOS) are needed in Alaska to meet the density of aviation weather
    currently available in the contiguous 48 states where alternate means
    of access via roads is readily available.
        Aviation weather is vital for instrument approach procedures,
    encouraged by the FAA to provide a higher level of safety. Currently,
    there are 31 airports in Alaska with instrument approach procedures
    that cannot be used due to lack of aviation weather. More communities
    in Alaska desire instrument procedures but lack weather, airport
    surveys or procedure development. For one community in Alaska, the time
    necessary to complete an airport survey and develop the instrument
    procedure is estimated at five years.
        Of the 750 total airports, public and private use, registered with
    FAA in Alaska only 134 of those airports are served by aviation
    certified AWOS/ASOS weather. Due to frequent AWOS/ASOS weather outages
    and new requirements for Part 121 operators to have certified weather
    for flights operated when visual flight rules apply, back up weather at
    all airports may be necessary.
        AACA encourages the sub-committee to support program grant funds
    through AACA to site and develop necessary aviation weather in Alaska.
    Federal Aviation Excise Taxes
        IRS collection practices target small Alaskan air taxis. Multiple
    members have been fined from $250,000 to $1.8 million on inconsistent
    interpretation of ambiguous language in the law. Senator Murkowski's
    proposed draft language is supported by AACA.
        Even after receiving IRS interpretive documents on the issue, much
    confusion exists in the business aviation community over the
    application of the excise tax rules caused by terminology differences
    between the IRS (the agency that imposes the tax and administers to the
    rules) and the FAA. Commercial operators are very familiar with FAA
    rules and definitions but unlike their ability to deal with FAA
    requirements, the interpretation and application of IRS rules and
    definitions becomes unclear and in some instances creates
    insurmountable financial obligations for some operators. In addition,
    legal and accounting professionals give their clients varying and
    conflicting advice regarding the application and collection of FET's.
        AACA urges the sub-committee support the excise tax language
    proposed by Senator Murkowski that clearly articulates obligations for
    Part 135 on-demand and commuter operators on excise taxes.
    Service Animals
        FAA certificates Part 135 operators to transport passengers on-
    demand or on a published schedule. Aircraft typical to the Alaskan Part
    135 industry are generally small and equipped with 9 seats or less. A
    typical Part 135 fleet could include Cessna 185/206/207, Cessna 208
    Caravans, DE Havilland Beaver and others. Part 135 operators are based
    at every hub in Alaska and provide schedule or on-demand transportation
    to any community or remote off field locations. Alaska's tourism
    industry relies on Part 135 operators for flight seeing, hunters and
    fisherman or other tourism related transportation. Common to all of
    these aircraft is the lack of a secure access door to the pilot cabin.
        Carriers are mandated to transport service and emotional support
    animals alongside their owner and other passengers in the aircraft
    cabin. Conversely, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
    regulations mandate carriers secure all items inside the cabin during
    all flights (see Part 135.87 below).
        In small Part 135 aircraft, turbulence or other disruption of
    flight is common and everyone including the pilot is at risk for injury
    as the animal could be tossed about the cabin and even into the
    cockpit. In addition, unsecured animals could hinder passenger access
    to exit routes and doors.
        AACA seeks resolution for Part 135 air carriers who desire to
    provide transportation services in compliance with all USDOT
    requirements and where the safety of all passengers and flight crew is
    protected. One solution is to exempt Part 135 operators whose aircraft
    are not equipped with a cockpit security access door from the
    requirements of this law. There may be other solutions and AACA seeks
    your guidance and assistance to solve this significant safety issue.
        Thank you again for your attention to this matter.
                Best regards,

    Matt Atkinson,
    Board Chair ,
    Alaska Air Carriers Association.
    Jane Dale,
    Director,
    Alaska Air Carriers Association.

    Cc: Congressman Don Young
    Senator Dan Sullivan
    Senator Lisa Murkowski
    Alaskan FAA Administrator Kerry Long
    Alaska Legislature
                                     ______

                           Alliance for Aviation Across America
                                                          April 6, 2017

    Hon. John Thune,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Roy Blunt,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Bill Nelson,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Maria Cantwell,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, Chairman Blunt and Ranking
    Member Cantwell:

        In light of your hearing today entitled, ``FAA Reauthorization:
    Perspectives on Rural Air Service and the General Aviation Community,''
    we write regarding the critical importance of general aviation and
    small and mid-size airports to the connectivity of rural communities to
    our Nation's airspace.
        Specifically, on behalf of thousands of local communities, elected
    officials, businesses, and charitable organizations around the country,
    we have serious concerns about the current proposal being pushed by the
    commercial airline lobby to privatize our Nation's air traffic control
    system and make it accountable to private interests, as opposed to
    public citizens and communities of all sizes.
        For rural areas of the country in particular, general aviation and
    local airports are a literal lifeline to thousands of communities with
    little to no commercial air service. Small aircraft and airports help
    public utility companies to oversee our power lines, they support
    businesses in transporting personnel and specialized equipment, and
    they allow farms and ranches to survey and manage their crops and
    farmland--about 71 million acres per year. These aircraft and airports
    also help first responders and volunteer pilots to respond quickly to
    help to fight wildfires, transport blood, organ and platelets, reunite
    veterans with their families and help to bring patients to medical
    treatment when other forms of transportation are inaccessible. With
    46.7 million Americans living more than an hour away from a Level 1 or
    2 trauma center, general aviation plays an increasingly significant
    role in ensuring that patients in rural areas of the country have
    access to the medical care they need.
        These aircraft and airports also support critically-needed U.S.
    jobs and economic activity. Many companies use general aviation to
    reach far-off plants, customers and job-sites, and reach multiple
    locations in a day; all of which help them to increase efficiency and
    compete in an increasingly global economy. The airports that these
    aircraft utilize are also economic drivers for the local community. For
    example, general aviation aircraft and airports support over 1.1
    million jobs and over $219 billion in economic activity--and, the
    general aviation industry is one of the few manufacturing sectors that
    contributes positively to the balance of U.S. trade.
        However, these businesses and organizations would be decimated by a
    privatized air traffic control system funded by new user fees and
    governed by an unaccountable entity with limitless authority to raise
    taxes. Given that this new entity would also have the authority to
    direct resources, investments and access, general aviation would also
    likely face limited access to airspace and airports, and a lack of
    investment in smaller airports resulting from a system that caters to
    the biggest commercial airlines, instead of the public good. These are
    the same commercial airlines that have stated explicitly that their
    push for privatization is about gaining ``control'' of the system, and
    that there is ``no point' '' in deploying NextGen technology to regions
    outside of New York City. According to the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO), scheduled departures at medium-hub airports have already
    decreased nearly 24 percent between 2007 and 2013, and by about 20
    percent at small-hub airports. Meanwhile, the airlines continue to push
    new, endless fees totaling $6.8 billion in 2015 alone. The big
    commercial airlines have made their priorities clear and they do not
    include consumers or rural America.
        It is for all these reasons that consumer groups, local Mayors,
    Chambers of Commerce, rural and free market groups and businesses have
    all voiced concerns with this risky proposal. Moreover, by an
    overwhelming margin, Americans oppose this proposal to privatize our
    Nation's air traffic control system and turn it over to a non-profit
    corporation. With debate about to ensue in Congress about investments
    in our Nation's infrastructure and reauthorization of the Federal
    Aviation Administration (FAA), we welcome the opportunity to
    participate in a constructive debate about modernization of our
    nation's air traffic control system, rather than the same old tired
    push by the commercial airline lobby for privatization.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer our perspectives and we look
    forward to working with you on issues important to general aviation and
    rural communities.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Selena Shilad,
                                                    Executive Director,
                                      Alliance for Aviation Across America.
                                     ______

                           Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
                                       Daytona Beach, FL, June 30, 2017

    Hon. John Thune,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    RE: Proposed Amendment to Section 217(d) of Public Law 111-216 (49
                U.S.C. 44701 note)

    Dear Senator:

        On June 28, I expressed support for the subject proposed amendment.
    Unfortunately, we have become aware of some additional information that
    must be considered by the university before offering our endorsement of
    the amendment.
        Thus, please accept this letter withholding our support.
        I appreciate your understanding.
                Sincerely,
                                 Alan J. Stolzer, Ph.D., FRAeS,
                                                    Dean and Professor.

    cc: Senator Bill Nelson
                                     ______

        Written Statement of Air Line Pilots Association, International
        The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) represents
    more than 55,000 airline pilots who fly for 32 airlines in the United
    States and Canada. ALPA is the largest pilots' union in the world, and
    we also operate the largest nongovernmental aviation safety and
    security organization in the world.
        The subject of today's hearing is very important. We applaud you
    for taking the time to place a high degree of focus on the issues
    surrounding small communities and their access to the world through air
    transportation.
        Whether passengers and cargo begin and end their travel at a large
    hub airport or a small, single-runway gravel strip, air transportation
    services must be safe. The industry has come a long way in ensuring
    that when a traveler boards an airliner, they do not need to worry
    about arriving at their destination safely. They just take it for
    granted. However, the safety of our skies is no accident. It is the
    result of hard work and the lessons learned from tragedy--as well as
    the bold action of the United States Congress.
        Prior to the passage of the Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act of
    2010, the United States experienced four high profile fatal airline
    accidents over a six-year period, including the Colgan Air Flight 3407
    accident on February 12, 2009, just outside of Buffalo, NY. These
    airline accidents, which killed scores of passengers, focused the
    Nation's attention on how to increase aviation safety, and
    professionals at the Federal Aviation Administration, the National
    Transportation Safety Board and the U.S. Congress all responded.
        Since passage of this landmark legislation, our country has not had
    a single passenger fatality on a large, scheduled U.S. passenger
    airline (Part 121). This law significantly improved training and
    qualification requirements for first officers--and improved the safety
    of our skies. It is a measure that was written in blood and should not
    be weakened in any way, shape, or form.
        As FAA Administrator Huerta likes to point out, there are no longer
    kiosks in airports for purchasing airplane crash insurance. He has also
    remarked that travelers worry more about whether the flight will be on-
    time, or whether the Wi-Fi will be working, than the safety of the
    flight. As airline pilots, we show up at work every day with the
    primary focus of working our very best to ensure that passengers can
    continue to take the safety of airline travel for granted.
    Essential Air Service
        The primary reason for our testimony today is to discuss the
    Administration's initial plans for the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget, in
    which the President has called for the elimination of the Essential Air
    Service (EAS) program, and the potential ramifications of that action.
        Looking back over the history of EAS and other small community air
    service programs, it is easy to find many times where elimination or
    significant reductions in the program have been proposed. These
    proposals muddy the waters about small community access to air
    transportation, and they create uncertainty about air transportation.
    Nearly 30 Years of Essential Air Service
        One of the unfortunate effects of airline deregulation in 1978 was
    the certitude that some smaller cities and towns would lose scheduled
    airline service as airline companies began to make routing and service
    operations a business decision. To mitigate that outcome, the Essential
    Air Service (EAS) program was enacted that same year as a temporary
    program. Congress later determined that the EAS program should continue
    past its initial 10-year life and wrote it into law in 1987,
    effectively expanding and extending it for an additional 10 years. This
    has been repeated several more times, and now the program is
    approaching the 30-year mark, one temporary extension at a time.
        ALPA members have a vested interest in the EAS program because our
    airlines are EAS participants so some of our members operate flights to
    and from EAS communities. Further, our members live in all corners of
    the United States, including in and around many of the EAS communities.
    As such, we have a strong connection with smaller cities and towns and
    an interest in ensuring that they have safe access to the national
    airspace system.
    Should Essential Air Service Be a Permanent DOT Program?
        ALPA strongly supports making the Essential Air Service program
    permanent and fully funding it in this year's budget. There are many
    communities that rely on air transportation simply to survive. These
    communities are frequently unable to generate enough passenger air
    travel for airlines to profitably serve those communities, thus the
    need for subsidies. Many of the communities are found in rural Alaska,
    where a lack of highways and roads means that air transportation is the
    only form of access to the world beyond the edge of their community.
        In the contiguous 48 states, there is also a large number of small
    communities that are a long distance from scheduled airline services,
    and yet the communities are growing due to the presence of natural
    resources, manufacturing, and related jobs that propel our Nation's
    economy forward. Some of these communities need EAS to ensure continual
    airline service and will continue to do so indefinitely.
        While originally viewed as a ``temporary'' fix, it is now obvious
    that EAS could be recognized as a permanent and important piece of the
    Nation's air transportation policy framework. A permanent program would
    allow Congress and policymakers to take the necessary steps to refine
    the program and ensure that those small communities that truly need it
    have access to the same high levels of safe, affordable air
    transportation as any other American citizen.
        One area that has been a point of contention in the past is the
    proximity of EAS airports to other airports where airline service is
    available. Our call to consider a permanent program must address this
    and other such issues.
    Once EAS Is Permanent, Airlines Can Adjust Business Models
        Just like other segments of the aviation industry, stable and
    reliable revenue streams are important for service sustainment of air
    transportation to small communities. The economic conditions in small
    communities often change quickly, and airlines are unable to react
    quickly to the changing landscape. Such may be the case when small
    communities are dependent on a single segment of our Nation's economy,
    for example the energy sector. Small communities often grow rapidly
    when oil prices spike, but they can also decline just as rapidly when
    economic changes occur, both of which influence the level of air
    services.
        The EAS or a similar program needs to be designed so that it can
    ensure stable and reliable revenue streams that airlines need in order
    to ride out the out the ups and downs of small community economic
    change. As a result, the airlines would be much better positioned to
    offer pay to their workforce that is consistent with the pay of
    airlines that do not operate at the small communities.
    Safety: The Number One Consideration When It Comes to Air Service
        Ensuring safety begins and ends with a well-trained, appropriately
    experienced, and highly skilled flight crew in the cockpit. It truly is
    the pilots who make the difference. Similar to the One-Level-Of-Safety
    campaign that raised the level of safety in our regional airline
    network, the history of accidents that plagued our industry for decades
    has also served as a catalyst for a complex and carefully created set
    of safety regulations that increase pilot qualification and training
    standards that are ``written in blood,'' and which are designed to
    ensure that we do not repeat that history. The rules we have in place
    from accidents involving flights to or from small communities now serve
    as the lifeblood for safety going forward.
        Some of the airlines that are struggling to provide sustainable air
    transportation services to small communities are the same airlines that
    pay their pilots poverty wages, then complain they can't find qualified
    pilots. To add insult to injury, they spend money in Washington on
    lobbyists trying to roll back air safety requirements. We shouldn't
    listen to the special interests when it comes to air safety, but rather
    listen to the air safety experts.
        To suggest that passengers be asked to accept a reduced level of
    safety in exchange for access to air transportation is nearly
    unthinkable. And, this line of thinking is diametrically opposed to the
    industry's top concern of placing safety as the highest priority, above
    all others.
        The special-interest groups advocating for rolling back safety
    rules are quick to dismiss the effectiveness of the most recent rule
    changes, those that Congress established in 2010 as part of the Airline
    Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010,
    Public Law (P.L.) 111-216.
        As noted, in the six-plus years since P.L. 111-216 became law on
    August 1, 2010, there have been no Part 121 passenger airline accidents
    where a passenger fatality was recorded. In the six plus years prior to
    the August 1, 2010, law, there were hundreds of fatalities, many of
    them on flights serving small communities.
        This remarkable safety record was not achievable without the
    requirements called for in P.L. 111-216. It is no coincidence that the
    package of rules, including the first officer qualification (FOQ)
    requirements, have directly and noticeably improved passenger airline
    safety. We vehemently guard those rules against any efforts by
    airlines, airports, or other organizations which are willing to put
    profits ahead of safety.
        Rather than rolling back safety rules, we continue to urge our
    industry counterparts to identify policies and changes that will ensure
    that safety is maintained.
        From my perspective, a change in the discussion is desperately
    needed. The pilot supply discussion is distracting the small community
    air transportation service experts from focusing on the primary issue
    that needs to be addressed: Providing safe, scheduled air
    transportation to small communities is necessary, and the costs to
    provide that service are currently higher than some communities can
    support on their own.
        Until that single overarching issue is resolved, the airline
    industry and those who seek to pay qualified pilots on the cheap will
    continue to blame their woes on the supply of workers. Young people who
    are seriously considering an airline pilot career are increasingly
    unwilling to invest in an airline career pathway that offers inferior
    pay, an unrealistic work-life balance, and limited career progression.
        The discussion that is being created by the special interest groups
    seeking to roll back safety rules is distracting the community from
    focusing on the important issues that need to be addressed to ensure
    that airlines can profitably serve the travel needs at small community
    airports. Until the real issues are put on the table, there is a good
    chance that we will be back here at some future date to discuss the
    same issues again, having made very little progress.
    DOT Inspector General Cites Regional Airline Business Model
        In a March 2017 report that analyzed regional airlines and pilot
    pay, the Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOT IG)
    reported its findings on pilot pay among regional airlines.
        From my perspective, the DOT IG also took on a much broader set of
    issues when it discussed the challenging business landscape (page 2):

            Regional airlines operate in a very competitive environment,
            which often hinders their ability to adjust pilot compensation.
            Basic business models of regional carriers require them to keep
            costs low to remain competitive. These airlines usually operate
            under long-term, fixed-fee-capacity purchase agreements with
            their larger, domestic code-share partners, such as American
            Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines. Under the
            agreements, mainline carriers pay regional carriers a fixed fee
            for each departure. These arrangements can be beneficial to
            regionals because they are sheltered from some business risks,
            such as fluctuations in fuel prices, ticket prices, and
            passengers. However, it also means that they do not generally
            benefit from upward trends in ticket prices (since mainline
            carriers retain ticket revenue), ancillary revenue (e.g.,
            baggage fees or selective seating fees), and passenger
            enplanements. Since regionals do not have the ability to charge
            or increase these fees to drive revenue, they often must focus
            on cost control as a way to become or stay profitable. As a
            result, they have found it difficult in many cases to increase
            pilot pay despite improved profitability at the mainline
            carriers.

        The DOT IG observations about the regional airline business models,
    as well as the challenges with their difficulties in increasing pilot
    pay, are spot-on from our perspective. Additionally, the challenges of
    providing essential air service further compound the issues.
        It could not be clearer. Attempts to reduce the level of safety by
    changes to rules that ensure safe airline travel for all passengers
    will continue to be a focal point, unless the broader issues of the
    regional airline business model and small community air services are
    addressed. This work must begin immediately.
    Small Community Air Service Safety History Written in Blood
        In the early 1990s, ALPA initiated its One Level of Safety (OLS)
    campaign aimed, in part, at bringing the regional airline industry's
    safety up to the same standards as those of the majors. A significant
    accomplishment in this regard was realized when the FAA instituted
    rulemaking that required scheduled airline operations using aircraft
    with greater than nine seats to comply with 14 CFR Part 121. The OLS
    initiative is still a work in progress, however, as the safety record
    of some regional carriers demonstrates:

      1.  In May 1997, Great Lakes Aviation suspended all flights following
            the FAA's expressed concerns about the adequacy of maintenance
            at the feeder airline. The FAA reported that airline personnel
            were not being properly trained. At the time, Great Lakes was
            operating 500 flights per day and carrying nearly a million
            passengers annually. The carrier suspended its flights
            voluntarily, but only after the FAA had notified the airline
            that it planned to suspend its operating authority. Although
            not related to the shutdown, a Great Lakes turboprop aircraft
            was involved in a runway collision at Quincy, IL, in 1996 that
            killed 14 people.

      2.  The Colgan accident at Buffalo, NY, on February 12, 2009, killed
            a total of 50 people. In the ensuing investigation, the
            National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) identified a number
            of systemic failures at the company and within the industry at
            large. The results of that investigation generated a public
            outcry for numerous improvements to airline safety, and to its
            credit, this Subcommittee was responsible for writing
            legislation that addressed many of those outstanding
            deficiencies. Since then, the FAA has enacted new first officer
            qualifications and training requirements that increased the
            amount of education, training, and flight experience of pilots
            who are hired by Part 121 airlines, among other significant
            improvements. ALPA is a strong proponent of these new rules,
            along with other complementary regulations that have been
            adopted or proposed by Aviation Rulemaking Committees (ARCs) as
            an outcome of what was learned following the Colgan accident.

        Comair 5191, Lexington, KY, August 27, 2016

        The history of regional airline operations underscores the need to
    make safety the first and foremost consideration for service to small
    airline communities.
    New First Officer Qualification Rules and the ``Pilot Shortage''
        We would like to address the outrageous claims of some regional
    airline operators regarding a putative pilot shortage that they say has
    required them to cancel flights and park airplanes. To put it very
    simply, there is currently no shortage of qualified pilots; the major
    airlines are hiring 3,500 to 4,000 new first officers each year from a
    variety of sources including regional carriers. Between the 7,500 to
    9,000 new ATP-certificated pilots each year (over 9,300 in 2016) and
    approximately 2,400 pilots leaving the military annually, there are
    plenty of qualified pilots available to meet all of the U.S. airlines'
    needs. As we have said, however, there is a shortage of qualified
    pilots who are willing to fly for substandard wages, working
    conditions, and benefits.
        Although some within the airline industry blame this Subcommittee's
    legislation and the resultant FAA airline pilot qualifications and
    training regulations for a pilot shortage, the airline industry
    actually helped craft those rules and supported their passage. Several
    accidents over a number of years, the most recent and arguably the most
    troubling of which was the aforementioned Colgan Airways accident in
    Buffalo, NY, in 2009 caused a justifiable groundswell of support for
    the new and safer increase in minimum qualifications for pilots to be
    hired by the airlines, the scope of which goes well beyond just the
    number of hours that a first officer must have in order to enter the
    Part 121 industry.
        It should be noted that some in the regional airline industry did
    not adequately prepare for today's pilot hiring needs, which have been
    predictably compounded in the near term by pilot age-limited
    retirements and increased qualification requirements. This Subcommittee
    introduced legislation on first officer qualifications about seven
    years ago, and the industry was well represented on and agreed to the
    recommendations made by the FAA aviation rulemaking committee that
    created the new pilot qualifications and training rules. Further, the
    future impacts of the age-65 retirements that began in 2012 were well
    understood more than eight years ago. To reduce the potential for
    impacts on the pilot pool, Congress gave FAA the ability to grant
    flight-hour credit for specific academic training against the 1,500-
    hour requirement for the air transport pilot certificate (ATP). FAA did
    exactly that,, by establishing the ``Restricted ATP'' that an
    individual could qualify with as few as 750 flight hours.
        A few airlines have understood for some time the need to create
    career pathways that will incentivize individuals to seek employment as
    airline pilots. More airlines are presently seeing this need and have
    created, or are in the process of creating, pathways that connect one
    or more accredited aviation universities or colleges with a regional
    airline and a legacy airline so that there is a clear and defined
    progression on which to create a career. As part of these pathways,
    some legacy airlines have ``flow-through'' agreements with their
    regional code-share partners that guarantee regional airline pilots an
    interview with the mainline carriers upon achieving certain career
    milestones. ALPA is a strong supporter of these and similar programs
    that help establish a larger and more qualified pool of pilot
    candidates to safely operate airline equipment.
        Thousands of young adults learn to fly each year with the hopes of
    becoming airline pilots. Their total investment may exceed $150,000 for
    a college aviation education and flight training, but that outlay is
    made on the basis of potentially earning several million dollars over
    the course of a 40-year or longer career. These future aviators need to
    see evidence that their investment will be rewarded, otherwise--over
    the long term--we will see a genuine shortage of qualified workers in
    our aviation industry.
        One impact on the availability of qualified pilots also serves as
    commentary on the present state of the U.S. airline industry. Thousands
    of experienced airline pilots with U.S. citizenship are opting to fly
    for foreign airlines instead of U.S. carriers because the stability,
    pay, and benefits are so much greater than those offered by U.S.
    carriers. As just one example, at U.S. legacy airlines, a first officer
    may have a starting salary of $61,000/year plus benefits, while a
    foreign airline may pay $80,000/year, plus provide housing allowances
    and other extraordinary benefits, such as personal chauffeured
    transportation to and from work and tuition assistance for the pilot's
    children.
    Airline Industry-Funded Pilot Source Study Evaluates Training, Not the
            Value of Pilot Experience
        The Pilot Source Study, conducted by various academic institutions,
    was sponsored by the very organizations who will benefit from the data
    they hoped it would provide. In the study, the training records of
    newly hired first officers were reviewed and found that compared to
    other times in recent history, newly hired pilots required more
    training than pilots did in the past.
        What the study does not discuss is the increased quality of the
    pilots who possess significantly more flight experience than newly
    hired pilots of the past. The study investigates the need for
    additional training for the newly hired pilots to fit into the airline
    operations' way of doing things, not on how well the pilots made the
    correct decisions and skills that they may have developed with the
    flight experience that they brought with them to the job.
        The study is really about the cost of training. Those who oppose
    the new first officer qualification rules as established by P.L. 111-
    216 do not want to invest the requisite time and costs associated with
    quality pilot training. The study makes no observations about the
    quality of the pilots from an experiential perspective, which was the
    prime motivator for requiring both pilots in Part 121 operations to
    hold an ATP certificate.
        Perhaps most concerning is that the study makes the flawed
    conclusion that experience is not a predictor of competence. The study
    reaches that conclusion based on a pool of newly hired airline pilots
    in a single calendar year, shortly after the new ATP requirements
    became effective. Based on our insights into this class of newly hired
    airline pilots, many of them were second career pilots who already
    possessed an ATP certificate but had not recently experienced the
    flight training environment. It should have been no surprise to anyone,
    nor did a study really need to be conducted, to prove that these
    individuals required time to adapt to the learning environment.
    Naturally, students with very low flight time emerging from the flight
    training environment were likely more accustomed to learning in an
    environment that the airlines had created for those type of pilots.
    Regional Airlines Have Required 1,500 Hours Minimum Experience in the
            Past
        While many airlines now complain that they should be allowed to
    hire pilots with total flight time well below the current minimums
    needed to obtain an R-ATP or an ATP certificate, the very same airlines
    published minimum hourly flight requirements in excess of 1,500 hours
    to merely apply for a pilot position with their airline.
        In the following graphics, the 1999 Airline Information and Address
    Directory lists the minimum hours required for pilots to submit their
    applications for employment at the regional airline shown as 2,500
    hours to include extensive multiengine and turbine time. This very high
    minimum flight time is indicative of two factors: the supply and demand
    of pilots at that particular time. It is the same single factor that at
    times has resulted in airlines hiring pilots who have 250 or even fewer
    hours and scarcely any multiengine time.

    DOT IG Shows Pilot Pay Rising, By Using Marketing Schemes, Not Salary
            Increases
        In their report issued last month, the DOT IG found that the lowest
    pay levels (presumably to newly hired first officers) were well below
    $23,000 per year in 2015. The IG also reported that compensation at
    these carriers since 2015 has increased and that some airlines
    advertise pay of much higher rates. But the IG points out that these
    advertised pay rates are a combination of salaries, one-time incentive
    offers, and other temporary measures that are currently being deployed
    by air carriers to attract pilots.
        One of ALPA's biggest concerns is the temporary nature of the
    increased first-year pilot pay strategies. In some cases, the base
    salaries of first officers at regional airlines remains very low, which
    sends a discouraging message to those who may be considering an airline
    pilot career.
        Potential students can easily recognize that the first-year
    incentives may be withdrawn at any time, without warning. Even those
    airlines that have struck agreements with pilots on these incentives
    have limited the duration, obviously in hopes of withdrawing the
    incentives as soon as possible.
        Pilot pay scales need to be adjusted permanently, not just with
    limited-time-offer gimmicks. Pilots look to regional airlines to
    provide career progression opportunities into airlines that offer
    broader diversity of flying.
    GAO Report on Pilot Supply in 2014 Remains Relevant Today
        If there was ever any doubt about the true nature of the shortage
    that may exist, the 2014 GAO report on the aviation workforce removed
    it. It supported the points that ALPA has made for several years
    concerning whether there is, or will be, a genuine shortage of airline
    pilots.
        Following are a few of the comments contained in the GAO report
    supporting ALPA's long-held view that there is no near-term shortage of
    qualified pilots, but simply a shortage of qualified pilots who are
    willing to be employed by some U.S. airlines in light of their poor
    wages, working conditions, and benefits. Notes have been added below to
    update the data for 2017:

       Available data indicate that a large pool of qualified
            pilots exists relative to the projected demand, but whether
            such pilots are willing or available to work at wages being
            offered is unknown.

         2017 Note: Remains true today.

       Data on wage earnings and employment growth are not
            consistent with the existence of a shortage in the airline
            pilot occupation.

         2017 Note: Remains true today.

       GAO estimates that a range of roughly 1,900 to 4,500 new
            pilots will need to be hired annually over the next 10 years.
            In 2012, the FAA certificated 6,396 new ATPs, and that number
            is trending upward. Additionally, about 2,400 pilots separate
            from the military service branches each year. Note: This total
            of nearly 9,000 additional pilots becoming available annually,
            who could potentially fly for the airlines, is approximately
            double the maximum of what GAO says is needed by the airlines
            each year.

         2017 Note: In 2016 the FAA certificated over 7,000 new
                ATPs plus more than 2,000 restricted ATPs with multiengine
                privileges, for a total exceeding 9,000 pilots eligible to
                be hired as first officers.

       Two out of three studies reviewed by GAO on pilot supply
            trends suggest that a prolonged pilot shortage is unlikely to
            develop. One study noted that a shortage of entry-level first
            officers may temporarily emerge, but would likely be addressed
            within a few years.

         2017 Note: It appears that based on the number of ATP/
                R-ATP issued in 2016, the GAO predictions were initially
                correct.

       Avoiding a pilot shortage hinges on the ability to
            incentivize lower-certificated pilots to seek a higher
            certification, and pilots currently working abroad or elsewhere
            to seek U.S. airline jobs, should a genuine shortage arise.
            Analyses reviewed state or imply that airlines may need to
            provide financial incentives--for example, higher wages,
            benefits, or bonuses--to bring new pilots into the industry.

         2017 Note: Remains true today.

       Eleven of the 12 regional airlines interviewed by GAO have
            been unable to meet hiring targets for training classes formed
            since early 2013. Regional airlines currently pay on average
            about $24 per flight hour (approximately $24,000 annually) for
            new-hire first officers.

         2017 Note: The average salary has begun to rise, but
                not enough. The temporary incentives offered are a new
                development that does increase first-year pilot incomes.

         Several airline CEOs have acknowledged that when
                airlines have taken steps to increase pay, they have seen
                increases in pilot applicants almost immediately.

       The mainline airlines interviewed by GAO report that they
            are not experiencing any difficulty in attracting qualified and
            desirable pilot candidates.

         2017 Note: Remains true today.

        In short, the GAO study was on point and continues to serve as a
    marker from which we can track the development of pilot pay and hiring
    rates today.
    Others Forecast a Pilot Shortage of Epic Levels
        While most would acknowledge that the GAO provides an unbiased look
    at the future pilot needs in the United States, their forecast is not
    the only one. Another forecast that is broadly discussed is one
    published by the University of North Dakota (UND), which depicts that a
    pilot shortage began back in 2015, just one year after the GAO found
    that many pilots were available for hire. In 2016, the UND reduced
    their forecast shortage by 25 percent. The GAO studied the UND study
    methodology and assumptions.
        One of the GAO observations about the UND study was that they
    inflated the cost of training estimates in out years excessively. The
    GAO acknowledged that while using historic trends to predict future
    changes is part of forecasting, in some cases, it can lead to results
    that may be unlikely. In this case, this method resulted in forecasted
    year-over-year changes in the cost of flight school of almost 8 percent
    above its historic mean by the year 2030, which is well above historic
    averages over the past 20 years.

       The GAO also noted that openings of other pilot schools
            could reduce this inflation.

       Using a different assumption regarding increases in training
            costs would also result in different outcomes with respect to
            the size of the forecasted shortage.

       GAO found that reducing the assumed rate of increase of
            inflation in the cost of flight training to only one to two
            points above its historic mean resulted in about 30,000 more
            CFI certifications, an indicator of pilots targeting airline
            employment. This added volume of pilots largely ameliorates the
            estimated shortage.
    ALPA Analysis of Pilot Supply
        While ALPA does not generate our own pilot supply forecast, we do
    track the regular updates of those that do. In short, the range of
    forecast demand for pilots over the next decade varies from a low of
    1,900 pilots per year to a high of 5,200 pilots per year.
        According to the FAA's 2016 certification data, the rate of
    issuance of ATP and R-ATP certificates has exceeded 6,000 per year
    since 1990, even when airline hiring was virtually nonexistent. Since
    P.L. 111-216 became effective in 2010, issuances per year have averaged
    more than 6,000. From ALPA's perspective, the market is responding to
    demand. Those who want to fly are finding jobs with less difficulty
    than in the past.
    Conclusion and Recommendations
        Small community airline service is an important subject that needs
    to become a permanent part of aviation's policy framework. After nearly
    30 years of managing EAS as a temporary program, with various changes
    along the way, it is time for Congress, the DOT, and the industry to
    work together to assemble a small community airline service model that
    meets the needs of all involved in providing that service. This
    includes the pilots who fly the airplanes.
        ALPA is ready to contribute to the design and implementation of a
    small community air service strategy that ensures and results in
    reliable airline travel, profitable airline operations, and employee
    pay and benefits that are on par with their peers across the airline
    industry.
        We believe that the following actions are needed:

       Establish a Permanent Small Community Airline Service
            Framework. This includes establishing significant reforms and
            creating a long-term viable program to meet the needs of
            Americans who live in rural communities throughout all 50
            states.

       Ensure Consistent Reliable Funding for Airline Partners.
            Congress should examine with DOT the Federal Government's EAS
            program and update it for the airlines that provide the air
            service so that the airlines can be successful.

       Adjust Business Rules Not Safety Rules. First, make no
            changes to the FOQ rules as they are currently established. To
            make reductions to these rules would be a reduction in safety.
            Second, seek industry input on the best ways to modify the
            excessive taxation and red tape that the airlines face.
            Congress can and should play a critical role by removing the
            current financial and regulatory barriers facing U.S. airlines
            to make it easier for them to generate sustained levels of
            profitability.

       Ensure Airports Are Provided the Necessary Support to
            Promote Air Travel. While ALPA would oppose any relaxation in
            the rules and standards that are designed to ensure safety,
            there are policies and programs that should be widely available
            for airports and their community partners to promote airline
            travel from their small communities. Best practices, proven
            methods, and other information sharing are low-cost and can
            broadly be applied in many locations.

       Support Industry Efforts to Promote Aviation Professions.
            Congress can assist by restoring loan guarantees for college
            and university students who are undergoing flight training as
            part of their degree curriculum. Congress should work with the
            airlines to create innovative means for them to offset pilots'
            flight training expenses, thereby helping to create a reliable
            pool of new first officer candidates.

       Reject the Fallacious Argument of a Pilot Shortage. Those
            who are claiming a pilot shortage, and are using that supposed
            shortage as a reason to roll back current pilot training safety
            requirements, do so without a factual basis. The argument harms
            small communities because it makes increased service levels
            contingent on decreasing the safety of the operation, instead
            of focusing on addressing the actual economic reasons for such
            service level reductions, of which there are many.

        Thank you for the opportunity to share ALPA's perspective on this
    important topic. Our mission will continue to be moving passengers and
    cargo efficiently across the globe and delivering you and your
    constituents safely back home to communities large and small. We Keep
    America Flying.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
                                Dr. Guy M. Smith
        Question. Dr. Smith, in written testimony submitted for the hearing
    record, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) said that the Pilot
    Source Study ``makes the flawed conclusion that experience is not a
    predictor of competence''. Do you have a response to this comment or
    anything else stated by ALPA?
        Answer.
        Dear Senator Thune,

        Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your question. Be
    assured there has always been an excellent relationship between ALPA
    and aviation academia. Many aviation college students benefit from
    ALPA's Ace Club and ``Cleared to Dream'' program; and ALPA has been an
    active partner of the Aviation Accreditation Board International (AABI)
    in setting and maintaining the highest standards for collegiate
    aviation education.
        In their testimony, ALPA stated that the Pilot Source Study ``makes
    the flawed conclusion that experience is not a predictor of
    competence.'' Several members of ALPA have attended briefings on the
    Pilot Source Study; however, the author of their testimony does not
    understand the study nor the rigorous research protocols employed. The
    Pilot Source Study did not study ``experience'' of pilots; experience
    is a broad construct that should be measured by one-on-one pilot
    interviews. We did not interview a single pilot; we visited regional
    airlines and did a comprehensive review of the pilots' HR records; we
    recorded their educational backgrounds and their flying records prior
    to being hired by the airline. The Pilot Source Study also did not
    study ``competence''; in fact, researchers who have attempted to study
    the competence of a group usually fail; competence is an individual
    aspect that ``indicates sufficiency of knowledge and skills that enable
    someone to act in a wide variety of situations''.\1\ Besides compiling
    information from HR records, the researchers collected data from
    pilots' training records to determine pilots' performance in training.
    Performance was measured primarily by determining whether a pilot
    successfully completed the training and whether they completed it
    within the scheduled footprint or if they needed extra training. The
    study concluded that there were several good indicators of pilot
    performance:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Business Dictionary. (2017). Retrieved from http://
    www.businessdictionary.com/definition/competence.html

    Years Since Graduation:  4 Years                         Aviation Degree: YES
    Total Time:  1,500 Hours                                 Highest Degree: Bachelor's
    AABI Flight: YES                                         Previous Employment: Part 121
    ATP Certificate: R-ATP                                   Military Pilot: YES

        ALPA's testimony implies that the study is flawed because it
    doesn't show ``what everyone knows''--that pilots with more flight
    hours have more experience and therefore are ``better pilots.'' By
    their own admission, ALPA did not research their hypothesis. The Pilot
    Source Study showed that flight hours, as the sole measure of piloting
    skills, was not a good indicator of performance. Rather, it showed that
    flight hours, associated with appropriate educational and experiential
    background, was a good indicator of performance. In P.L. 111-216,
    Congress has already recognized the value of ``appropriate academic
    background,'' and the industry is working to define ``appropriate
    experiential background.'' As I mentioned in my verbal testimony, the
    industry is attempting to define ``structured flying'' and
    ``disciplined flying.'' If we can determine that a pilot has
    successfully accumulated a sufficient number of flight hours in a
    structured, disciplined flying environment; we probably could state
    that the pilot is ready to be trained to be a safe and competent
    airline pilot.
        After the hearing, I spoke for about 20 minutes with John Kausner
    of the Families of Continental Flight 3407. John asked me, ``Why are
    you so much against the 1,500-hour requirement for airline pilots?'' I
    told him emphatically that the Pilot Source Study does not disregard
    the 1,500-hour requirement; the study concludes that 1,500 flight hours
    (an arbitrary number) does not indicate, in itself, that a pilot is
    safe and competent. I have been in pilot training most of my adult
    life. I have flown with pilots who have thousands of hours and should
    never be airline pilots. I have also flown with pilots with only
    several hundred hours who are safe and competent; I would entrust my 3
    daughters to fly on their airplanes. This statement resonated with
    John, since he mourns for his daughter, Ellyce, who died in the Colgan
    crash. I told John that our study did not contradict the 1,500-hour
    rule; the study showed that, if we consider flight hours and nothing
    else, pilots with more than 1,500 flight hours did not perform any
    better than pilots with 1,500 or fewer flight hours. John Kausner
    appeared to accept my response. We parted as friends.
        As matter of professional pride, I am compelled to respond to
    ALPA's flawed statement that ``the Pilot Source Study was sponsored by
    the very organizations who will benefit from the data.'' None of the
    seven researchers received a salary or stipend; the research was done
    as part of our academic contract. The graduate students who collected
    the data received a $100 per day stipend. These stipends and all travel
    expenses were paid from a fund donated by two universities and five
    major airlines. No funding for the Pilot Source Study came from a
    regional airline, the Regional Airline Association (RAA), or the
    Aviation Accreditation Board International (AABI).
                                     ______

     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
                                Dr. Guy M. Smith
        Question. In 2009, we witnessed the tragic crash of Colgan Air
    flight 3407 in Buffalo, New York. 50 people were killed, including
    Beverly Eckert of Stamford, who lost her life eight years after losing
    her husband on 9/11. We learned many things afterward, including the
    fact that the co-pilot may have had insufficient training.
        So Congress took action. Congress required co-pilots to have 1,500
    hours of real-world flying experience. Before then, they needed only
    250. Some want to loosen this requirement. They say that this is too
    demanding, making it hard to hire pilots.
        Captain Chesley Sullenberger--or ``Sully''--the hero known for the
    Miracle on the Hudson--has argued before this committee there is no
    shortcut to safety, no shortcut to experience--and this rule should be
    maintained. He and many other safety advocates say that low pay may be
    the real culprit in problems with hiring good pilots. The first officer
    of the tragic Colgan crash earned approximately $16,200 a year.
        I understand pay has risen since the Colgan tragedy, which is
    reassuring. But according to a recent analysis by the Department of
    Transportation Inspector General, pilot compensation is below $30,000
    annually for many pilots at many airlines.

        Does compensation have an important role attracting pilots to the
    profession?

        Are current compensation levels sufficient to ensure a stable
    workforce of pilots?

        Would testimony from pilots be important and relevant to this
    discussion?
        Answer. Senator Blumenthal, thank you for the opportunity to
    address your questions. Before responding to your three questions, I
    would like to comment on one of your introductory remarks--``Congress
    required co-pilots to have 1,500 hours of real-world flying
    experience.'' I understand that your terminology, ``real-world flying
    experience,'' might have been the intent of Congress; however, as
    implemented, the regulation for the ATP certificate specifies that
    1,500 hours are required for the ATP, but there isn't a qualifying
    requirement for ``real-world flying experience.'' The Pilot Source
    Study supports your explanation of Congressional intent for ``real-
    world flying experience''--flight hours alone are not reliable
    predictors of pilot performance. In my testimony before your committee,
    I suggested that those flight hours should be evaluated against
    criteria for ``disciplined'' and ``structured'' flying experience,
    which could include your wording, ``real-world flying experience.''
    Rather than advocating for changes in congressional laws or FAA
    regulations, I encourage the airline industry to define these
    qualifications.
        On your first two questions concerning compensation for pilots, we
    have no data in the Pilot Source Study on compensation; so my response
    is my opinion, based on 45 years in aviation. My response pertains only
    to regional airlines, since compensation for pilots in the major
    airlines does not appear to be an issue. In their third-party
    submission, ALPA cited the March 2017 letter from the Department of
    Transportation Inspector General (DOT IG) which clearly stated why
    regional airlines are unable to increase pilot pay based on the current
    operating model, fee-for-departure. It is readily agreed in the
    industry that regional airline pilots' pay cannot be proportionate to
    the major airlines under this operating model. The real question is--if
    pay for regional airline pilots was commensurate with the major
    airlines, is there a sufficient supply of qualified professional pilots
    ready and willing to become regional airline pilots? This is a pilot
    supply question, and the Pilot Source Study is not a pilot supply
    study. There are two pilot forecast studies--also not pilot supply
    studies. The 2016 Boeing Pilot & Technician Outlook, projects a need
    for 617,000 new commercial airline pilots over the next 20 years. The
    UND Pilot Supply Forecast predicts a shortfall between 2012 and 2031 of
    38,178 pilots for all commercial operations. The 2014 GAO report on the
    aviation workforce, also cited in the ALPA testimony, is a pilot supply
    study; however, it was completed before the full effects of P.L. 111-
    216 impacted the industry, beginning in August, 2013. It is opportune
    for the aviation industry to commission a comprehensive and valid pilot
    supply study. I have designed a pilot supply study that would involve
    gleaning de-identified data from the FAA Form 8500-8 (Application for
    Airman Medical Certificate). Such a study would need funding,
    permission from FAA for third-party access to the records, and
    involvement of all stakeholders (FAA, airlines, aviation associations,
    ALPA, etc.).
        Concerning your third question, Senator Blumenthal, I'm not sure
    testimony from pilots would elucidate the pilot compensation issue. Any
    regional airline pilot will probably tell you that pay in the regional
    airlines is not sufficient. This would be blatantly clear if you asked
    for testimony from a regional airline pilot who is carrying over
    $100,000 in student debt for their pilot training--and there are many
    of these! However, Congress would get a true education on these issues
    by asking for testimony from directors of training or flight operations
    at the regional airlines. While conducting the Pilot Source Study in
    2015, our teams interviewed training and operations managers who
    educated us on the issues they face. These pilots could tell you about
    the advances that regional airlines have made in compensation, bonuses,
    and hiring incentives. However, the essence of their testimony would
    give Congress a deeper understanding of the current pilot supply and
    the issues they address daily to ensure that safety remains paramount
    while delivering high-quality and appropriate training to maintain the
    viability of their airline.
                                     ______

      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
                                Dr. Guy M. Smith
        Question 1. In terms of the objectivity of your study, universities
    like Embry-Riddle who offer a flight training program have been very
    critical of the new First Officer Qualification (FOQ) requirements,
    ostensibly because they could deter potential students from enrolling
    in their programs or lengthen their path to a regional airline cockpit.
    Your written testimony mentions two universities who contributed to
    financing this study; would you identify these universities and also
    whether they have flight training programs? Additionally, would you
    identify the association and consulting firm who helped underwrite this
    study as well? Finally, has there been any type of audit, review, or
    validation of the methodology or findings of this study by an
    independent, third party entity?
        Universities like Embry-Riddle who offer a flight training program
    have been very critical of the new First Officer Qualification (FOQ)
    requirements.
        Answer. Thank you, Senator Duckworth, for the opportunity to
    respond to your questions. On your first question, I am not a
    spokesperson for Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University; but I know there
    are many at Embry-Riddle and similar universities who benefit from a
    consequence of the FOQ Rule. Aviation graduates typically complete
    their certificates and ratings in 300-400 flight hours and are fully
    prepared to begin their careers; however, because of the FOQ Rule,
    these universities are able to hire their most qualified graduates as
    junior flight instructors and gainfully employ them as flight
    instructors until they have acquired the requisite flight hours.

        Question 1a.  Your written testimony mentions two universities who
    contributed to financing this study; would you identify these
    universities and also whether they have flight training programs?
        Answer. The Pilot Source Study showed that graduates from AABI-
    accredited flight programs performed better in regional airline
    training than any other aggregation of pilots. The two universities
    that provided funding for the Pilot Source Study were Embry-Riddle
    Aeronautical University (employer of Dr. Guy Smith, co-principal
    investigator) and the University of North Dakota (employer of Dr.
    Elizabeth Bjerke, co-principal investigator); both of these
    universities have AABI-accredited flight programs. Neither Dr. Smith
    nor Dr. Bjerke received any pay or stipend for the research project.
    Their universities paid only for travel expenses incurred by the
    researchers. It is common practice among universities to support the
    work of their research faculty without any influence on the results.

        Question 1b. Additionally, would you identify the association and
    consulting firm who helped underwrite this study as well?
        Answer. Travel expenses and stipends for graduate students ($100
    per day) were contributed by the National Business Aviation Association
    (NBAA) and 5 major airlines: Alaska Air, American Airlines, Delta Air
    Lines, JetBlue Airways Corporation, and United Airlines. These were un-
    endorsed donations to a separate fund administered by AABI. To maintain
    objectivity, the Pilot Source Study fund did not request or accept any
    donations from AABI, RAA, or any regional airline. Dr. MaryJo Smith, a
    self-employed consultant for Ypsilon Associates, assisted in data
    collection at three regional airlines; she did not receive a salary or
    stipend and paid for some of the travel expenses.

        Question 1c. Finally, has there been any type of audit, review, or
    validation of the methodology or findings of this study by an
    independent, third party entity?
        Answer. Yes, the work is peer-reviewed. The official report of the
    Pilot Source Study consists of five research articles which have been
    submitted to The Journal of Aviation Technology & Engineering (JATE)
    (ISSN 2159-6670) published by Purdue University Press. The JATE is a
    refereed open-access publication serving the needs of collegiate and
    industrial scholars and researchers in the multidisciplinary fields of
    aviation technology, engineering, and human factors. The first three
    articles of the Pilot Source Study have been published in the JATE;
    Articles 2 and 3 are currently featured on the JATE front page, http://
    docs.lib.purdue.edu/jate/. The researchers are currently reviewing
    Articles 4 and 5; they will be submitted to the JATE review process
    this summer. Links to all of the pilot source study documents are
    available on the study's webpage: https://www.pilotsourcestudy.org/

        Question 2. In current discussions about pilot supply in the U.S.,
    some detractors of the new FOQ requirements seem to suggest they have
    driven potential aviators from pursuing the profession. Others indicate
    that poor working conditions, including salaries, benefits and
    scheduling over the course of the past two decades at regional airlines
    are the main culprit or that expenses associated with flight training
    are too steep. Would you comment on the effect of these different
    factors on pilot supply? Would you provide the Committee with
    enrollment numbers for Embry-Riddle's aviation program over the past 15
    years to give us a better sense of these trends?
        Answer. Senator Duckworth, my response to your second question is
    similar to my testimony in response to a question from Senator
    Blumenthal. We have no data in the Pilot Source Study on pilot working
    conditions, salaries, benefits, or scheduling. Based on 45 years in
    aviation, I can confirm that the conditions you mentioned are possibly
    a deterrent to pilots aspiring to be regional airline pilots. On the
    other hand, many of the pilots who graduate from our aviation
    universities are already committed to careers as airline pilots; they
    know they must start at a regional airline, regardless of pay, etc. We
    do not have an empirical pilot supply study that would determine if
    there is a sufficient supply of qualified professional pilots ready and
    willing to become regional airline pilots. A 2015 study by the
    University of North Dakota and the University of Nebraska Omaha, the
    Pilot Careers Aspiration Study, showed that, since 2013, there has been
    no large increase in the number of university students aspiring for a
    long term career as an airline pilot. The study concluded that salary,
    quality-of-life factors, upgrade time, and defined career paths were
    most influential to attract new pilots to an airline career.

        Question 2a. Would you comment on the effect of these different
    factors on pilot supply?
        Answer. People often mistake the Pilot Source Study as a pilot
    supply study. It is not. The population of the Pilot Source Study is
    pilots who have been hired by the regional airlines; the population of
    a pilot supply study is the pool of pilots who are eligible to be hired
    by the regional airlines. The aviation industry, lawmakers, and
    regulators urgently need a comprehensive and valid pilot supply study;
    otherwise, they could make decisions based on opinions rather than
    data. I have testified to a question from Senator Blumenthal that a
    pilot supply study would require funding, permission from FAA for
    third-party access to their records, and involvement of all
    stakeholders (FAA, airlines, aviation associations, ALPA, etc.). The
    publicly available sources for trending certificated airmen statistics
    present data quality concerns. The FAA's Airmen Certification Database
    and Annual U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics report offer limited insight
    into currently qualified airmen by failing to link airmen age with
    certificate(s) and medical class held. Additionally, thousands of
    certificated airmen records in the Airmen Certification Database do not
    list medical status at all, possibly creating an overstated number of
    qualified, available airmen. Having access to accurate and complete
    data is critical in order to capture and assess the magnitude of the
    pilot shortage.
        From the aviation university perspective, the major deterrent for
    young people to obtain their pilot certificates and ratings from a top-
    tier aviation program accredited by AABI, is the cost of flight
    training. Though many students at these universities have some
    scholarship funding; the majority pay for their flight education with
    student loans, often exceeding $100,000, which they begin to pay back
    when they start flying for hire. This is a daunting future when these
    graduates face low wages as junior flight instructors. Though regional
    airlines have increased pay and added signing bonuses and other
    incentives, starting salaries at regional airlines do not offer
    sufficient relief from financial concerns, especially for pilots hoping
    to plan for young families.

        Question 2b. Would you provide the Committee with enrollment
    numbers for Embry-Riddle's aviation program over the past 15 years to
    give us a better sense of these trends?
        Answer. Below is a table of enrollments and graduations from the
    Bachelor of Aeronautical Science (BAS) program at the Embry-Riddle
    Aeronautical University campus in Daytona Beach, FL. I have been given
    permission by the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Science Department to share
    these data with you. Aeronautical Science is the only AABI-accredited
    flight program at the Daytona Beach campus of Embry-Riddle. As you
    study the enrollment and graduation data; please understand that many
    aviation graduates are not planning to pursue employment with a U.S.
    regional airline; some are international students, and many U.S.
    students seek employment elsewhere--the military, business aviation,
    graduate degrees, permanent flight instructor positions, and non-flying
    aviation pursuits.

         Daytona Beach Campus Only--Enrollments in Aeronautical Science
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    YEAR                           Total Enrollment (4-Years)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2017                                                                1525
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2016                                                                1504
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2015                                                                1493
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2014                                                                1504
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2013                                                                1435
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2012                                                                1517
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2011                                                                1516
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    YEAR                           Total Enrollment (4-Years)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2010                                                                1489
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2009                                                                1659
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2008                                                                1684
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2007                                                                1647
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2006                                                                1460
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2005                                                                1708
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2004                                                                1776
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2003                                                                2046
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Daytona Beach Campus Only--Aeronautical Science Degrees Conferred
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    YEAR                                Total Graduates
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    16-17                                                 (Partial data) 124
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    15-16                                                                156
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    14-15                                                                138
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    13-14                                                                135
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    12-13                                                                142
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    11-12                                                                146
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    10-11                                                                159
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    09-10                                                                199
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    08-09                                                                165
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    07-08                                                                177
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    06-07                                                                198
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question 3. Your written testimony highlights a ``gap'' that the
    FOQ rule has created between completing flight training and being
    eligible to be hired by a regional airline or other Part 121 carrier.
    Your testimony seems to imply that this gap degrades pilots'
    preparation to be regional airline first officers. In order to earn the
    additional flight hours by doing something such as flight instructing,
    I understand a prospective regional airline first officer is looking at
    a timeline of an additional 12-18 months. When compared to a profession
    like medicine, this gap does not seem unreasonable. Are you suggesting
    that the maturation and professional development accrued during these
    additional months are a detriment to one's career as a commercial
    airline pilot?
        Answer. Senator Duckworth, please allow me to dispute your
    statement that the gap introduced by P.L. 111-216, degrades a pilot's
    preparation for regional airlines. The Pilot Source Study was primarily
    a study of the source of pilots' certificates--the first block in the
    figure below. This source of certificates could be the military, a
    flight training academy, an FAR Part 61 training program, an FAR Part
    141 training program, a collegiate flight training program, or an AABI-
    accredited collegiate flight training program. The Pilot Source Study
    showed that graduates from AABI-accredited collegiate flight programs
    performed better in regional airline training than any other
    aggregation of pilots. The study also showed that the gap introduced by
    P.L. 111-216 reduced the effects of their degree--pilots with more than
    4 years since graduation did not perform as well in regional airline
    training as pilots who spent a shorter amount of time building the
    requisite flight time. In the Pilot Source Study 2015, there were many
    pilots who had more than 10 years since graduation; understandably,
    many of these pilots needed extra training and some were unable to
    complete regional airline training. Therefore, the gap introduced by
    P.L. 111-216 and the FOQ Rule reduced some of the positive effects of
    pilots' educational backgrounds and total flight hours.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        I like your comparison to the medical profession where doctors
    spend 3-7 years as interns or residents in their gap between medical
    school graduation and becoming a licensed doctor. These are structured,
    disciplined programs where doctors' practices are supervised and
    evaluated. We don't have a similar structure in the aviation industry.
    The only requirement that P.L. 111-216 and the FOQ rule inserted into
    the gap was an increase in the number of flight hours. There is no
    requirement for structured, disciplined flying experiences similar to
    the doctors' requirements during internships and residencies. I don't
    think that congressional legislation or FAA regulation can solve this
    problem. It is up to industry to determine what kind of flying
    experience will increase the maturation and professional development of
    a pilot. The medical profession does this by the Medical Licensing Exam
    and specialty certification. The legal profession does this by a bar
    exam. Many professionals (nurses, accountants, aviation managers, etc.)
    are certified by public certification boards. The aviation industry is
    content to let flight hours be the sole qualifying factor for
    professional pilots. None of the three Pilot Source Studies (2010,
    2012, and 2015) has shown that ``HOURS,'' without any other qualifying
    factor, is a reliable predictor of performance by pilots.

        Question 4. I am very concerned about the extremely low salaries
    offered by some of the lower-tier regional airlines. A recent IG report
    that surveyed five regional carriers found two of the five with
    starting salaries for first officers in the low $20,000/annual range
    and their average first officer salary below $30,000/annual. What are
    your thoughts on these types of salaries for a young pilot and any
    potential safety ramifications when it comes to pilot decisions on
    where and how they choose to live in relation to where they are based?
    Also important, what is the impact of salary ranges on pilot supply in
    terms of attracting young people to undertake flight training and
    pursue a career as a commercial pilot?
        What are your thoughts on these types of salaries for a young
    pilot?
        Answer. Senator Duckworth, I won't waste your time by repeating my
    previous testimony. The March 2017 letter from the Department of
    Transportation Inspector General (DOT IG) stated why regional airlines
    are unable to increase pilot pay based on the current operating model,
    fee-for-departure. The industry doesn't foresee a change in this
    operating model, so the regional airlines are engaged in self-help
    programs--partnerships, pay increases, bonuses, etc. The economy will
    have to adjust to any pilot shortage and to the upcoming wave of
    retirements, probably by severely reducing the number of regional
    airlines or by making regional airlines extinct. I do not consider
    reducing or eliminating an entire sector of the industry to be a
    tolerable solution.

        Question 4a. What are your thoughts on . . . any potential safety
    ramifications?
        Answer. This is probably the most challenging (and important) part
    of your question. In my visits to 22 regional airlines while collecting
    data for the Pilot Source Study 2015, I was encouraged by training
    managers who insisted that they did not compromise on their end
    product, a safe and competent line pilot. To achieve this outcome,
    these training managers were compelled to extend their training
    footprints and to disqualify some pilots, even after they had invested
    significant resources in training them. On the other hand, to fulfill
    operational requirements, pilot recruiters must fill classes and
    trainers must provide a sufficient number of safe pilots to meet
    operational requirements. Without these vital on-time assets, flights
    must be canceled and air service must be reduced. The question of
    potential safety ramifications deserves more attention from Congress.
    As I mentioned in my testimony to Senator Blumenthal's question, I urge
    you to obtain testimony from directors of training or flight operations
    at regional airlines who are truly cognizant of your principal
    concern--safety.

        Question 4b. What is the impact of salary ranges on pilot supply in
    terms of attracting young people to undertake flight training and
    pursue a career as a commercial pilot?
        Answer. I already mentioned the 2015 Pilot Careers Aspiration Study
    that concluded salary was the most influential to attract new pilots to
    an airline career. There are also many research projects that suggest
    that money does not appear to be a primary source of motivation in
    stimulating people to enter a profession, starting with Frederick
    Herzberg's theory nearly 50 years ago. In the short term, a substantial
    money increase will certainly attract more pilots to the regional
    airlines; however, if we want to attract more young people to undertake
    flight training and to pursue a career as a commercial pilot, we must
    make the whole experience attractive to them. This is not a matter for
    Congress to legislate or for the FAA to regulate; the aviation industry
    must wrestle with this challenge. Whether challenged to cross the
    Atlantic Ocean or to put a man on the moon, the Aviation/Aerospace
    industry has responded and achieved. I have faith that we will continue
    to do so with the current challenges.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
                               Spencer Dickerson
        Question 1. As co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Tourism Caucus,
    I've been working on policies to boost tourism. Tourism generates about
    $13 billion per year and supports 250,000 jobs in Minnesota. In Duluth,
    Minnesota, the Airport Authority is partnering with the City's tourism
    agency, to attract a low cost carrier to begin service to Phoenix,
    Arizona. Direct flights to smaller, regional airports like this attract
    a steady stream of visitors, which benefit local restaurants, hotels
    and businesses.
        Duluth International Airport is planning to apply for a Small
    Community Air Service Development Grant to help fund this tourism
    initiative. How can these types of efforts that increase demand for air
    travel help strengthen regional airports?
        Answer. Senator, thank you for your ongoing efforts to promote
    tourism and for supporting programs that help small communities secure
    and retain commercial air service. We appreciate your leadership, your
    work on the Senate Commerce Committee, and all the assistance that you
    provide airports in Minnesota and around the country.
        I commend the Duluth International Airport for partnering with the
    city's tourism agency in effort to attract low cost service to Phoenix.
    I completely agree with your assessment that commercial air service
    helps small communities attract tourists and businesses that promote
    economic development and support jobs.
        Securing commercial air service in small communities is
    exceptionally challenging. That is why the American Association of
    Airport Executives strongly supports the Small Community Air Service
    Development and Essential Air Service programs. Both of these programs
    help small communities secure and retain commercial air service.
        DOT officials have pointed out that small community grants fund a
    variety of projects including financial incentives for airlines and
    marketing initiatives. At a time when small airports are doing
    everything they can to hold on to commercial air service and attract
    new carriers and more routes, the Small Community Air Service
    Development Program can give airports a much-needed boost.
        Small airports in Minnesota and throughout the country were pleased
    that the FAA reauthorization bill that the Senate approved last year
    authorized $10 million annually for the Small Community Air Service
    Development Program--a $5 million increase from the Fiscal Year 2016
    enacted level--and $155 million annually for the Essential Air Service
    Program.
        Airports are urging Congress to increase funding for these two
    programs as lawmakers resume consideration of the FAA reauthorization
    bill and take up the FY18 appropriations bill. Authorizing and
    appropriating additional funding for the Small Community Air Service
    Development Program would allow more airports in Minnesota and
    throughout the country to participate in this helpful program.

        Question 2. In states like Minnesota with short construction
    seasons due to weather, delays in funding can postpone projects by
    months or even years. I've worked to address this issue by including a
    provision in the last FAA Reauthorization that directs the FAA to
    prioritize review of projects in cold weather states. Right now,
    because of the Continuing Resolution (CR) airports have not received
    the full amount of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds to which
    they are entitled. For Bemidji Regional Airport in my state, this could
    mean a significant delay in the completion of a new taxiway.
        How do long-term funding bills improve an airport's ability to
    complete safety improvements or new construction projects?
        Answer. Senator, thank you for helping airports in Minnesota and
    other states with short construction cycles. We deeply appreciate that
    the last FAA reauthorization bill included your proposal that requires
    the FAA to give priority consideration to construction projects in cold
    weather states. Your provision is helping airports in states like
    Minnesota move forward with their construction projects more quickly.
        Even with that additional guidance, however, short-term FAA
    extensions and stop-gap continuing resolutions can adversely impact the
    FAA's ability to get AIP grants to airports in a timely manner. That's
    why we're pleased that Congress and the Administration finally finished
    the Fiscal Year 2017 appropriations process earlier this month.
    Completion of the omnibus spending bill should allow the FAA to
    distribute remaining Fiscal Year 2017 AIP grants.
        As you know, the last FAA reauthorization bill took four-and-a-half
    years to complete and required 23 separate short-term extensions. Those
    numerous temporary measures proved incredibly disruptive to airport
    operators who routinely saw their AIP grants delayed because of
    prolonged uncertainty in Washington. Numerous fits and starts made it
    challenging for airports to plan and complete their infrastructure
    projects. The stalled authorization process was particularly hard on
    smaller airports that rely on Federal funds and those in the northern
    part of the country that operate with short construction seasons.
        Airport operators are hopeful that Congress will pass a multi-year
    FAA reauthorization bill before the current extension expires at the
    end of September. However, it Congress is unable to complete action on
    the multi-year bill before then, we urge lawmakers to pass a year-long
    extension instead. A 12-month extension would ensure that Federal
    funding for airport infrastructure remains on track as lawmakers
    continue to work on a comprehensive reauthorization bill.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
                                   Mark Baker
        Question. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) was created by
    the Minnesota Legislature in 1943 to promote air transportation and
    commerce in a seven-county region. MAC is a public corporation that
    operates one of the largest airport systems in the nation, which
    includes Minneapolis--St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and six
    general aviation airports. They have used an innovative system to
    develop over 600 hangars at their general aviation airports. MAC leases
    land to individuals and corporations and they make investments in their
    own facilities.
        Mr. Baker, I apologize that I couldn't ask you this question in
    person, but I had to leave the hearing for votes on the Senate floor
    related to the Supreme Court nominee. I understand you have had
    firsthand experience with MAC's hanger program, so you know how well it
    works. What can we do to encourage more of these private-public
    partnerships?
        Answer. Senator Klobuchar, thank you for your question. The
    Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) was created by the Minnesota
    legislature in 1943 to provide a regional approach to developing and
    promoting safe, efficient, environmentally sound aviation services in
    the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Consistent with that role,
    the MAC owns and operates Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
    and six general aviation ``reliever'' airports in the Twin Cities
    metropolitan area.
        One of the sound decisions made at the outset of the MAC was to
    develop its general aviation airports according to a true public-
    private partnership model. At many other airports, airport owners
    (typically city, township, or county governments) want to construct,
    own and maintain all buildings on the airport themselves, which
    requires significant capital expenditure and a large and ongoing
    maintenance budget.
        In the case of the MAC, it's model provides the land, roads,
    airfield and other common-use infrastructure, and private entities
    build storage hangars and commercial enterprises on land they lease
    from the MAC. That way, tenants can build structures that comply with
    MAC standards and meet the tenant's needs.
        Private owners can often build and maintain facilities cheaper than
    public entities can. Tenants can then recover and sometimes even make a
    significant profit on their investment when they are ready to sell. If
    they leased the buildings from the airport owner, as they do at many
    airports, they could not recover any of their investment in renting
    those buildings. All the rent paid would be a sunk investment. For its
    part, the MAC isn't faced with the significant capital investment and
    maintenance costs that it would be if it owned the buildings. And
    tenants can construct and make improvements to hangars without regard
    to the MAC's capital financing limitations. Even under the MAC model,
    the reality remains that tenants cannot afford to bear the full cost of
    developing airport infrastructure. For example, if they had to bear the
    full cost of bringing sewer and water services onto the airport, the
    cost in many cases could exceed what they paid to build their hangar at
    a MAC facility. There simply aren't enough tenants at most general
    aviation airports to pay the full cost of the facility's development,
    operation, and maintenance. The gap between the revenues generated by
    the airport and the cost of developing and maintaining the airport is
    generally covered through use of the immensely important Federal
    Airport Improvement Program grants, state airport funds or local funds
    (usually from city, township or county coffers, or in the MAC's case,
    from cash generated through operation of its airport system as a
    whole). For general aviation airports to be successful, they absolutely
    rely on those external funding sources to cover a portion of the costs
    of ensuring there is adequate, well maintained, and safe infrastructure
    in place for use by airport tenants. The MAC model helps minimize that
    gap and create a firm framework for meeting the goals of all involved.
    Ultimately, everyone benefits from the MAC model of airport operations.
    Private companies invest in the commission's airports, create jobs and
    business activity in their communities, and ultimately recover costs of
    their investment when they sell their hangars or airport businesses.
    And the community gains from jobs and economic activity generated
    because of the airport's operations.
        The MAC operates under a true public-private partnership model,
    which supports infrastructure development and improvements and tenants
    investing dollars in their own hangars and facilities at their
    airports. It is a model other airport operators would do well to
    emulate. It underscores the importance of public entities (airport
    owners and Federal and state entities providing infrastructure grant
    dollars) and the private aviation community coming together to create
    thriving airports.
        AOPA would like to work with you and the Committee to develop a
    Public-Private Partnership General Aviation Pilot Program so that other
    airports across the country can take advantage of the benefits
    associated with attracting private sector investment and improving
    airport infrastructure through cooperation and collaboration.
                                     ______

      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
                                Hon. Laurie Gill
        Question 1. In terms of a suggested pilot shortage and the effect
    of the First Officer Qualification (FOQ) rule, am I correct in
    understanding that the carrier that serviced Pierre in 2013 at the
    outset of the FOQ rule, who blamed cancellations and delays at your
    airport on its inability to hire enough pilots, is no longer servicing
    Pierre?
        Answer. Correct, Great Lakes Aviation is no longer servicing
    Pierre. According to Great Lakes Aviation, their crew base dropped from
    300 pilots to less than 90 pilots following the FOQ rule change. Great
    Lakes Aviation said that many of their existing pilots were no longer
    qualified to fly under the new FOQ rules.
        Consequently, our airport experienced a dramatic decline in flight
    dependability/customer service.
        To maintain commercial air service in Pierre, we were forced to re-
    establish our Essential Air Service (EAS) designation (Great Lakes
    didn't utilize the EAS program for Pierre routes). Once the designation
    and associated subsidy was re-established, it became financially
    feasible to offer commercial flights in and out of Pierre.

        Question 2. Am I also correct in inferring that your new carrier
    has not had the same problems with cancellations and delays, and
    therefore has been successful in fully staffing its flights?
        Answer. Correct. To date, we have experienced very few crew-related
    delays or cancellations. Again, this was made possible by the EAS
    subsidy which allows ADI to utilize tenured charter pilots to operate
    scheduled air service flights.

        Question 3. Is it possible that other factors like pilot pay,
    working conditions, and a company's prior history and reputation could
    have contributed to the first carrier's staffing issues and not the FOQ
    requirements?
        Answer. Thank you for this question. I was honored to be a
    congressional appointee to the U.S. DOT Air Service Working Group. And
    that Working Group would certainly agree that the cause of the pilot
    shortage and associated current commercial airline challenges is multi-
    faceted.
    FOQ Impact
        First, based on the group's research, data does show that in 2013
    dozens of small communities experienced an immediate and significant
    loss of air service following the FOQ rule change.
    Financial Barriers
        Even prior to the FOQ rule change, there was a significant
    financial barrier for would-be pilots. The cost of the education
    combined with the cost of achieving necessary training hours was,
    financially, very burdensome. The FOQ rule change exacerbated those
    financial barriers.
        Additionally, the FOQ rule change, significantly altered the career
    path for new pilots. Under the current structure, the same number of
    flight hours is necessary for pilots whether they are working for a
    regional airline or a mainline carrier. To that end, the career path
    has changed, and eliminated the need for newly-qualified pilots to gain
    experience in smaller markets. The regional airline industry responded
    by increasing new hire pilot compensation by 105 percent and introduced
    other incentives like longevity bonuses. Those changes haven't been
    enough.
    Supply and Demand
        We have a supply and demand issue on our hands. Assuming the demand
    isn't going to decline, our option is to increase the supply. That's
    why when I testified in front of the Congressional Subcommittee, I
    suggested two potential solutions to help reduce the financial barrier,
    and in turn, grow the pilot pool.

       Current rules see value in military experience and
            programming from higher education institutes. I'd ask that the
            FAA review the military and academic experience to consider
            broadening its view of what qualifies as experience worthy of
            credit hours.

       Additionally, given the nationwide pilot shortage, I'd
            encourage lawmakers to consider financial support for those
            studying to be pilots. Financial barriers are certainly a
            concern for aviation students and those who have already
            graduated and are working to pay back student loans.

        Financial support could encourage more people to stay in the field
    or choose the field. It's something we already do for other high-need
    fields like medical professionals. Perhaps it should be considered for
    the aviation industry as well.

                                      [all]