[Senate Hearing 116-585]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       S. Hrg. 116-585

                  THE STATE OF THE AVIATION INDUSTRY:
                      EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF THE
                           COVID-19 PANDEMIC

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 6, 2020

                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation
                             
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                             


                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
                
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-671 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                    
                
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                  ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, 
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      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
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
                       John Keast, Staff Director
                  Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on May 6, 2020......................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     1
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     3
    Letter dated May 6, 2020 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria 
      Cantwell from Sara Nelson, International President, 
      Association of Flight Attendants--CWA, AFL-CIO.............     5
Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    44
Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    46
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    48
    Article dated April 29, 2020 from the Wall Street Journal 
      entitled, ``The 19 Airlines Making Refunds a Headache'' by 
      Scott McCartney............................................    48
    Article dated April 21, 2020 from NPR entitled, ``Alines 
      Offer Vouchers, Credit for Canceled Flights, Customers Want 
      Cash'' by David Schaper....................................    48
    Article dated April 15, 2020 from Politico entitled, 
      ``Frustrated with airline refusals to issue coronavirus 
      refunds, customers take to the courts'' by Tanya Snyder....    48
    Letter dated May 5, 2020 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria 
      Cantwell from Capt. Joseph G. DePete, President, Air Line 
      Pilots Association International...........................    49
Statement of Senator Lee.........................................    52
Statement of Senator Udall.......................................    55
Statement of Senator Tester......................................    56
Statement of Senator Duckworth...................................    59
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    60
Statement of Senator Markey......................................    63
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    64
Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    67
Statement of Senator Sinema......................................    69

                               Witnesses

Hon. Eric Fanning, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Aerospace Industries Association...............................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Nicholas Calio, President and Chief Executive Officer, Airlines 
  for America....................................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Todd Hauptli, President and Chief Executive Officer, American 
  Association of Airport Executives..............................    28
    Prepared statement...........................................    29
Dr. Hilary Godwin, Dean, UW School of Public Health; and 
  Professor, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health 
  Sciences, University of Washington.............................    37
    Prepared statement...........................................    38

                                Appendix

Timothy R. Obitts, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  National Air Transportation Association, prepared statement....    77
Ed Bolen, President and CEO, National Business Aviation 
  Association, prepared statement................................    81
Faye Malarkey Black, President and CEO, Regional Airline 
  Association, prepared statement................................    83
Airport Restaurant and Retail Association (ARRA) and Airport 
  Minority Advisory Council (AMAC), prepared statement...........    87
America's Community Airline Coalition, prepared statement........    89
Letter dated May 6, 2020 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria 
  Cantwell from Christian Klein, Executive Vice President, 
  Aeronautical Repair Station Association........................    91
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Eric Fanning by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................    96
    Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    97
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    97
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................    98
Response to written questions submitted to Nicholas Calio by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................    99
    Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................   100
    Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................   101
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................   102
    Hon. Todd Young..............................................   105
    Hon. Rick Scott..............................................   105
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   107
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................   114
    Hon. Edward Markey...........................................   114
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................   116
Response to written questions submitted to Todd Hauptli by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................   122
    Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................   123
    Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................   125
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................   126
    Hon. Todd Young..............................................   127
    Hon. Rick Scott..............................................   128
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Hilary Godwin by:
    Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................   129
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................   129
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................   130
    Hon Tom Udall................................................   130

 
                  THE STATE OF THE AVIATION INDUSTRY:
                      EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF THE
                           COVID-19 PANDEMIC

                              ----------                              


                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2020

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Cruz, Fischer, Moran, 
Lee, Cantwell, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Markey, Udall, Tester, 
Duckworth, Sinema, and Rosen.

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

    The Chairman. We appreciate people working with us on this 
partially remote and partially in-person hearing on a very 
important topic.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the normal operation of 
every public institution in our country, including, as you can 
see, the legislative branch.
    I thank my colleagues and the witnesses for participating 
in today's hearing, which is the first of many COVID-19-related 
oversight hearings that this committee will conduct.
    We will accomplish the Committee's business in accordance 
with the guidelines established by the Rules Committee and in 
consultation with the Office of the Attending Physician and I 
want to thank my colleague, Ranking Member Senator Cantwell, 
for her cooperation in this regard, too, and for all of our 
staff.
    The Committee today convenes to discuss the state of the 
aviation industry. Our witnesses, which are limited in number 
by the guidance we received from the Senate, include Nick 
Calio, President and Chief Executive Officer of Airlines for 
America; Todd Hauptli, President and Chief Executive Officer of 
the American Association of Airport Executives; Eric Fanning, 
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Aerospace 
Industries Association; and remotely Dr. Hilary Godwin, Dean, 
School of Public Health, University of Washington.
    No part of the American economy has escaped the impact of 
the COVID-19 pandemic. The air transportation sector has 
suffered a particularly painful blow, one intensified by global 
travel restrictions and stay-at-home orders. Domestic travel 
has declined over 95 percent compared to last year. Planes are 
flying with 12 passengers on average. Half of the U.S. 
passenger aircraft fleet is sitting idle.
    The air cargo sector is marginally better but still 
struggling. Just last month, demand for air cargo plunged 15 
percent and transport capacity declined by one-fifth compared 
to last year's figures.
    Even as the global economy recovers, the future remains 
troubling for aviation. Demand for future U.S. air travel 
measured by new booking is down 97 percent year over year.
    A recent International Air Travel Association, IATA, survey 
shows that 40 percent of passengers plan to wait at least 6 
months before booking a ticket. I certainly hope they will 
rethink that.
    The situation is dire not only for airlines and for their 
workers but also for the air transportation sector, which 
relies upon a vast ecosystem in order to function. This sector 
includes airports and their concessionaires, maintenance and 
repair stations, ticket agents, fixed base operators and other 
ground support contractors and the entire aerospace industrial 
base. A lot of these businesses are mom and pop operations. 
Many of their workers are hourly, living paycheck to paycheck.
    I would welcome our witnesses' comments on the current 
state of aviation and thoughts on the future.
    Congress has recognized the importance of preserving the 
air transportation sector, which is critical for so many other 
industries in our society generally. The CARES Act included $32 
billion in payroll support assistance for air carriers and 
contractors. Administered by the Treasury, the Payroll Support 
Program has prevented mass layoffs across the industry. All 13 
major airlines and hundreds of regional and small carriers have 
signed up to participate. Billions of dollars in assistance has 
already been provided.
    Recognizing the great need for liquidity, the CARES Act 
also included $29 billion in loans within the Treasury's 
Economic Stabilization Fund, ESF, for air carriers, aviation 
repair stations, and ticket agents.
    Let me stress that in doing so, Congress provided much 
needed liquidity, not a bail-out. There are strong taxpayer 
protection measures in the Payroll Support Program, and ESF 
loans must be paid back with interest.
    Beyond direct payroll support and loans, the CARES Act 
provided further relief with a tax holiday for commercial 
flights and passengers through the end of the calendar year.
    The CARES Act also required the Secretary of Transportation 
to impose reasonable continuation of service obligations on 
airlines receiving assistance.
    Americans living in rural areas and small communities 
deserve continued access to air travel and cargo delivery.
    Finally, the CARES Act injected $10 billion into the 
Nation's airports to help them maintain operations and to 
service debts.
    The Committee is interested in hearing the witnesses' views 
on the CARES Act. We would also welcome perspectives on 
priorities for future potential legislation. No act of Congress 
can help the industry if it is unsafe for passengers and crew 
members to fly and for other aviation workers to do their jobs.
    To that end, the Committee is interested in the steps being 
taken to protect workers and the flying public.
    The air transportation sector bears a special 
responsibility to prepare for and to actively mitigate 
communicable disease outbreaks. COVID-19 is the latest pandemic 
but it will not be the last. Air travel is the crucial element 
that can turn a local outbreak affecting a few into a global 
pandemic affecting billions of human beings.
    The Committee would welcome the witnesses' views on the 
need for new regulations or standards at both the national and 
international levels to harden the air transportation sector 
against the possibility of future pandemics.
    I want to thank our distinguished panel for participating 
today and express our sincere gratitude for everything the 
industry is doing to help our Nation weather this crisis.
    I now turn to my friend, Ranking Member Cantwell, for her 
comments.

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

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for holding this important hearing.
    I want to note that while my colleague, Senator Blumenthal, 
is here along with me, that we have six or seven of our 
colleagues who are joining us remotely and we thank them for 
being part of this hearing today.
    The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is fundamentally a 
public health crisis but its impact on the economy is global 
without parallel. The coronovarus has heightened the importance 
and also the vulnerability of our aviation ecosystem. We need 
to connect America, its communities, and we need to keep 
employing people around the globe.
    We have learned, just as with the Spanish flu, that this 
virus, travels through people and transportation routes and 
sectors. So we know we're here today to talk about what are the 
impacts of the virus on aviation and what do we need to do for 
the future to better prepare.
    On March 27, the CARES Act was signed into law and a 
historic part of the $2 trillion rescue package was 
specifically dedicating $32 billion in payroll assistance for 
workers and $46 billion in loans to stabilize America's 
aviation sector.
    We're going to hear today from some of the witnesses to 
talk about that, but particularly I want to emphasize the fact 
that we want to hear from the Treasury Office about the Payroll 
Support Program in ensuring that the CARES Act was used 
specifically to support payroll protection.
    I also want to hear from the aviation manufacturing sector 
and what this legislation has done to help us keep essential 
aviation workers that are so critical for America's 
competitiveness in a manufacturing economy.
    In particular, we want to see how the aviation sector is 
responding post this COVID CARES Act legislation, but we are 
very concerned that when hours are being reduced of aviation 
airline workers, this is counter to what the legislation 
entailed.
    I will be sending a letter along with Senators Brown and 
Schumer to the Treasury Secretary to clarify that mandatory or 
forced reductions in payroll hours is not what the CARES Act 
intended.
    We recognize the challenges facing the industry and we 
recognize the challenges in facing this disease. We know the 
demand has plummeted and that airplanes are grounded and that 
airports have been empty. So we're going to hear today about 
those challenges and how we can keep moving forward to protect 
the flying public as they return.
    We're going to hear from a witness, Eric Fanning, who's 
going to talk about how this business was critical to national 
security of the aviation sector and what we can do to continue 
to move forward with getting manufacturing in a safe 
environment.
    We're also going to hear from Mr. Hauptli about the 
implementation to our airports and airport systems. Clearly, 
they have been hard hit and impacted by the loss of revenue and 
the CARES Act helped deliver some resources to sustain them 
through this crisis.
    But I especially want to welcome and hear from Dr. Hilary 
Godwin, the Dean of the University of Washington School of 
Public Health and Professor in the Department of Environmental 
and Occupational Health Sciences.
    While we're focusing on the impacts of industry, we need to 
think about this disease and what we need to do to prepare and 
make our workers safe in the aviation environment.
    We need to listen to our scientists, like Dr. Godwin. They 
will tell us how best to protect workers. They will tell us how 
to best protect the public and particularly in the case of 
resurgence.
    Dr. Godwin's expertise has played a strong and active role 
in Washington's response to the coronavirus and right now, I 
believe we need multiple Federal agencies, like CDC, NIH, DHS, 
and DOT, to better coordinate information to the traveling 
public about the phases of reopening.
    We have states and public health authorities across the 
country looking for leadership to tell our aviation traveling 
public what are the most necessary procedures and how to follow 
them.
    I do not want to see a vulcanization of safety issues where 
everybody has somewhat of an opinion or, I should say, even of 
the industry. I want to see a uniform standard that this is 
what safety in aviation requires on the manufacturing side, in 
our airports, and on our airplanes.
    So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. We 
need to show the traveling public that we can make aviation 
safe for the future. We need to discuss what those solutions 
look like today and make sure that we're enforcing public 
health standards in reaching those goals.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having the hearing. I 
would, if I could, also enter into the record a letter from the 
Association of Flight Attendants on their testimony as it 
relates to the COVID package and the Payroll Support Program, 
making sure that workers are not forcefully reduced in hours.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And without objection, that letter will be 
admitted into the record at this point.
    [The information referred to follows:]

             Association of Flight Attendants--CWA, AFL-CIO
                                        Washington, DC, May 6, 2020

Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman,
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell and Members of the 
            Committee:

    The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO (AFA), 
representing 50,000 Flight Attendants at 20 airlines, submits these 
comments on the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our sector 
and more than two million aviation workers.
    Seven Flight Attendants have already lost their lives as a result 
of COVID-19 and many more have had to battle severe symptoms of the 
virus. Hundreds have tested positive for the virus, but Flight 
Attendants still are not recognized as essential workers with respect 
to prioritizing testing for our profession. As a result of the 
pandemic, nearly 1,000 U.S. Flight Attendants have lost jobs 
permanently or in the near term without current plans to reinstate 
operations. Trans States Airlines and Compass Airlines have both 
shuttered since the onset of COVID-19, while Norwegian closed U.S. 
Flight Attendant bases at the end of March (Flight Attendants have 
contractual recall rights for 2 years if operations resume) and Cathay 
Pacific announced it will end U.S. based operations as of June 20, 
2020. Longtime charter carrier Miami Air, serving the U.S. military and 
profession sports teams among other clients, filed for bankruptcy on 
March 24, 2020, solely as a result of the pandemic. The carrier is 
still waiting for Treasury to respond to its application for payroll 
grants to support 350 jobs in the Miami area.
Payroll Support Program
    The dedicated, highly-trained and credentialed workforce that run 
our airports and our airlines are central to our country's efforts to 
contain the coronavirus and facilitate economic recovery. To that end, 
this Committee played a central role in providing carriers and aviation 
contractors with billions of dollars exclusively to maintain payroll 
and benefits of aviation workers, and ensure that our sector is ready 
to fly. Your review of and attention to implementation of aviation 
support programs in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 
(CARES) Act is important to ensure that this money is used as Congress 
intended.
    The aviation industry is in free-fall. The most recent reports 
suggest that air travel is down by 95 percent year over year. It is a 
disruption without precedent or comparison in the history of the 
industry. It is why in early March, when the pandemic had just started 
to take hold in the United States, AFA worked closely with members of 
this committee to put together a proposal for an historic workers' 
first relief package to save our jobs. This workers' first package 
ensures aviation workers continue collecting a paycheck, stay connected 
to our health care, and remain ready to take off again as soon as the 
threat of the pandemic is contained.
    The final bill includes $25 billion in payroll grants to be used 
exclusively for the wages, salaries, and benefits of 750,000 airline 
workers, and the requirement that any airline receiving the payroll 
grants must refrain from involuntary furloughs or reduction of pay 
rates or benefits through September 30, 2020. Congress also required 
any carrier that receives payroll grants refrain from share repurchases 
and dividend payments through September of 2021 and placed limits on 
executive compensation. Finally, to ensure that the aviation industry 
continues to provide essential service to all communities, carriers who 
receive payroll grants must maintain scheduled levels of air 
transportation deemed necessary by the Secretary of Transportation. AFA 
and other aviation unions strongly supported these critical provisions 
to ensure accountability and protect American taxpayers.
    Two issues undercut the value of the payroll support program for 
workers. First, the act defined the carrier eligibility for payroll 
grant apportionment by pay and benefit data from April 2019 through 
September 2019. This data equals a total of $31 Billion to cover these 
costs. Treasury determined the fair approach was to prorate each 
airline's payroll grant allocation to 76 percent of the requested 
amount. Treasury also exercised the option to under the Act to attach 
financial instruments to the grants and require 30 percent of the 
payroll grant over $100 million be treated instead as a loan. Together 
these actions by Treasury resulted in a $12 billion shortfall of for 
worker pay and benefits. Approximately 40,000 Flight Attendants across 
the industry, nearly 35 percent of the entire U.S. Flight Attendant 
workforce, have taken voluntary leaves to help ensure that payroll 
grants are able to support those who remain on active status. We 
encourage Congress to address this shortfall in order to ensure workers 
do not shoulder the debt created by Treasury with lost jobs in October 
2020.
Involuntary Reduction in Hours Side-Steps Congressional Intent for 
        CARES
    We appreciate the overwhelmingly positive partnership with carriers 
of all sizes that have worked to closely follow the statutory 
obligations of the Act and meet their ongoing obligations to workers. 
Despite the clear statutory language in the CARES Act requiring 
carriers who receive payroll grants to maintain pay levels and 
benefits, a small number of carriers are attempting to flout the Act 
and cheat workers. These outliers have accepted Federal payroll grant 
dollars while slashing hours and pay, in clear violation of 
Congressional intent and the express language of the CARES Act. Delta 
Air Lines was the first out of the gate with cuts to hours and worker 
take home pay. The carrier made the decision to cut ground crew hours 
by as much as 40 percent \1\ without consulting with workers and set in 
motion a vicious and escalating pattern of cuts considered by other 
airlines. Delta Air Lines Flight Attendants have asked their management 
to commit to a minimum number of monthly hours equivalent to the amount 
delineated in the Flight Attendant contract of Delta's closest industry 
comparator, but to date Delta management has refused to do so, making 
clear its plans to slash Flight Attendant hours and benefits below 
established industry minimum standards as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.businessinsider.com/airline-workers-hours-pay-cut-
coronavirus-2020-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The goal of these illegal payroll cuts is clearly to hoard grant 
dollars until after September 30, when the prohibition against 
involuntary furloughs and layoffs of workers ends. Slash hours now, 
fire workers in September, and stockpile billions of dollars that was 
intended for workers in order to subsidize ongoing airline operations 
and gain a competitive advantage over any carrier that used the funds 
as intended to maintain jobs, paychecks and benefits. If left unchecked 
by Congress, the Treasury Department, and other oversight bodies, the 
result will be a race to the bottom, penalizing companies that do right 
by their workers in disbursing payroll grants to workers as Congress 
intended.
    Forcing workers to take unpaid time off or involuntary reductions 
in hours is a violation of the Act, which forbids any involuntary 
furloughs or reduction in worker pay and benefits. If carriers want 
workers to consider taking time off, they must create voluntary 
programs that are not in violation of the CARES Act.
Treasury's Response
    Despite Congress's clear intent to use the payroll grant program to 
maintain jobs, pay levels and benefits for airline workers through 
September 30th, Treasury has not responded to requests for guidance to 
carriers to advise that slashing hours is a violation of the grant 
program. Their silence on this issue, which guts the core of the 
program, is deafening. Absent pressure and vigorous oversight from 
Congress, and from members of this committee in particular, Treasury 
will continue to stand by while workers receive 25 percent pay cuts or 
greater, and a few carriers set off this dangerous race to the bottom.
    The members of this committee should press officials at Treasury to 
enforce provisions of the CARES Act as Congress intended. Ten days ago, 
AFA-CWA sent Treasury sample guidance to aid in its enforcement of this 
provision and to help Treasury clarify the terms of program 
participation for all carriers:
    May a carrier or contractor reduce hours prior to September 30, 
2020? The Treasury interprets the requirement not to reduce pay rates 
prior to September 30, 2020 to mean that a full-time employee must be 
paid for the number of hours routinely assigned to full-time employees 
prior to March 1, 2020, excluding hours for overtime. A part-time 
employee must be paid the average number of hours routinely assigned to 
that employee prior to March 1, 2020.
    What benefits are carriers and contractors required to provide? 
Carriers and contractors must maintain all benefits paid prior to March 
1, 2020, including health care, contributions to retirement accounts, 
and any other benefits.
    Treasury's failure to post guidance on this issue, and their 
failure to question carriers' recent public decisions to cut hours and 
force workers to take unpaid time off is jeopardizing the work Congress 
did to save jobs, maintain pay and benefits, and sustain the ability of 
these workers to pay their bills and contribute to the economy. 
Congress should bring any airline CEOs who cut hours before the 
committee to ask why they have slashed hours, despite taking taxpayer 
dollars intended to keep workers fully paid through the end of 
September.
    We also urge Congress to continue to exercise its oversight 
authority to ensure that Treasury makes timely payments to 
participating carriers to get workers paid. In recent weeks, several 
airlines have struggled to connect with Treasury and faced confusion 
and delay as they work to participate in the program. With financial 
pressures mounting, it is vital that Treasury maintain clear lines of 
communication and commit to timely distribution of payroll grants.
Safety
    In addition to the payroll grants, the AFA has also worked to 
ensure that our workforce and our passengers are safe on the job and in 
the air. Although flights are significantly reduced, new procedures are 
necessary to minimize risk of spreading the virus in aviation. We are 
happy to report that many carriers, including Frontier, jetblue, Delta, 
American, United, and Alaska have announced that all passengers and 
crew will be required to wear masks in-flight.
    However, the safety of passengers and crew should not depend solely 
on the judgment of individual airlines. The Administration should put 
in place an emergency rule to mandate masks for crew, employees and 
passengers; require personal protective equipment provisions for crew; 
ensure safe cleaning and disinfecting between all flights; require 
social distancing policies in airports and airplane cabins; and 
communicate guidance from healthcare authorities from ticket purchase 
to check-in, security check points, and throughout airplane boarding. 
Aviation workers, who have already been hit hard by the virus, should 
not have to choose between their health and their paychecks. Members of 
the public must also feel safe for air travel to resume.
    We encourage this committee to work with the Secretaries of the 
Department of Transportation and the Health and Human Services to 
quickly promulgate an emergency pandemic safety standard for air 
travel, similar to the process used to put in place new security 
procedures after September 11, 2001.
After September 30th
    When the AFA worked to include payroll support grants in the CARES 
Act in early March, our goal was to stop the immediate financial harm 
to airline workers as a result of the cliff drop in air travel demand. 
It is now clear that the impact of the pandemic on air travel will 
stretch far longer than September 30th, the expiration date of the 
payroll support program. Between now and then, our union looks forward 
to working with members of this committee and the other industry 
stakeholders to put in place the second phase of a workers' first 
relief package. All options should be on the table for this phase two 
package, including fully restoring phase one of $25 billion in payroll 
grants and extending the program if air travel demand remains weak.
Conclusion
    We thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member and the Members of this 
Subcommittee for your efforts to maintain our jobs and secure our 
industry in the face of this crisis. We are proud to serve as 
aviation's first responders, doing the essential work that keeps our 
country connected during this emergency and ready to lift our economy 
again with the confidence of the traveling public. We appreciate your 
efforts to ensure our jobs remain in place as we work together to keep 
U.S. aviation safe and secure.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                               Sara Nelson,
                                           International President,
                         Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO.
cc: Members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation 
Committee

    The Chairman. I wish the viewing public could see how 
scrupulously we are honoring the distancing requirements. I can 
barely see our witnesses down at the other end, but we have 
monitors.
    Also, we appreciate you being here. I know it has come at 
some inconvenience. So thank you all, and we will begin with 
the Honorable Eric Fanning.
    Mr. Fanning, you are recognized for five minutes to 
summarize your testimony. Your entire statement will be 
included in the record, of course.

 STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC FANNING, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
           OFFICER, AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Fanning. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me today to 
discuss this important topic.
    The COVID-19 pandemic touches every person, family, 
business, industry, and economy. It's a global threat that we 
must all do our part to overcome.
    With that goal in mind, the aerospace and defense industry 
has been focused on three critical lines of effort.
    First, protecting the health and economic wellness of our 
workforce, which is vital to our industry and nation; second, 
supporting our industry partners and shared aerospace defense 
supply chain; and, third, helping our communities and country 
with the COVID-19 response.
    The aerospace industry has been hit hard by this pandemic, 
especially with the decline in air travel worldwide. Air travel 
in 2020 is estimated to drop at least 50 percent from 2019.
    As a result, a substantial number of orders have been 
canceled over the past few weeks on top of cancelations 
experienced over the past year, and due to this decrease in 
demand, our members have already announced layoffs and 
furloughs, including one company that had to lay off 50 percent 
of its engine manufacturing staff. Unfortunately, we may see 
more in the future.
    Unlike others, our companies must also weigh the impact on 
our Nation's security as many cross over the civil and defense 
sectors. Even a company with only 10 percent of its business on 
national security can affect critical defense projects if their 
work is placed on hold or they have to close, and while some 
industries see business return quickly, the nature of our 
industry and customers involves the long term, not weeks but 
years.
    There are many reasons for that. Even once orders for new 
aircraft are made again, it takes longer to build and deliver a 
plane than it does a pizza. Our workers are also some of the 
most skilled in the world. If we don't keep them employed, we 
could see workforce shortages when orders for products and 
maintenance start again.
    The industry's recovery will also be affected by the 
success of other nations battling the epidemic and how quickly 
passengers around the world return to the skies. This is a 
shared responsibility of the companies represented before you 
today.
    On the manufacturers' side, for example, we are confident 
that the air exchange and filtration systems used in our 
airplanes can help mitigate the risk of the spread of the virus 
and we are working to share this safety information with our 
customers and the public.
    Our airline partners already have strong disinfection 
standards in place, and we are coming together to enhance them 
through partnerships at this table and in our international 
organization, the International Coordinating Council of 
Aerospace Industries Associations.
    We are also working with the International Civil Aviation 
Organization to ensure use of the best disinfection methods and 
products consistently in air travel around the world.
    Ultimately how people feel about flying is what will give 
lift to our interconnected industries.
    Thankfully, Congress and the Administration have taken 
action. The Federal effort to designate several manufacturing 
efforts as essential is helping many of our members both 
protect jobs and stabilize the defense industrial base and the 
DoD's assistance with progress payment adjustments also helps 
our companies advance millions of dollars in vital liquidity to 
small businesses in our shared supply chain.
    The CARES Act also provided important tools to navigate 
this crisis, like the Paycheck Protection Plan, which our 
companies describe as a lifeline.
    In a recent survey of our members, over 60 percent of those 
who responded applied for PPP. When you remove companies that 
did not qualify, the number jumps to 80 percent, but we do 
believe there can be improvements. Two of the most critical 
tools businesses need in the crisis are cash-flow and 
flexibility.
    Unfortunately, some of the aid programs have conditions 
that prevent companies from accessing the aid with the speed 
and the flexibility required.
    Moving forward, the safety of our employees remains our top 
priority. That's why we are developing safety recommendations 
for companies returning to facilities. These will be based on 
lessons learned from our essential businesses who are still 
safely operating.
    We also look to Congress to both build on the aid already 
provided and help shape policies to jumpstart the recovery.
    One potential step is analyzing aid criteria and conditions 
and determining the best way to make it easier for companies to 
access help.
    We also respectfully request temporary and targeted 
assistance for the ailing aviation manufacturing sector. There 
is strong support in our industry for a public/private 
partnership to protect jobs and keep at-risk employees on the 
payroll through the pandemic.
    This would help with what's most important to us, keeping 
our workers employed while also helping to unburden state 
unemployment programs.
    Finally, we must continue to prioritize research and 
development because investing in the future is vital to 
maintaining our global leadership.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Fanning follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric Fanning, President and Chief Executive 
               Officer, Aerospace Industries Association
Introduction
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the 
committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee 
today. My name is Eric Fanning, and I serve as the President and CEO of 
the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA). For over 100 years, AIA has 
advocated for America's aerospace and defense (A&D) industry and served 
as a bipartisan convener, where people can come together to get things 
done on important topics, like our response to this unprecedented 
crisis.
    The COVID-19 pandemic touches every person, family, business, 
industry, and economy. One just needs to look up at the skies above 
Washington, DC, for evidence of this fact. Like many people in the 
metro area, I live and work along the flight path for Reagan National 
Airport. My office windows provide a birds-eye view for the hundreds of 
daily take offs and landings at DCA. I never tire of watching the 
aircraft--most of which are made by members of AIA--serve as the 
workhorse for America's airlines. Sadly, this daily activity is no 
longer visible. The flights that link people, products, and businesses 
to our economy and the world have virtually stopped.
    This pandemic is a global threat that we not only must all endure, 
but also in which we must all do our part to overcome. With that goal 
in mind, over the past weeks, the aerospace and defense industry has 
been focused on three critical lines of effort.
    The first is protecting the health and economic wellness of our 
workforce, who are vital to our industry and nation. Our companies are 
supporting employees and their families in several inspiring ways, from 
taking steps to protect jobs to enhancing employee benefits and support 
programs. Our companies are also taking extraordinary steps to ensure 
the health and safety of every employee at open facilities by ramping 
up the frequency of cleaning, sanitizing, and decontamination efforts, 
as well as implementing physical distancing procedures, providing 
personal protective equipment (PPE), and conducting temperature testing 
at facilities.
    Another major focus for AIA is the continued health of our industry 
partners and the shared aerospace and defense supply chain. Our 
companies are advancing millions of dollars to supply chain partners on 
their own. Others are using adjustments to progress payments and aid 
Congress has passed to help provide smaller companies with the 
liquidity they need during this pandemic. This has been an essential 
part of our work, as 71 percent of our members who responded to a 
recent survey said accelerated payments from customers--be it the 
Department of Defense or another aerospace company--is one of the most 
helpful tools in mitigating the negative impacts of this crisis.
    Finally, we are focusing on helping our communities and country. 
Using our unique skills and expertise, companies are producing face 
shields, designing and building portable ventilators, and taking other 
actions to help our Nation overcome its challenges.
    Through this work, we have been reminded of some critical lessons 
about A&D and our government partnerships:

   The importance of clear and consistent contract guidance, 
        which allows us to continue to work closely with our government 
        customers to continue to meet the mission;

   How critical regular legislative order and predictable 
        budgets are--imagine what this pandemic would be like if 
        Congress was also debating a CR or budget deal;

   The vital role that cash flow and liquidity play for 
        businesses--especially vulnerable small businesses--and their 
        ability to add new mitigations and procedures during a crisis;

   And how essential a healthy, interconnected A&D supply chain 
        and industrial base are for America's safety and security.
Impact on the Industry
    While we have learned from and are proud of our work during this 
crisis, we cannot avoid the fact that the aerospace industry, which was 
already facing challenges on the commercial side, has also been hit 
hard by this pandemic.
    Commercial aviation is a uniquely global enterprise, and U.S. 
manufacturing leads the world. In a global pandemic like this one, our 
workers are affected not only by the virus' impact in the U.S., but 
also the decline in air travel worldwide. Those declines have been 
staggering: The International Air Transportation Association estimates 
that global, full-year passenger demand in 2020 will end 48 percent 
below the 2019 level. On April 8th of this year, the Transportation 
Security Administration screened a record low 97,000 air travelers at 
our Nation's airports. That's 95 percent below the number on the same 
day in 2019--an average of only 220 passengers per airport across the 
country.
    We appreciate this committee recognizing that aircraft 
manufacturers and their suppliers are as affected by these massive 
declines as our airport and airline partners. Substantial orders for 
aircraft, engines, and supporting systems have been canceled over the 
past few weeks, and this has come on top of cancellations experienced 
over the past year. This not only hits the direct company involved with 
the sale, but also every other company--small, medium, and large--that 
plays a vital part in the manufacturing and maintenance effort.
    As a result, companies of all sizes are making the difficult choice 
to furlough or lay off employees. One company had to lay off 50 percent 
of its engine manufacturing staff. Another furloughed most of their 
7,000 employees. And because this crisis has continued, a third was 
pushed to let 1,500 employees go. These are just a few examples of the 
thousands of jobs lost or put in jeopardy because of this crisis. 
Unfortunately, we may see more of this trend in the future.
    The continued health and resiliency of our global supply chain, 
which is the lifeblood of our industry, is also a concern. Right now, 
disruptions to our supply chain are a growing challenge. Illness, 
business closures, and reduced operations are leading to transportation 
and logistics issues, parts shortages, and other significant problems.
    And our companies must also weigh the impact their work--or halting 
of that work--will have on our Nation's safety and security. The A&D 
industry is unique in that many of our companies cross over the civil 
and defense sectors at various degrees. Even a company that only does 
10 percent of its business focused on national security can affect 
critical defense projects if their civil work is placed on hold or they 
have to close.
    In addition, there is a large difference between the A&D industry--
especially commercial aviation--and other industries hit by this 
pandemic, as we learned after 9/11. While some may see business return 
quickly, the nature of our industry and customers involves the long-
term--not days, but months or even years.
    There are many reasons for that. Even once orders for new aircrafts 
are made again, it takes longer to build and deliver a plane than a 
pizza. That's just the nature of the world-class systems we build.
    In addition, our workforce is one of the most skilled in the world. 
If we don't keep them employed, we could see shortages of specialized 
workers when orders for products and maintenance start again.
    The industry's recovery will also be affected by the success of 
other nations in battling the epidemic--from how severe they have been 
hit by COVID-19 to how severe their restrictions are as a result.
    How quickly our industry can recover is also dependent on how 
quickly passengers return to the skies. AIA is ready, willing, and able 
to play a role in rebuilding confidence in air travel by demonstrating 
that industry is collectively putting safety first. Already, we are 
working with the International Civil Aviation Organization to establish 
standards that will help improve safety. I know our partners at the 
airlines and airports agree that, until we can show that air travel is 
safe and regain the trust of the flying public, this crisis will 
continue to hit aviation particularly hard.
    Under the best of circumstances, it is likely we will feel the 
impact of this disruption for several years.
Efforts by Government Leaders
    Thankfully, Congress and the Administration have taken swift action 
over the last two months to help provide our citizens and country with 
the help we need.
    The Federal effort to designate several manufacturing efforts as 
essential has been a source of much relief. The DOD and agencies like 
the FAA and NASA have been critical and responsive partners in this 
area. Not only has their work helped many of our members protect their 
employees' jobs, but it has also helped ensured that the skilled 
workers continue to meet the national security needs of our country and 
stabilize the defense industrial base. This is also critical for our 
industry as a whole--including commercial aviation--because of the 
shared supply chain.
    The CARES Act also provided our members with important tools and 
resources to help them navigate the crisis. For small businesses, the 
Paycheck Protection Program has been vital for our members, who have 
described it as a ``lifeline.'' In a recent survey of our members, over 
60 percent of those who responded applied for PPP. When you remove 
companies that did not qualify, the number jumps to over 80 percent. 
The creation and expansion of the program has been an important tool to 
help our companies protect employees and their jobs.
    The proposed Mainstreet Lending Program also has a lot of potential 
for some of our mid-sized companies that didn't meet the criteria for 
small business support.
    But we do believe there can be improvements. Two of the most 
critical tools businesses need in a crisis are cash flow and 
flexibility, and they need both quickly. While the CARES Act includes a 
number of tools to assist with cash flow, some of the programs have 
conditions that prevent companies from accessing this aid with the 
speed and flexibility required.
    The Paycheck Protection Program, for example, does not allow some 
companies to be eligible for assistance due to the Treasury's 
definition of ``affiliated'' companies.
    There are also discussions within the government related to the $17 
billion fund for ``national security businesses'' and whether the 
criteria for that assistance is too narrow. A number of our members 
would agree that Treasury's criteria are preventing them from accessing 
this aid.
    For example, the requirement that recipients have a current ``DX-
rated'' contract and a top-secret facility clearance renders ineligible 
any companies that perform national security work on an unclassified 
basis. In addition, the one-week deadline to apply could have limited 
the pool of applicants.
    We've also heard concerns that the structure of the Main Street 
Lending Program might restrict company access--not because businesses 
do not want the aid, but because banks are potentially hesitant to 
engage with this program.
Recommendations for Recovery
    Moving forward, we look to Congress to not only build on the 
foundation of aid already provided--aid that has been essential to our 
industry and others--but also help shape policies that will jumpstart 
the recovery.
    A&D is already thinking through the new norm and what it means for 
our businesses, employees, and customers. We're working to identify 
impacts on the supply chain and learn what investments will help 
support our industrial base and the overall economy as the country 
rebounds and recovers.
    Overall, when we think of a roadmap for recovery, the safety of our 
employees remains our top priority. AIA is leading an effort to develop 
recommendations for our companies based on lessons learned from safe 
operations as essential businesses. These will account for PPE, 
testing, monitoring, enhanced sanitization, and other safety measures. 
As one of our members said, these companies are not returning to work--
they have been working. But their best practices will help others 
return to work as well.
    Congressional action is another key element in our Nation's 
recovery. One potential step is analyzing aid criteria and conditions 
and determining the best way to make it easier for companies to access 
help.
    Temporary and targeted assistance for the ailing aviation 
manufacturing sector is also something we respectfully request Congress 
to consider. There is strong support in our industry for a private-
public partnership to protect jobs and keep at-risk employees on the 
payroll through the pandemic. This proposal will require eligible 
companies to provide significant investment to sustain payroll--with 
government supplementing a portion of the cost as well. This would help 
with what's most important to us, keeping our workers employed, while 
also helping to unburden state unemployment programs. This crisis is 
unprecedented, so we need to think outside the box.
    Finally, we must continue to prioritize research and development. 
America leads the world in this industry, and we must continue to 
invest in the future to maintain that global leadership. One example of 
action we can take today to bolster the industry's long-term global 
competitiveness is expanding FAA's Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions 
and Noise (CLEEN) program.
    As always, we look forward to working with Congress on the details 
of any plan, but the broad effort should focus on filling the gaps of 
the CARES ACT and other aid programs, while also maximizing the ability 
for companies to access any further aid.
Conclusion
    We recognize that there are no simple solutions and additional 
relief is no small ask. But our country--and our industry--is known for 
overcoming large challenges.
    On a level playing field, the A&D industry is one of the biggest 
drivers of American innovation and economic growth, so we know we are 
in a unique position to help lead our country's recovery.
    Our industry has always defined the art-of-the-possible. And with 
the support of government partners, we know we can continue to live up 
to that standard and help our country through this crisis.
    Thank you.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Calio, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS CALIO, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
                 OFFICER, AIRLINES FOR AMERICA

    Mr. Calio. Thank you, Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member 
Cantwell, for holding this hearing.
    The Chairman. Mr. Calio, I see you sent your grandfather 
to----
    Mr. Calio. Yes, sir, I did. Either that or Papa Smurf's 
multiple personalities.
    The Chairman. Reset, Mr. Calio's timer.
    Mr. Calio. Thank you, sir.
    Sincerely, on behalf of the 750,000 U.S. airline employees 
and our Nation's airlines, we want to thank this committee and 
the Administration for passing the CARES Act.
    In particular, Chairman Wicker, thank you and your staff 
for your unwavering leadership during the legislative debate.
    Ranking Member Cantwell, to you and your staff, as well, 
thank you.
    U.S. airlines were among the first industries to feel the 
economic impacts of the pandemic and without the passage of the 
CARES Act, the near-term impacts of COVID-19 would have been 
even more devastating than they have been.
    We are thankful to many, but this Committee in particular, 
sent the industry a lifeline during its most humbling moment 
and it's something that we really did need.
    In preparing these remarks, I thought back just a few short 
weeks ago, and it was just a few short weeks ago. It's a very 
different world now. At that time, U.S. airlines were 
experiencing what was called by some ``The Golden Age of 
Aviation.''
    Americans were flying and shipping in record numbers. That 
was driven by two main factors: affordability and 
accessibility. Fares were at an all-time low and air travel was 
more accessible than ever.
    Just weeks ago, U.S. airlines were flying an average of two 
and a half million passengers each day, shipping 58,000 tons of 
cargo every day all over the world. Amid record travel and 
shipping, U.S. airlines reinvested in their workforce. 
Collectively, they spent $424 billion on their employees in the 
last decade. They boosted wages and benefits per worker by 56 
percent and hired 186,000 new employees.
    All indications suggested that 2020 was going to be a 
record year, as well. Then the bottom fell out. In the most 
recent week alone, passenger volumes declined to levels that we 
have not seen since the 1950s, before the dawn of the Jet Age.
    It's remarkable. It's almost surreal, and it is painful for 
everyone involved, the airports, our employees, the 
manufacturers, and everyone who travels and ships.
    For quick context, passenger volumes have fallen over 95 
percent. More than 3,000 airplanes have been put in storage. 
That's 50 percent of the United States active fleet. Despite 
the sharp reductions in the number of flights, I think as 
Chairman Wicker pointed out, we're averaging 17 passengers per 
domestic flight and 29 per international flight. If you've been 
on a plane, it's eerie. U.S. carriers at this point are losing 
$350 to $400 million every single day of the week.
    The crisis hit what was a robust airline industry at 
lightning speed. Unfortunately, the recovery will not be as 
quick. It's going to be a very long and difficult road ahead 
and everyone involved has to join hands and work on it 
together.
    Passenger volumes took 3 years to recover after 9/11 and 7 
years after the financial crisis. The duration and breadth of 
the impacts directly on our industry compounded by the larger 
impacts on the economy leave no doubt that the U.S. airline 
industry will emerge a shadow of what it was on March 1 of this 
year.
    That said, we have a history of being resilient and 
reacting to this new normal as quickly as possible to address 
the near-, mid-, and long-term challenges of the pandemic.
    While addressing consumers' confidence is going to take 
many actions, both by the public and private sector, we're 
aggressively dealing with the variables that we can control.
    Last week, A4A's member airlines agreed that customers must 
wear face masks along with our employees on every flight. We 
hope that is going to extend throughout the entire flight 
journey from arriving at the airport to leaving.
    We've also implemented a range of other policies. Wherever 
possible, modifying boarding procedures to put passengers 
further apart from each other. As Mr. Fanning pointed out, 
we've increased our cleaning. We're all at or exceeding CDC 
recommendations. There are a number of highly enhanced cleaning 
procedures being used, including fogging and electrostatic 
cleaning.
    We are using temperature checks for some of our employees 
and discussing with some of the government agencies involved 
about whether that should be expanded.
    Anyway, we're taking substantial steps. There are many more 
to speak about to try to protect our employees and our 
passengers who every day are our highest priority. Their safety 
is our highest priority.
    We're also going to continue to work with government and 
health officials across the country to ensure that travel 
continues, and that essential shipments, personnel, and relief 
supplies are delivered to the communities that need them.
    We want to thank the Committee again and the Congress and 
the Administration because the CARES Act has provided a bridge. 
It's given us some breathing room to move on to the next step 
to try to survive where we are.
    The bottom line on all this is this is a matter of sheer 
gut survival. These companies have been crippled in a matter of 
about 7 weeks. We're looking forward to trying to come back, 
find our footing, find our way to the next step, and lead the 
economy to recovery.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Calio follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Nicholas Calio, President and Chief Executive 
                     Officer, Airlines for America
    Airlines for America (A4A) appreciates the opportunity to testify 
today to share with you the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the 
commercial aviation industry. On behalf of our more than 750,000 
employees and our Nation's airlines, I would like to acknowledge and 
sincerely thank Congress and the Administration for reaching agreement 
on the bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 
(CARES) Act, which included provisions intended to assist the U.S. 
airline industry to continue making payroll and protect the jobs of 
pilots, flight attendants, gate agents, mechanics and others. Our 
employees are the backbone of the industry and our greatest resource. 
U.S. airlines were among the first industries to feel the economic 
impacts of the pandemic and without passage of the CARES Act, the near-
term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic would have been even more 
devastating to our industry and our workforce.
    Particularly, Chairman Wicker, I thank you and your staff for your 
unwavering leadership on behalf of our industry during the CARES Act 
debate. While we are thankful to so many in Congress and the 
Administration for their role in that process, this Committee played a 
central, material and critical role in providing our industry a 
lifeline at the most humbling moment in our history. The ripple effects 
of your work provided much-needed solace to many of the 11 million U.S. 
workers our industry either directly represents or supports economy-
wide. We are beyond thankful.
Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
    Before the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. airlines were experiencing what 
some have called the ``Golden Age.'' Just a few months ago, I gave a 
speech in which I quoted a J.D. Power survey question, ``Is this the 
golden age of air travel?'' The question was the first line in a press 
release announcing the findings of the 2019 North America Airline 
Satisfaction Study which found that a combination of newer planes, 
better ticket value and improved customer touchpoints had driven 
overall satisfaction with airlines to its highest point in history.
    In many ways, 2019 seems like a distant memory now. U.S. airlines 
were seeing an average 2.5 million passengers each day. Air travel 
between the U.S. and foreign countries reached an all-time high with 
nearly 80 million foreign visitors coming to the U.S. last year. The 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) reported its busiest day 
ever on May 24, 2019--the Friday before Memorial Day--screening 
2,792,525 passengers and crew members. That day, the TSA issued a press 
release touting the numbers and also announcing that the agency 
anticipated more than 4 percent traveler growth over the summer months, 
with the expectation that it would see more record travel in the coming 
weeks. In fact, on July 7--the Sunday after the Fourth of July 
holiday--the TSA screened 2,795,369 people. And on Sunday, December 1--
the Sunday after Thanksgiving--the TSA once again set a new record, 
screening 2,870,764 travelers in a single day.
    This record travel was in large part because of two main factors: 
affordability and accessibility. Airfares were at historic lows. 
Accounting for inflation, average fares were down about 22 percent 
since 2000 and 44 percent since deregulation in 1978. It was truly 
remarkable how accessible air travel had become. At the time, 23 
percent of Americans who flew had family incomes below $50,000. 42 
percent of people who flew had family incomes below $75,000. Plus, 
airlines were offering more flights, more routes and going to more 
destinations than any time in the history of commercial aviation.
    Think about your own travel. We took it for granted that we could 
make it anywhere in the country or around the world to attend an 
important business meeting, participate in a family reunion, attend a 
grandchild's graduation or dance at their wedding.
    All indications were for air travel to rise again and set more 
records in 2020. In January and February, U.S. airlines saw year-over-
year increases of 5.5 percent and 6.7 percent, respectively. Then the 
bottom fell out. In the late April, passenger volumes were down an 
unfathomable 96 percent to a level not seen since the 1950s, before the 
dawn of the jet age. Many of you and your Senate colleagues saw the 
effects of this firsthand as you traveled to Washington this week. Your 
hometown airport may have been eerily empty--with restaurants closed 
and shops shuttered. And you probably noticed that there were 
significantly fewer flights taking off.
    The impact of government-and business-imposed travel restrictions 
compounded by public concern has decimated demand for air travel, which 
has all but evaporated. Since the beginning of March, U.S. air 
carriers--both passenger and cargo--have seen their previous positions 
of strong financial health deteriorate at an unprecedented and 
unsustainable pace. The human, financial and operational impacts are 
difficult to comprehend, and the future remains uncertain. Attached is 
a PowerPoint slide deck of industry data that can better paint the 
dismal picture; below is a non-exhaustive list of some of the facts 
that encapsulate the unprecedented changes we have seen over the course 
of a few short months:

   After growing steadily in January and February, 2020, A4A 
        member airline passenger volumes have fallen over 95 percent;

   Despite sharp reductions in the number of flights operated, 
        A4A passenger carriers are averaging just 17 passengers per 
        domestic flight and 29 passengers per international flight;

   Net booked passengers have fallen by nearly 100 percent YOY 
        and net booked revenues have fallen over 100 percent;

   U.S. passenger airlines have grounded over 3,000 aircraft, 
        nearly 50 percent of the active fleet. Planes are sitting 
        parked nose to tail and wing to wing on airstrips in the desert 
        and any place else that can accommodate them. While the numbers 
        are staggering, pictures show the magnitude of this harsh 
        reality. I encourage you to see the pictures included in the 
        accompanying PowerPoint slide deck.

   At present, U.S. airlines are collectively burning more than 
        $10 billion of cash per month; and

   Standard & Poor's has lowered the ratings of every U.S. 
        passenger carrier and placed some cargo carriers on negative 
        watch.
Challenges Resulting From the COVID-19 Pandemic
    The COVID-19 crisis hit a previously robust airline industry at 
lightning speed. Unfortunately, recovery from the crisis will not be 
nearly as swift. We anticipate a long and difficult road ahead. For 
context, passenger volumes took 3 years to recover from 9/11 and over 7 
years to recover from the global financial crisis in 2008. Once demand 
does recover, it will take years to retire the newly accumulated debt 
and to address the sizable interest accrued, thereby limiting carriers' 
ability to reinvest in their people and products. History has shown 
that air transport demand has never experienced a V-shaped recovery 
from a downturn.
    Our industry is adapting on an almost daily basis to the unique 
near, mid-, and long-term challenges of the pandemic. However, to set a 
realistic and practical expectation, while the industry will do 
everything it can to mitigate and address the multitude of challenges, 
no factual doubt exists that the U.S. airline industry will emerge from 
this crisis a mere shadow of what it was just three short months ago. 
There is simply no way around the detrimental and lasting economic 
impact this pandemic will have on our industry.
    Beyond the health concerns raised by the spread of the virus, 
businesses and consumers are also facing a sharp global economic 
downturn of unknown duration. Unlike after 9/11, when air-travel demand 
reductions were largely confined to domestic and transatlantic markets, 
the effects of COVID-19 are clearly global. With unemployment soaring 
to historic levels, family incomes plummeting and household net worth 
evaporating, we expect to see businesses, governments and households 
alike curtail travel. The airline industry is bracing for what will be 
an extremely difficult operating environment for the coming years.
    Our industry has a history of being resilient, and airlines are 
reacting nimbly to this new normal. While addressing consumer 
confidence will take many actions by both the public and private 
sector, airlines are aggressively dealing with the variables they can 
control. A good example of these efforts is aircraft cleaning 
procedures.
    U.S. airlines have been taking substantial steps to protect 
passengers and employees since the onset of this crisis. A4A's member 
carriers all comply with or exceed the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) recommended cleaning protocols, in some cases to 
include electrostatic cleaning and fogging procedures. Carriers are 
working around the clock to sanitize cockpits, cabins and key 
touchpoints--including tray tables, arm rests, seatbelts, buttons, 
vents, handles and lavatories--throughout the day with disinfectants 
approved by both the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) and 
the CDC. And airlines have increased the frequency of deep cleaning 
procedures for both domestic and international flights. Additionally, 
carriers have implemented a range of policies--including back-to-front 
boarding and adjusting food and beverage services--to help ensure the 
wellbeing of passengers and crew. The industry will continue to adapt.
    A prime example of this occurred last week when A4A passenger 
carriers voluntarily came together to require customer-facing employees 
and passengers to wear a cloth face covering over their nose and mouth 
throughout check-in, boarding, in-flight and deplaning. These are not 
easy decisions, but our industry will continue to work closely with 
public and private sector partners to address tough policy issues, 
including government-administered temperature checks and contact 
tracing because it is the right thing to do.
    On contact tracing, I would like to thank the Committee for its 
work and attention in this area, specifically the leadership shown by 
Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Sinema. They 
have been vigilant and innovative in their efforts to create a 
thoughtful, practical and workable approach to contact tracing specific 
to aviation and more broadly. We appreciate their continued work.
    Those efforts specifically listed, and many other measures such as 
vaccine development, will play a critical role in establishing a 
comprehensive set of broad components needed to bring global travelers 
out of their homes safely, securely and confidently. We are committed 
to playing a positive role in that process.
Implementation of the CARES Act
    As noted, the industry is extremely thankful to Congress for the 
relief opportunities provided in the CARES Act. We are equally thankful 
for the implementation work done by the Administration, particularly 
the efforts undertaken by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and Department of 
Transportation (DOT) Secretary Chao. Both continue to play a pivotal 
role in the evolving implementation process. For their part, air 
carriers continue to work through their respective agreements with 
Treasury and with the DOT on service issues. We expect the situation to 
remain fluid and it is important on-going communication channels remain 
open as the economic environment evolves. I would note for the 
Committee, while carriers are certainly complying with the CARES Act 
requirement and DOT Show Cause Order requiring minimum service levels 
to U.S. communities, the cost associated with operating nearly empty 
flights to communities with little to no demand significantly 
exacerbates air carrier liquidity. We would ask both this Committee and 
the Administration to seek solutions to address the challenges posed by 
this unsustainable requirement. Make no mistake, as the duration of 
this pandemic lingers, the reasonability and practicality of this 
requirement significantly diminishes. Carriers and communities alike 
are going to have to come together and acknowledge the footprint and 
frequency of service in 2019 cannot convey to the 2020 COVID-19 
pandemic reality.
    While the U.S. Government has played a vital role in the near-term 
stability of the industry, airlines have and will continue to do their 
part. Over the past decade airlines had reinvested $143 billion into 
the fleet, facilities, technology and other equipment and spent $424 
billion on the workforce--hiring at a brisk pace and boosting average 
wages and benefits per worker by 56 percent. In both hiring and wages, 
U.S. airlines sharply outpaced the rest of the U.S. private sector. As 
of February 2020, U.S. passenger and cargo airline industry headcount 
had risen to 754,359, the highest since June, 2001. By managing their 
businesses well--including the retirement of $91 billion in long-term 
debt--and taking care of their employees, airlines acted as an outsized 
multiplier for overall U.S. economic activity, helping drive 5 percent 
of U.S. GDP.
    As a result of COVID-19 and accompanying government actions to 
contain it, those strong balance sheets have been challenged and much 
of the years of gains attributable to their business improvements have 
been erased within a few short months. In turn, carriers have engaged 
in significant self-help measures to bolster their liquidity which will 
be critical to surviving this unprecedented economic event. These self-
help measures include, but are not limited to:

   Accessing outside sources of cash such as, but not limited 
        to, unsecured or secured loans amounting to nearly $40 billion 
        since late February;

   Rescinding all planned issuance of dividends or stock 
        repurchases;

   Deferring aircraft deliveries to the extent negotiable with 
        manufacturers;

   Prematurely retiring more than 1,000 planes from the current 
        fleet;

   Halting almost all discretionary (not operationally 
        critical) capital projects;

   Trimming unprofitable flying;

   Redeploying passenger aircraft to provide essential cargo-
        only service to transport medical supplies;

   Negotiating with vendors and airport partners to secure 
        relief on payment terms and timing; and

   Securing voluntary unpaid leaves of absence or salary 
        reductions.

    To the last point, we are grateful for the strong collaboration 
between labor and management to address the realities of this crisis. 
In fact, to date, more than 100,000 employees have opted for some form 
of reduced hours, reduced pay, or early retirement which has brought 
much needed flexibility to an almost unmanageable situation. We 
appreciate all employees who have dedicated their lives to the U.S. 
airline industry and are helping the industry to survive this public 
health crisis.
    It is also important to note, the funds provided in the CARES Act 
are truly an investment in our economy. According to a Compass Lexecon 
study conducted at A4A's request, the CARES Act payroll support program 
funds are estimated to have saved 736,000 U.S. jobs (386,000 airline 
jobs and 350,000 non-airline jobs) through September 30, 2020. 
Specifically, the air carrier investments are expected to:

   Enable airlines to preserve jobs and support $162 million 
        per day in salaries and benefits through September 30, 2020;

   Maintain between $3.4 and $5.8 billion in federal/state/
        local income tax revenues and Social Security and Medicare tax 
        contributions;

   Avoid between $5.8 and $9.9 billion in both state and 
        Federal unemployment insurance claims; and

   Support between $4.7 and $8.0 billion of economic spending 
        in the U.S. economy--as every dollar spent of airline wages 
        generates additional spending as the recipients spend that 
        income in their local economy.

    The CARES Act investments will be an important component of air 
carrier sustainability throughout a challenging summer, going into a 
very uncertain fall season.

    Finally, I would like to directly address the issue on which our 
industry has been most fervently criticized, and that is the issue of 
cash refunds. First, I want the Committee and the American public to 
know, we are all human and we understand and appreciate the myriad of 
challenges this pandemic has brought to individuals and families. We 
are committed to working with each and every customer to address their 
circumstances and situation. We strictly follow and comply with all 
Federal laws and regulations on this matter and when a refund is due 
under those regulations, carriers promptly provide them. It is also 
true, while policies vary from carrier to carrier based on their 
respective business models, many carriers are encouraging customers to 
accept vouchers for future travel. This practice is not done with ill 
intent, but instead underscores the economic reality that if air 
carriers refund all tickets, including those purchased under the 
condition of being non-refundable or those cancelled by a passenger 
instead of the carrier, this will result in negative cash balances that 
will lead to bankruptcy. Vouchers, future credit opportunities and 
other incentives are being offered as a means to stem untenable cash 
drain in order to protect our employee's livelihood. Airlines 
understand the frustration and always strive to make the travel 
experience positive. That's why we are working collaboratively with 
policy makers and the flying public to find the right balance as we 
also work to protect and sustain the jobs of our workers while 
navigating this crisis.
Moving Forward
    U.S. carriers continue to work with government and health officials 
across the country to ensure that essential travel continues, and that 
essential shipments and relief supplies are delivered to the 
communities that need them as safely and efficiently as possible. This 
includes moving critical cargo--including medical supplies, 
pharmaceuticals, perishable food and mail--as well as the 
transportation of medical, government and military personnel. 
Throughout the pandemic, U.S. carriers have continued to transport 
medical patients who need regular care, such as cancer treatment not 
available in their hometown or metropolitan area and assist in the 
repatriation of thousands of Americans on regularly scheduled 
commercial flights. Additionally, there are operational and logistical 
justifications for some flights to ensure planes and crew are at the 
right place to execute these essential flights.
    The safety and wellbeing of our customers and our employees is the 
top priority of U.S. airlines. This continues to be a rapidly evolving 
situation and U.S. carriers will remain in close contact with Congress, 
the Administration, Federal agencies and public health experts. And, as 
travel restrictions and stay-at-home orders are lifted, we look forward 
to once again connecting friends, families and colleagues across the 
country and around the globe. The U.S. commercial aviation industry 
wants to lead the way to economic recovery.
                                 ______
                                 
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Calio.
    Mr. Hauptli, welcome.

                   STATEMENT OF TODD HAUPTLI,

             PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

           AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES

    Mr. Hauptli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As a passenger, when you approach a boarding gate at an 
airport, you are literally in walking distance to almost 
anywhere on the planet, but you don't walk alone. It takes 
aircraft manufacturers and safety inspectors, mechanics, 
airport employees, and TSA screeners. It takes pilots and 
flight attendants, air traffic controllers and gate agents. It 
takes ramp workers and fuelers and baggage and cargo handlers 
and the magic of flight. It takes all of them and more.
    The aviation industry is an intricate interconnected just-
in-time enterprise. It requires each of us to do our job as 
safely and as efficiently as possible time after time after 
time.
    And while aviation allows for the movement of people and 
goods across the country and around the globe, it is also the 
oxygen that fuels our economy, and we need a healthy industry 
in order to return to a healthy economy.
    Mr. Chairman, I have three additional points I'd like to 
make.
    One, thank you and thank you to the Committee for the 
leadership in the passage of the CARES Act. The funds headed to 
airports are a lifeline that will protect jobs, enhance 
cleaning and sanitization efforts, ensure that debt payments 
will be made, and help keep construction projects moving 
forward, at least in the near term.
    Point Number 2, the challenges facing airports and our 
industry partners are unprecedented and will require further 
Federal support to meet ongoing needs and to prepare for what 
will become the ``new normal.''
    Billions of dollars in revenue that airports expected to be 
generated by passengers and PFC collections have evaporated. 
Given the significant decline in aviation activity and revenue 
and the precipitous drop in passenger facility charge 
collections that help support bond payments, airport will need 
additional Federal assistance at least as large as the initial 
amount provided in the CARES Act. And Congress must provide 
billions of dollars in financial support for other parts of the 
aviation ecosystem--general aviation airports, business 
aviation, concessionaires, and other airport partners that have 
been significantly dislocated and impacted by the crisis.
    I recognize it's not popular to come up here and ask for 
more help, but the scale and the scope of this crisis requires 
it, and we're going to have to get past the ``sticker shock'' 
and get to ``yes.''
    Third point, in addition to the Federal resources, the 
aviation industry needs clear and consistent Federal guidelines 
and standards to protect passengers and workers now and as 
travel returns to the system.
    Airports are already working diligently to clean and 
sanitize their facilities. They're taking steps to promote 
physical distancing, upgrading air filtration systems, and 
promoting a touchless travel experience.
    Face coverings are becoming more prevalent as airports, 
airlines, and our Federal partners all requiring their use 
throughout the travel journey. The matter of health screenings 
is another area that requires a consistent approach. We need 
clear and consistent processes and procedures throughout the 
system so that passengers know what to expect regardless of the 
airline or airport they happen to choose for their travel.
    We have great Federal partners with TSA Administrator 
Pekoske and FAA Administrator Dixon and I want to publicly 
thank them and their teams for the proactive approach they've 
taken to help create a safe and healthy environment for their 
employees and all who travel throughout the aviation system.
    The road ahead won't be easy, Mr. Chairman. I'm reminded of 
the Churchill line. ``When you're going through hell, keep 
going.'' Resiliency is the hallmark of the aviation industry. 
We survived 9/11, we survived the Great Recession and countless 
other hurdles, and we will survive the challenges before us 
now.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hauptli follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Todd Hauptli, President and Chief Executive 
          Officer, American Association of Airport Executives
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, thank you for 
inviting me to participate in today's hearing on the State of the 
Aviation Industry: Examining the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic. It is 
always an honor to appear before the Commerce Committee.
    On behalf of the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), 
the world's largest professional organization representing the men and 
women who manage and operate commercial service, reliever, and general 
aviation (GA) airports, I want to thank you for your continued 
leadership in responding to the unprecedented challenges caused by the 
coronavirus and on other issues of importance to airports and the 
aviation industry.
    These are challenging times, and we appreciate all that Congress 
and the Administration are doing to help our country manage this 
crisis. You acted quickly to address urgent needs with passage of the 
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which 
included much-need assistance to help airports, passenger and cargo 
carriers, and airline contractors impacted by the coronavirus. This 
critical funding will assist airports in your respective states and 
allow them to stay open, undertake enhanced cleaning and sanitization 
protocols, keep workers employed, address existing debt obligations, 
and help keep necessary capital projects on track.
    While there is much we don't know at this point about COVID-19 and 
the path forward for the aviation industry, it is clear that recovery 
will be slow and painful. Just as Congress rose to the occasion to 
provide immediate relief, we are now seeking your assistance as we work 
to mitigate the impacts of the coronavirus on the aviation industry and 
turn our attention to recovery and ensuring the health and safety of 
passengers and our employees.
    Resiliency is a hallmark of the aviation industry, and I am 
confident that we will find a way to survive this crisis and thrive in 
due time. One needs to look no further than the commitment of front-
line employees that has been on display over the past few months to 
gain a sense of optimism about the future. Pilots, flight attendants, 
and other airline workers; transportation security officers; air 
traffic controllers; airport concessionaires; air cargo operators; 
airport executives and other dedicated professionals across the 
aviation ecosystem have risen to the occasion. We are grateful for 
their service.
Coronavirus: How the Pandemic is Impacting Airports
    Before the spread of the coronavirus, airports and airlines were on 
sound footing. Passenger levels were on the rise, and airport terminals 
were bursting at the seams with activity. The Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) was predicting that enplanements would increase to 
964 million in 2020--up more than 120 million from 2017. With rising 
demand and aging facilities, airports were focused on finding ways to 
pay for growing infrastructure needs with limited Federal and local 
resources.
    That all changed when the coronavirus turned the aviation industry 
upside down. The number of people flying has dropped precipitously, and 
U.S. carriers have idled roughly half of their fleet. According to the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the agency screened fewer 
than 100,000 passengers on several days last month.
    On April 14, fewer than 88,000 passengers traveled through security 
checkpoints--a low during the pandemic. In the past week, we have seen 
an uptick in the number of passengers screened by TSA. The agency 
screened slightly more than 134,000 passengers on Saturday, May 2 and 
170,000 on Sunday. But the May 3 numbers represent a reduction of 93 
percent from the 2.5 million passengers who traveled on that same date 
last year.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Of the flights that do remain, load factors are at historic lows. 
According to Airlines for America (A4A) carriers are averaging 16.9 
passengers per domestic flight and 28.6 passengers per international 
flight.
    With the unprecedented reductions in travel, airport revenues have 
experienced a similar nosedive. The drop in passenger levels continues 
to have a huge financial impact on large and small airports alike. 
Fewer passengers mean significantly lower revenues from all the 
activities that keep an airport operational, including parking, car 
rental operations, airport concessions, and other revenue streams.
    In Atlanta, for example, the airport has closed two concourses, 
most of a third concourse, and half of a fourth. Three hundred of the 
airport's 340 concessions are closed. On a recent day, 10,000 
passengers passed through the airport, down from the 310,000 who would 
have done so in normal times. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
processing of international passengers has dwindled to a few hundred 
from 20,000. Of the airport's 32,000 available parking spaces, some 
3,000 are now filled, mostly by contractors on a temporary basis. These 
numbers translate into hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue 
to the airport.
    The numbers are similarly stark in Boston, where a recent half-full 
flight was cause for celebration. The airport's 18,000 parking spaces 
sit mostly empty save for a couple hundred cars.
    Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) collections have also declined 
significantly for airports. Commercial service airports rely on PFC 
revenue to build critical safety and security projects, meet debt 
service obligations, and pay the local match on Airport Improvement 
Program (AIP) projects. Billions of dollars in PFC collections airports 
anticipated collecting in 2020 have evaporated leaving the future of 
some projects in doubt.
    For airports like Gulfport-Biloxi International in Mississippi, 
PFCs are the primary source of revenue for existing bonds with 
operating revenue serving as a backstop. The loss of both PFC revenue 
and airport revenues has left Gulfport-Biloxi and many other airports 
with few options to meet ongoing needs, including debt service.
    Collective losses in revenue across the Nation's airports already 
total billions of dollars, and the prospect for quick recovery is dim. 
For instance, the Seattle-Tacoma (SEA-TAC) International Airport 
indicates that it is ``serving only about 2,500 departing passengers 
per day compared to over 50,000 normally this time of year. Overall 
daily flights are down by two-thirds. Airlines suspended international 
flights and reduced service, totaling almost 700 cancelled 
international flights in April.'' Consider SEA-TAC's current 
projections:
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    For SEA-TAC, this translates into a projected loss of $251 million 
in revenue in 2020. The airport also has $321.7 million in debt 
payments this year. Other large hub airports are reporting similar 
losses with upcoming debt payments.
    Medium, small, and nonhub airports are also being hit hard by the 
crisis. The Lincoln Airport in Nebraska has experienced a severe 
reduction in passengers and revenue. Passenger levels at the nonhub 
airport dropped 53 percent in March compared to the same month in 2019. 
April was even worse with passenger levels declining by 95 percent. 
Airport officials expect that revenue will be down $250,000 a month 
during the pandemic, in part, because of lost parking revenue.
    Nonprimary commercial service, reliever and GA airports have also 
been struggling financially during the coronavirus crisis. One director 
at a large GA airport in the northeast pointed out that revenue from 
landing fees, operations and fuel sales all declined between 80 percent 
and 89 percent in April. Last month, the airport went 11 days without 
selling any jet fuel--a record low. GA airports around the country have 
experienced similar losses.
    Traffic is down 71 percent at Centennial Airport near Denver. On 
April 12, the busy GA airport recorded only 22 flights. That is far 
less than the 1,400-2,000 operations that the airport would have had on 
a typical weekend. Meanwhile, jet and turbo-prop volume, based on fuel 
sales, is down by as much as 90 percent. The airport is also paying for 
two CBP officers, even though airport officials point out that 
international travel ``has practically come to a standstill.''
    With so little revenue coming in during the coronavirus crisis, 
airports face tough questions about how to cover personnel costs, 
ongoing operating expenses, and a collective $7 billion in debt 
payments due in 2020. Meanwhile, concessionaires, rental car companies, 
fixed-base operators and other important airport partners and critical 
components of the airport and aviation ecosystem face similar revenue 
declines.
CARES Act: A Critical Lifeline for Airports in the Near-Term
    The challenges facing airports of all sizes are daunting. The $10 
billion in assistance provided to airports as part of the CARES Act is 
serving as a critical lifeline that will help facilities in your states 
and across the country weather the immediate storm. We appreciate the 
leadership of this committee in securing both airport and airline 
assistance as part of the CARES Act. For airports, the funding and 
flexibility provided will help cover immediate operating costs, 
including payroll and enhanced cleaning and sanitization throughout the 
airport environment; help service debt, and assist with keeping 
construction projects moving forward.
    As you know, $7.4 billion of the $10 billion in CARES Act funding 
is dedicated to commercial service airports based on enplanements, debt 
service, and cash reserves. Another $2 billion is designated for 
primary commercial service airports based on a modified AIP 
apportionment formula. In addition to the overall funding, airports 
greatly appreciate that the bill provides them with flexibility to use 
those funds for any lawful purpose including operations and debt 
service.
    For instance, the CARES Act funding will allow the Gulfport-Biloxi 
airport referenced earlier to meet its existing debt obligations. The 
Rapid City Regional Airport in South Dakota is slated to receive 
approximately $9.3 million from the CARES Act. Airport officials 
indicate they plan to use half of that revenue for operating expenses 
and the other half for debt service payments. The airport also plans to 
invest more than $250,000 on coronavirus mitigation efforts.
    The Golden Triangle Regional Airport in Columbus, Mississippi is 
slated to receive $1.2 million in CARES Act funding. The nonhub 
airport's largest sources of revenue come from parking and rental car 
operations. With so few passengers flying, the airport's revenue 
dropped 77 percent last month. The CARES Act grant will allow the 
airport to supplement its operating budget, avoid laying off valuable 
employees and move forward with necessary equipment purchases.
    The bill also included another $500 million to eliminate the local 
match requirement for AIP grants that airports receive in Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2020. Removing the local match requirement will free local revenue 
for airports to use on operating expenses and personnel-related costs. 
It is also allowing some airports to move forward with critical 
projects that would not be possible without a 100 percent Federal 
share.
    Finally, the bill included $100 million to help GA airports. Those 
airports--like commercial service airports--have seen steep declines in 
revenue. The funding in the CARES Act is a step in the right direction 
and will allow GA airports to receive anywhere from $1,000 to $157,000 
for the busiest GA airports that traditionally have large numbers of 
annual operations. And while the $100 million in the CARES Act helps, 
it is nowhere near what is needed going forward.
    Airports appreciate that Congress and the Administration worked 
together to pass the coronavirus relief package so quickly. I would 
also like to thank Secretary Elaine Chao, Federal Aviation 
Administrator Steve Dickson and all the dedicated employees at the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) and FAA who worked around the clock 
during consideration of the CARES Act and after the President signed 
the bill to get money out the door to airports as quickly as possible.
    Airports frequently give the FAA and the Office of Airports high 
marks for efficiency in distributing annual AIP funding. We realize 
that distributing $10 billion with new requirements, new formulas, and 
a new application process in a very short period is not an easy task. 
Airports deeply appreciate DOT's and FAA's commitment and dedication to 
helping airports during this crisis.
    The CARES Act also included other provisions to help airports and 
small communities. For instance, it contained $56 million in additional 
funding for the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. The measure also 
included $100 million for the TSA to spend, in part, on cleaning and 
sanitization at security checkpoints.
    Finally, the CARES Act included a package of grants, loans and loan 
guarantees for passenger and cargo carriers, along with funding for 
airline contractors. We strongly supported provisions in the CARES Act 
to help stabilize the airline industry. Airports and airlines may 
disagree on policy matters from time to time, but we have a symbiotic 
relationship that requires us to work together now and in the future as 
we confront the challenges that will remain long after COVID-19 is 
dominating the headlines.
Outlook: Significant Challenges Ahead
    Mr. Chairman, it's unclear how long the coronavirus crisis will 
last, when passenger levels will start to return to pre-COVID levels, 
or the time it will take for airports and airlines to operate in the 
``new normal.'' But we expect the post-pandemic road to recovery will 
take a significant amount of time and additional resources.
    One international transportation consulting firm estimates that 
domestic passenger levels in the United States could decline between 63 
and 69 percent this year compared to 2019. International traffic could 
suffer even more with an expected drop of anywhere between 71 and 83 
percent this year. Overall, the firm expects passenger levels to be 
down between 64 and 71 percent this year compared to 2019.
    Airports, airlines, other stakeholders and our Federal partners 
will need to work closely together to protect the health and safety of 
passengers and our employees. We have done this before, after 9/11, to 
improve aviation security. Of course, that tragic event led to the 
creation of an entirely new Federal agency, new security measures for 
airports and airlines, new capital investments, and changes in the way 
we travel.
    We expect the coronavirus pandemic will also fundamentally change 
the aviation industry. Airports and airlines are already taking steps 
to respond to the crisis such as implementing enhanced cleaning and 
sanitization. Face coverings are becoming more prevalent with airports, 
airlines, and our Federal partners moving to require their use for 
passengers and employees throughout the travel journey.
    Enhanced cleaning and sanitization and facemasks are just some of 
the many changes that passengers will see the next time they travel. 
Airports are also taking steps to promote physical distancing, upgrade 
air filtration systems, and considering ways to expand touchless 
travel. But we will need clear and consistent Federal guidelines and 
standards--especially on the matter of health screenings--to ensure 
that passengers know what to expect when they arrive at the airport 
regardless of which airport it is or what airline they may be flying.
    The road ahead will require continued coordination and 
collaboration between industry and government and additional Federal 
investments. Help to this point from the CARES Act has been critical, 
but we respectfully call on Congress to continue its support to help 
ensure the health and safety of our passengers and employees and to 
help restore confidence in our aviation system.
The Need for Additional Assistance: Recommendations to Continue Helping 
        Airports Impacted by Coronavirus
    The funding in the CARES Act will help airports weather the current 
storm and respond to the immediate crisis. But it is becoming 
increasingly clear that large and small airports will continue to 
struggle financially as this crisis drags on and as airports take new 
steps to protect the health and safety of their passengers and 
employees.
    Provide Additional Funding to Help Airports Respond to COVID-19: 
The CARES Act provided much-needed funding to help airports survive the 
immediate crisis. However, airports expect to face tremendous financial 
losses in the months and years ahead. In some cases, the CARES Act will 
only provide enough funding to cover losses over the next few months. 
Our partners at Airports Council International-North America estimate 
that U.S. airports collectively will lose $23.3 billion as a result of 
the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Airports point out that they will need to continue making bond 
payments with significantly less incoming revenue and with increasing 
coronavirus-related operational and infrastructure requirements. 
Airports rely heavily on PFC revenue for debt service. The anticipated 
decline in PFC revenue will cost airports billions and decrease a 
critical source of funding for bond payments.
    According to the FAA, airports collectively held $100 billion in 
debt at the end of 2018. Airports have had no choice but to rely on 
bonds to help pay for critical infrastructure since Federal AIP funding 
has been relatively flat in recent years and the Federal cap on local 
PFCs has been stagnant for the past 20 years.
    Meanwhile, airports of all sizes are facing pressure from airlines, 
concessionaires, rental car companies, fixed-base operators and other 
tenants to defer or abate their rental payments or renegotiate their 
minimum annual guarantees. Airports understand that their partners are 
struggling and are trying to be as helpful and accommodating as 
possible. But with dramatically less revenue coming in and more 
pressure from their partners, airports find themselves being squeezed 
on both ends.
    In light of the dramatic decline in aviation activity and the 
associated reduction in non-aeronautical revenues at airports--along 
with the precipitous drop in PFC revenues that help support bond 
payments--airports will need additional Federal assistance at least as 
large as the initial amount provided in the CARES Act. Additionally, 
Congress must provide greater financial support for general aviation 
airports, business aviation, concessionaires, and other airport 
partners that have been significantly impacted by the crisis. The 
entire aviation ecosystem has been dramatically dislocated and needs 
help to survive.
    Continue to Provide Airports with Flexibility: The CARES Act 
provided much-needed flexibility by allowing airports to use Federal 
funding in the bill for ``any purpose for which airport revenues may 
lawfully be used.'' We urge you to maintain that flexibility if 
Congress should provide additional funding for airports in another 
coronavirus relief package. During this crisis airports should continue 
to be allowed to use Federal funds for operations, debt service, 
maintenance, terminal projects, and other necessary lawful expenses.
    Extend Elimination of Local Match Requirement: As noted, the CARES 
Act included $500 million to cover the local match requirement for 
grants that airports received in the FY 2020 appropriations process. 
That funding will help free up local revenue that airports can use for 
operational purpose, debt service and other needs.
    We expect that it will be difficult for many airport and 
communities to come up with a local match during these times of steeply 
declining revenues. We urge you to provide a 100 percent Federal share 
as part of any subsequent relief package and for AIP grants provided to 
airports as part of the FY 2021 appropriations process.
    Help Airports that Participate in Contract Tower Program: Mr. 
Chairman, Ranking Member Cantwell, I would like to thank you and 
members of this committee for being strong supporters of the FAA 
Contact Tower Program. As you know, 256 airports from 46 states 
currently participate in this well-respected and cost-effective program 
as validated once again by the DOT Inspector General audit released 
last week. As you consider the next coronavirus relief package, I ask 
you to take additional steps to help those airports during this crisis.
    First, AAAE and U.S. Contract Tower Association urge Congress to 
provide $8.15 million to help approximately 93 nonprimary commercial 
service and GA airports that participate in the program. These airports 
traditionally use local funds to pay for tower maintenance, repairs and 
upgrades, controllers to operate extra hours, and janitorial services. 
Eleven of those airports also participate in the cost share program. 
Using Federal funds to cover local expenses would help those airports 
that have little incoming revenue during the current pandemic.
    Second, we urge Congress to temporarily suspend the benefit/cost 
(b/c) analysis for contact tower airports except those that have or 
plan to submit applications in FY 2020 and FY 2021 The FAA 
reauthorization bill, which Congress passed in 2018, included a welcome 
provision that eliminated b/c's for contract towers unless they have 
more than a 25 percent decrease in air traffic in a single year. 
Temporarily suspending the b/c analysis when passenger levels have 
declined so substantially will eliminate an unforeseen penalty.
    Third, we urge you to include S. 2898, the Continuity for Operators 
with Necessary Training Required for ATC Towers Act, in a subsequent 
coronavirus relief package. This legislation would provide an incentive 
for retired Federal air traffic controllers to continue working as 
controllers at contract tower airports and help reduce staffing 
challenges those airports are facing.
    The CONTRACT Act, which was introduced by Senators Inhofe, Moran 
and Murray, enjoys strong bipartisan support in both chambers and is 
endorsed by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. To date, 
41 members--including many members of this committee--have cosponsored 
S. 2898. We're grateful for your support and thank the committee for 
approving the CONTACT Act late last year.
    Expand Programs that Help Small Airports Retain Commercial Air 
Service: Again, the CARES Act included an additional $56 million for 
the EAS program. I urge you to increase funding for EAS and the Small 
Community Air Service Development program in the next coronavirus 
relief package.
    Both programs help ensure that small communities in rural America 
and less populated areas have access to the national airspace system. 
Small communities have used Small Community Air Service Development 
Program funds for a variety of projects including financial incentives 
for airlines and marketing initiatives. Those incentives will be even 
more important in the months and years ahead.
    We expect that it be challenging for many small-and some medium-
sized airports to retain commercial air service in the aftermath of the 
current crisis. Increasing funding for EAS and the Small Community Air 
Service Development programs would provide smaller communities with a 
much-needed boost. I would also encourage you to expand eligibility for 
the Small Community Air Service Development Program and take other 
steps to ensure more small-and medium-sized communities are not left 
behind should U.S. airlines contract in size as many are predicting.
    Help Nonprimary, Reliever and General Aviation Airports Impacted by 
COVID-19: There are approximately 3,000 nonprimary commercial service, 
reliever and GA airports throughout the country, and they play a key 
role in our aviation system.
    While its operating revenue is down dramatically due the 
coronavirus pandemic, Centennial Airport is spending approximately 
$40,000 on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) due to the high number 
of air ambulance operations at the airport. Centennial has seven air 
ambulance companies that operate at the facility and assist with 
patient transfers.
    After receiving limited funding in the CARES Act, Centennial is 
facing about a $2.4 million funding gap. Other GA airports are likely 
to need additional assistance beyond the limited amounts provided in 
the CARES Act. We urge Congress to help close the GA funding gap by 
providing at least $1 billion to $2 billion to GA airports in any 
future coronavirus relief package.
Road to Recovery: Recommendations to Make Aviation System Safer for 
        Passengers and Employees
    Mr. Chairman, as we continue to deal with the impacts of COVID-19, 
airports, airlines, other stakeholders and Federal agencies are 
developing proposals to ensure that the aviation system is safe for 
passengers and employees alike. We were pleased to be part of an effort 
by the U.S. Travel Association to establish ``Industry Guidelines to 
Ensure the Health and Safety of Travelers'' that were released publicly 
earlier this week.
    AAAE and its airport leaders have developed a set of 
recommendations for a post-pandemic recovery. You will notice that many 
of the recommendations below will require Federal leadership, 
assistance and investment. Our goal is simple: we need to take steps 
now to assure the traveling public that: 1) industry and government are 
committed to providing the highest levels of health and safety for air 
travelers and aviation workers; and 2) there are consistent processes 
and procedures throughout the aviation system so passengers know what 
to expect regardless of the airline or airport they happen to choose 
for their travel.
    Implement a Consistent Passenger and Aviation Worker Health 
Framework: The aviation industry urgently needs a clear and consistent 
framework from the Federal government including the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) to help protect the health and safety of 
passengers and aviation workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. A Federal 
framework would help airports, airlines, FAA, TSA, CBP and other 
partners to ensure passengers receive consistent treatment and 
protection throughout their travel experience.
    In particular, we believe the Federal government should determine 
the effectiveness and necessity of certain protective safeguards for 
passengers and workers, including the use of face coverings, 
questionnaires, and temperature checks. A Federal framework should also 
include any protocols that may be necessary for screenings to be 
consistently applied throughout the aviation system. As this framework 
is being developed, AAAE recommends that all passengers and employees 
in the airport environment wear appropriate face coverings.
    Determine Appropriate Roles and Responsibilities: Airport operators 
are proactively working with airlines, tenants, and our Federal 
partners to create a clean, safe, and secure airport environment for 
passengers and employees. This is a community effort that needs 
appropriate roles and responsibilities for each stakeholder in 
accordance with the following key principles:

   Health screening of passengers is the responsibility of 
        public health agencies. However, airports should play a 
        critical role in determining key factors such as location, 
        timeline and operational procedures for health screenings if 
        the Federal government and CDC determine that health screenings 
        are necessary. Airports and other employers at an airport 
        should also receive Federal guidance for ensuring proper health 
        screening of their employees.

   Airports, concessionaires, airlines, and their Federal 
        partners all have a role in implementing important, consistent 
        measures, such as physical distancing markers and 
        announcements; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 
        (HVAC) system upgrades; enhanced cleaning and sanitization 
        efforts; installing plexiglass barriers; employee education on 
        health monitoring and protection; and deploying personal 
        protective equipment and face coverings for employees.

   The Federal Government, led by CDC and the Environmental 
        Protection Agency, should continue to provide robust research 
        support to determine the effectiveness of technological 
        solutions for meeting large-scale disinfecting needs, such as 
        ultraviolet light, ozone, and steam.

    Provide Airports and Our Federal Partners with Critical Recovery 
Tools: Airport operators will face increased costs to implement new 
measures to protect the health of the traveling public. Airports will 
need dependable financial and operational tools to ensure a smooth 
recovery and rebuilding of the aviation industry. To help with these 
efforts, we urge Congress to:

   Ensure access to an adequate, available supply of face 
        coverings and other necessary protective equipment for all 
        employees in the airport environment;

   Provide Federal funding for increased operational and 
        infrastructure development costs associated with responding to 
        COVID-19 and future public health emergencies such as helping 
        airports implement physical distancing and touchless travel; 
        enhance cleaning and sanitization; upgrade HVAC systems and 
        make other necessary investments to protect passengers and 
        employees;

   Continue reimbursing airports for the enhanced cleaning and 
        sanitization efforts at TSA security checkpoints;

   Protect staffing and funding levels for TSA and CBP. While 
        passenger demand remains low as recovery begins, TSA personnel 
        can resume or enhance responsibilities beyond the checkpoint, 
        including initiatives related to insider threat mitigation and 
        exit lane staffing;

   Stop the diversion of funds collected from the TSA passenger 
        security fee to ensure TSA has the resources it needs to 
        address both evolving security threats and safety 
        considerations;

   Extend the REAL ID enforcement deadline beyond October 1, 
        2021 if state-level metrics indicate that a significant 
        majority of the traveling public still does not have a REAL ID 
        or another acceptable form of identification; and

   Provide general fund revenue to ensure the continued 
        solvency of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to protect the 
        AIP program, which provides much-needed grants for airport 
        construction projects, and other FAA functions.

    Prepare for the Resumption of Increased Operations: AAAE 
appreciates the efforts by the FAA and TSA to accommodate the needs of 
aviation stakeholders and their willingness to remain flexible 
throughout the pandemic. We encourage both agencies to continue working 
closely with airports to be prepared to manage an increase in aircraft 
operations and a rise in passenger levels as passenger confidence 
improves and the recovery begins to take effect. In the past week, we 
have already seen an uptick in the number of passengers screened by 
TSA.
    For instance, the FAA should remain flexible in granting needed 
extensions and waivers for airports to comply with various Part 139 
certification requirements that may conflict with physical distancing 
and other CDC guidelines. AAAE continues to work with its airport 
members on developing recovery plans to ensure airports are ready and 
prepared to scale up when necessary.
    Plan for Long-Term Enhancements to the Travel Experience: We expect 
airports, airlines, and their Federal partners will need to plan for 
long-term enhancements to the passenger travel experience. This 
includes moving toward a touchless travel experience; using biometric 
identity verification at check-in, bag drop locations and at security 
checkpoints; and using digital identification and payment methods.
    With help from the Federal government, airports can also explore 
the use of automation and robotics to meet the increased demand for 
enhanced cleaning and sanitization. We urge Congress and Administration 
to provide Federal resources to supporting these new initiatives.
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the 
committee, thank you for inviting me to participate in today's hearing. 
I look forward to continuing to work with you as Congress, the 
Administration and stakeholders continue focusing on mitigating the 
impacts of the coronavirus and as we turn our attention to recovery and 
making our aviation system safer for passengers and employees.

    The Chairman. Thank you very, very much.
    And now Dr. Godwin is joining us from Seattle and I think, 
Dr. Godwin, we've already done a mic test, is that correct?
    Dr. Godwin. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Well, you are welcome, and thank you for 
joining us. You're now recognized for five minutes.

      STATEMENT OF DR. HILARY GODWIN, DEAN, UW SCHOOL OF 
          PUBLIC HEALTH; AND PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF 
 ENVIRONMENTAL AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF 
                           WASHINGTON

    Dr. Godwin. Thank you.
    Good afternoon, Chairman Wicker, my own Senator, Ranking 
Member Cantwell, and Distinguished Members of the Committee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify during this 
unusual time and via this novel medium about health, safety, 
and air travel during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
    My name is Hilary Godwin. I'm Dean of the University of 
Washington School of Public Health and I'm also Professor of 
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences.
    As we enter the next phase of the pandemic, resumption of 
regular commercial flights will be pivotal to economic 
recovery. However, this will pose significant public health 
challenges.
    As the volume of passengers and the frequency of air travel 
begins to increase, the aviation industry and public health 
officials must work together to prioritize keeping airports, 
airplanes, and the public safe.
    On a typical day in the not-too-distant past, millions of 
individuals would flow through airports, including people 
coming from and traveling to many different locations around 
the globe. These numbers have dropped dramatically in recent 
weeks but will undoubtedly start to increase as we restart the 
economy.
    The likelihood that healthy individuals will interact with 
one of more people who are infected with COVID-19 increases 
exponentially as the number of people passing through airports 
increases.
    Key strategies to reduce these risks in airports includes 
frequently disinfecting high-touch surfaces and providing ready 
access to hand sanitizer, maintaining social distancing, and 
requiring employees and travelers to wear face coverings.
    As the number of individuals who are flying increases, it 
will also be critical to keep airplanes safe for both employees 
and travelers. The measures I just described need to be applied 
on planes in addition to in terminals.
    Additional strategies to promote safe flights include 
requiring HEPA filtration systems be used on all planes and 
thoroughly disinfecting planes between flights.
    A final but equally important priority is keeping the 
public safe. Key strategies that can help to reduce the risk of 
introducing new outbreaks of COVID-19 in our communities that 
are beginning to heal include the following.
    First, requiring that all flight manifests be maintained, 
including current contact information for all passengers. 
Public and private entities must work together to develop a 
system that allows public health departments to access this 
information quickly so that they can later reach individuals 
who are potentially exposed while traveling.
    We also need to develop national guidance for limiting 
COVID-19 transmission in U.S. airports and on flights that 
originate from or terminate in the United States. While most 
public health measures are left to the discretion of states, it 
would be extremely difficult to communicate and enforce a 
patchwork set of regulations and guidance for travelers going 
from one state to another or entering into the United States 
passing through different states.
    Finally, we will need to develop and deploy effective 
communication campaigns for both employees and travelers about 
the importance of adhering to all of these measures both in 
airports and on planes.
    In recent years, we've seen an increase in the density of 
people in both airports and on planes. COVID-19 requires us to 
rethink this. Public health considerations must play a far 
greater role than before.
    Developing and implementing guidance that promotes safety 
can also help business by making individuals feel more 
comfortable returning to air travel.
    I realize that these changes will not be easy. Each of the 
strategies I mentioned previously comes with limitations and 
logistical challenges. However, combining them together creates 
a net that will help to reduce overall risk to millions of 
individuals who work in, travel using, and benefit from the 
aviation industry each day.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Distinguished 
Committee Members, air travel is a critical part of our 
Nation's economy. As we resume air travel, we must prioritize 
keeping airports, airplanes, and the public safe.
    We can improve safety by implementing a variety of measures 
to limit virus transmission throughout the travel journey. The 
aviation industry and lawmakers must also work closely with 
public health agencies to rapidly integrate new information as 
it comes to light and to ensure that communities have the 
plans, tools, and resources to identify potentially exposed 
individuals during and after air travel.
    We will all benefit if public health professionals are 
involved in these conversations throughout the planning 
process.
    I thank you again for this opportunity and welcome any 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Godwin follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Dr. Hilary Godwin, Dean, UW School of Public 
  Health; and Professor, Department of Environmental and Occupational 
               Health Sciences, University of Washington
    Good morning, Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell, my 
Senator, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify during this unusual time and via this novel 
medium about health, safety and travel during the ongoing COVID-19 
pandemic. My name is Hilary Godwin and I am the dean of the University 
of Washington's School of Public Health and a professor at in the 
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences. I am 
trained as a chemist, with over 20 years of experience in environmental 
chemistry and environmental health, and specialize in how environmental 
factors impact the health of individuals and populations.
    As we enter the next phase of the pandemic, resumption of regular 
commercial flights will be pivotal to economic recovery. However, this 
will pose significant public health challenges. As the volume of 
passengers and frequency of air travel begins to increase, the aviation 
industry and public health officials must work together to prioritize:

  1.  Keeping airports safe;

  2.  Keeping airplanes safe; and

  3.  Keeping the public safe.
Why this virus is different
    To understand the challenges that the aviation industry will face 
as regular commercial flights resume, it is helpful to provide context 
about why this virus is different from other respiratory pathogens 
(such as seasonal influenza or the common cold). These include:

   The majority of Americans have not yet been infected with 
        COVID-19 and hence are vulnerable to infection.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-
in-us.html

   We do not know whether those individuals who have already 
        been infected with COVID-19 but have recovered are immune to 
        future infection.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-immunity-to-
covid-19-really-means/

   We do not have a vaccine or validated treatments for COVID-
        19, and it likely will take more than a year for these to 
        become widely available.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/What-you-need-to-know-about-
the-COVID-19-vaccine?
WT.mc_id=20200430100000_COVID-19-vaccine_BG-EM_&WT.tsrc=BGEM

   Not everyone who is infected with COVID-19 and who is 
        capable of transmitting it to others shows symptoms.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Arons MM, Hatfield KM, Reddy SC, et al., Presymptomatic SARS-
CoV-2 infections and transmission in a skilled nursing facility. N Engl 
J Med. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008457.

    As a result of these factors and limited testing and contract-
tracing capacity in early phases of the pandemic, the United States has 
had to rely upon non-pharmaceutical interventions such as community-
level social distancing. While we race to expand our testing and 
contact-tracing capacities, these other factors will continue to 
complicate our response and re-opening.
    Other factors that will complicate our ability to recover from 
COVID-19 include:

   Different countries, states and communities have experienced 
        the pandemic at different times and with different severities.

   We expect there to continue to be regional differences in 
        COVID-19 prevalence, which means that travel between these 
        communities creates opportunities for re-seeding the pandemic 
        in communities that have low levels of transmission, as 
        occurred during the 1918 flu pandemic.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Saunders-Hastings PR, Krewski D. Reviewing the History of 
Pandemic Influenza: Understanding Patterns of Emergence and 
Transmission. Pathogens. 2016 Dec 6;5(4):66. doi: 10.3390/
pathogens5040066.

   Within the US, different states have different capacities 
        and are responding to the pandemic in different ways.
Keeping Airports Safe
    Our first priority as our Nation transitions from critical travel 
only and regular commercial flights resume will be to keep airports 
safe both for employees and for travelers. Maintaining safety will be 
challenging because of the inherent nature of airports and travel. 
Typically, millions of individuals flow through airports, including 
travelers coming from and traveling to different locations around the 
globe. The probability that healthy individuals will interact with one 
or more individuals who are infected but may not know increases 
exponentially as the number of people passing through the airport 
increases. Thus, it is critical to reduce the number of close contacts 
that each person has, to require individuals to wear masks and/or 
gloves, and to lower the chances of virus transfer via surfaces. Key 
strategies include:

   Developing and deploying effective communications for 
        employees and travelers that reinforce the importance of good 
        hand hygiene practices and adherence to other measures designed 
        to lower the risks of transmission while in the airport;

   Maintaining social distancing in all airport areas, 
        including curbside, check-in, security screening, intra-airport 
        shuttles and light rail systems, concessions, lounges, 
        restrooms, boarding queues, baggage claim areas, rental car 
        shuttles and parking lots;

   Limiting access to the airport to travelers and employees 
        only;

   Minimizing physical contact between employees and passengers 
        (e.g., during screening processes), particularly where higher 
        risk passengers such as the elderly require employee 
        assistance;

   Requiring employees and travelers to wear masks in the 
        terminal;

   Requiring employees to wear gloves (and to change them 
        regularly);

   Frequently disinfecting high-touch surfaces (including those 
        in restrooms and concession stands);

   Making hand sanitizer readily available throughout airports 
        and allowing passengers to bring their own hand sanitizer 
        through security.

    Additional strategies that could be considered include:

   Requiring employees and/or travelers to attest to being 
        asymptomatic prior to travel (e.g., prior to reporting to work 
        each day for employees and during the check-in process and 
        prior to boarding for passengers).

   Using point of care tests for current COVID-19 infection at 
        entry points to airports when these tests become widely 
        available.
Keeping Airplanes Safe
    Second, as the number of individuals who are flying increases, it 
will be critical to keep airplanes safe for both employees and 
travelers. This will be inherently challenging because airplanes are 
enclosed spaces where potentially large numbers of individuals are in 
close contact with each other for extended periods of time, which are 
the conditions under which human-to-human transfer is most likely to 
occur. Key strategies include:

   Developing and deploying effective communications for 
        employees and travelers that reinforce the importance of good 
        hand hygiene practices and adherence to other measures designed 
        to lower the risks of transmission while on airplanes;

   Requiring crew and passengers to wear masks or cloth face 
        coverings;

   Regularly disinfecting high-touch surfaces (including those 
        in the lavatories) during flights;

   Requiring HEPA filtration systems be used on all planes/
        during all flights;

   Thoroughly disinfecting planes between flights;

   Creating social distancing during the flight (e.g., through 
        selective assignment of seats).

    Additional strategies that could be considered include:

   Limiting food and beverage services and consumption on 
        flights, particularly short ones. Food and beverage service 
        requires attendants to interact with large numbers of 
        passengers in succession and also requires passengers to remove 
        masks (to consume food and beverages).
Keeping the Public Safe
    A final, but equally important, priority is to keep the public 
safe. Air travel inherently involves transporting individuals from one 
region to another and hence increases the chance of re-introducing the 
virus in areas where it has been eliminated or transmission has been 
substantially reduced. Key strategies that can help to reduce the risk 
of re-seeding the pandemic are:

   Requiring that all flight manifests be maintained, including 
        current contact information for all passengers on both domestic 
        and international flights and ideally where they have traveled 
        in the past two weeks. Federal, state and local health 
        departments, the Department of Homeland Security, and the 
        aviation industry must work together to develop a system that 
        allows state, territorial and local health departments to 
        access this information quickly in the event that a recent 
        traveler to their jurisdiction is subsequently found to be 
        infected with COVID-19, so that they can contact individuals 
        who came into close contact with the infected individuals while 
        traveling.

   Developing national regulations or guidance for U.S. 
        airports and flights that originate from or terminate in the 
        United States. While most public health measures are left to 
        the discretion of states, it would be extremely difficult to 
        communicate and enforce a patchwork set of regulations and 
        guidance for travelers going from one state to another or 
        entering the U.S. and passing through different states.
Final Notes
    To summarize, careful consideration needs to be given when making 
decisions that impact density of individuals in airports and on 
airplanes. Normally, economic considerations drive increasing the 
density of people in both the airport and on planes. COVID-19 changes 
this equation: public health considerations must play a far greater 
role than before this pandemic. Developing and implementing regulations 
and/or guidance that promote safety in the aviation industry can also 
help business by making individuals feel more comfortable returning to 
air travel and smooth the transition back to more regular travel 
levels. While each of the strategies discussed here comes with inherent 
limitations and poses its own logistical challenges, combining them 
together creates a ``net'' that will help to reduce overall risk to the 
millions of individuals who work in, travel using, and benefit from the 
aviation industry each day.
    Notably, new information about the pandemic, as well as new tools 
to control its spread and manage its impacts, are available almost 
daily. As such, public health officials need to be equal partners in 
all phases of planning for air travel resumption, and the industry must 
position itself to rapidly respond to new guidance and integrate 
evidence-informed control practices.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cantwell and distinguished Committee 
members, I recognize that air travel is a critical part of our Nation's 
economy. But, as we resume air travel, we must prioritize keeping 
airports, airplanes, and the public safe. As I've laid out, we can 
improve safety by implementing a variety of measures to limit virus 
transmission throughout the travel continuum. The aviation industry and 
lawmakers must also work closely with federal, state, territorial and 
local health agencies to rapidly integrate new information, ensure that 
communities have the plans, tools and resources to identify potentially 
exposed individuals during and after air travel, as well as ensure 
sufficient healthcare capacity in high volume destinations. Public 
health professionals must be involved in these conversations and 
throughout the planning process. I thank you again for this opportunity 
and l welcome your questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you very, very much, Dr. Godwin, and 
thanks to all four of our panelists for their thoughtful 
remarks.
    Let me begin my questions with Mr. Calio. Thus far, has the 
assistance provided by the CARES Act achieved its objective in 
preventing the mass layoffs of hundreds of thousands of 
workers? Are you able to quantify how many airline workers have 
had their jobs preserved by the CARES Act?
    Mr. Calio. Mr. Chairman, the CARES Act is working. The jobs 
have been preserved. They're preserved through September 30 of 
this year. As I said, I think, in my oral comments, the CARES 
Act provided a bridge, gave us breathing room, provided much-
needed liquidity.
    It also had a very good effect, a side effect in that it 
opened up the private markets to some carriers to further plump 
up their liquidity, all of it intended to try to keep their 
employees.
    I referenced how many new employees we hired in the last 10 
years. We had 10 profitable years in a row and we invested that 
money. We have a good relationship with our employees. You 
know, every day isn?t perfect but we value our employees 
because they're the back bone of our industry, and the last 
thing we want to do is lose those employees.
    We're in a difficult situation, however. We're fighting for 
our survival. We need our employees and as you all know, in the 
airline industry, there are various certifications, training 
requirements, et cetera, involved. So, keeping the employees on 
will speed any ramp-up that we have later on.
    The Chairman. OK. The Payroll Support Program, let's talk 
about that. It was oversubscribed and this forced the Treasury 
to impose a 24 percent haircut.
    Were you surprised by this, Mr. Calio? We've heard concerns 
that the PSP funding might not be sufficient to forestall mass 
layoffs after September and until the industry genuinely 
recovers.
    Of course, Congress included $29 billion in Economic 
Stabilization Fund loan authority for the airlines' critical 
partners. You mentioned that private sources of liquidity had 
come available and I'm glad that whatever we did might have 
helped in that regard.
    Do your members believe that accommodation of PSP direct 
assistance, together with loans and private sources, will be 
enough to sustain employment after the end of this fiscal year?
    Mr. Calio. Our members are doing everything they can to 
ensure the greatest level of employment possible. We were 
dismayed by the haircut.
    I think one thing that needs to be pointed out, most people 
don't realize this, we took the position that we would keep 
everyone until September 30. That for our members, it will 
cover what they got in the loan grant portion of the CARES Act. 
The PSP will cover anywhere from 50 percent to 80 percent of 
their actual expenses.
    The Chairman. You know, actually I think we were surprised 
that it was oversubscribed and I didn't hear anyone predicting 
that, but, boy, it's hard to know when you're putting together 
such a massive program in a few days.
    Mr. Hauptli, let me ask you about the $10 billion in grants 
distributed over 3,000 eligible airports.
    The CARES Act airport grants are used for many purposes, 
including financing day-to-day operations and servicing debt 
payments.
    There have been some concerns. First, the formula used to 
allocate commercial service airport grants created some 
surprise outcomes. Some airports were entitled to receive 
surprisingly large amounts, others not so much.
    Second, the $100 million dedicated for general aviation 
airports is said not to be enough.
    So would you comment on those in the 49 seconds we have?
    Mr. Hauptli. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the formula did 
create out of 3,200 and some odd airports eligible to receive 
funding, there were a couple of dozen where there were some 
surprises. Ninety-nine percent out of a hundred is not bad for 
the FAA on that, but there were some anomalies in there for 
sure.
    I agree with you, Senator, that $100 million for the 
general aviation community is not going to be enough. As I 
indicated in my testimony, we believe billions of dollars will 
be necessary in additional funding beyond the money for 
airports, also for general aviation airports, business 
aviation, and concessionaires.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have many, many questions. So hopefully we'll get a 
second round here and maybe I'll predicate with some things to 
think about.
    Obviously, Mr. Fanning, I want to follow up on your 
comments about the workforce and who we're losing right now 
because these are skilled workers that once they disappear and 
they go find a job wherever they can find a job that has health 
care, I want to know what we're going to do about health care 
because they only have 1 month of health care benefit. Then 
after you're going to be in a pandemic still. You're going to 
go find a job with health care. You're not going to wait.
    So then when we restart in a more aggressive way, where are 
those workers going to be and we've lost our competitiveness. 
So if you could think about that.
    But I'd like to go to Dr. Godwin, if I could. Thank you so 
much for your articulate assessment of what we have to do to 
return safety, public health safety to aviation, and thanks so 
much for the University of Washington's leadership in our state 
as we've dealt with this.
    We just couldn't have dealt with the crisis in our state 
without the University of Washington. So thank you for 
everything that they've been doing on testing and with the 
Institute of Health Metrics Evaluation and with this innovative 
program on COVID Safe. So can't thank you enough.
    What level of travel do you think that aviation, if we were 
following the guidelines and implementing a national guideline 
policy, as you discuss, what level of air travel do you think 
that we could achieve safely?
    Dr. Godwin. That's a great question, Senator. I guess I'm 
less worried about what level we can achieve at this point 
because we have working in our favor that right now we're 
starting from very low levels and we don't expect a switch to 
flip and all of a sudden to go up to super high levels of 
travel.
    We expect people to re-enter and to travel gradually and 
that gives us a period of time to implement these measures in a 
way that is very protective of travelers and airport personnel 
and workers.
    As we see the level start to increase, hopefully we'll also 
start to see the pandemic continue to wane globally and so my 
hope would be that by the time we get up to higher levels of 
travelers that some of the risks associated with COVID-19 may 
be diminishing.
    I think the most important thing to convey in terms of how 
we manage this interim time is this question of density, 
though. Normally, we would try to fly as few planes as possible 
with as many people on each plane as possible and what we know 
from public health is that it's that close proximity of 
individuals for extended period of time that creates the 
greatest risk of transmission.
    So we want to balance that driver to lower the costs with 
those public health safety considerations.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I think that's so important, 
what you said, because you're saying, from what my father used 
to say all the time because he was a Navy man, steady as she 
goes, right?
    So you're not trying to like--you're trying to implement 
the health care policy. That's our best bet. Implement the 
health care policies and then we can move forward.
    Mr. Calio, what about that? What about getting a national 
guidance policy that is across the United States? Hopefully--
no, not more hopefully than hopefully. Let's not say to the 
flying public we're going to charge you to keep the middle seat 
open. Let's just get the airlines to do the right distancing, 
if that's what it takes.
    So what about getting a national guideline policy 
implemented?
    Mr. Calio. There are two questions there. On the 
distancing, we are doing that now to the greatest degree 
possible. I'm going to be straightforward. As you know, I 
always am. In the long term, that's a business model that 
cannot be sustained because if we can't--if it costs more to 
fly people from point A to point B, it's a total money-losing 
proposition which then means it's a job lost proposition.
    So hopefully by the time we reach the point later on where 
travel is picking up, other measures will be in place, 
vaccines, testing, et cetera, that will give the public the 
assurance they need and be able to protect both our employees 
and that the customers.
    In terms of national guidelines, there's an awful lot going 
on voluntarily. Our preference would be to go down that route 
mostly. I think it's great that Dr. Godwin is on the panel 
today because it provides the opportunity to talk about these 
things, and we have been talking about these with many other 
experts in the area and would be happy to talk to you about it, 
as well.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. And I know my time has 
expired, but, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to Mr. Calio, if your 
partner associations--look. I think it's United backing off of 
what they were trying to do on forced hour reduction was the 
right move and I hope that Jet Blue and Delta are going to do 
the same things.
    We're definitely going to get out of the Treasury the right 
guidance on this and clearly we wanted to help protect the 
payroll of those individuals. So thank you.
    Mr. Calio. You're welcome.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Moran joins us remotely.

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

    Senator Moran. Chairman Wicker, thank you very much, you 
and Ranking Member, for doing this hearing. Thanks to our 
witnesses for joining us.
    I'm going to try to get a couple questions in, one for 
Secretary Fanning.
    Mr. Secretary, you indicated during your testimony about 
the importance, the priority of the retention of workforce is.
    As you know, there's a legislative effort afoot to try to 
accomplish a public/private partnership in that regard.
    Could you speak specifically to the importance of having 
established a manufacturing workforce that's intact once the 
COVID-19 virus consequences are behind us, what national 
security interest does that involve, and what repercussions 
could be expected to be seen on the industry without 
establishing that kind of effort, that public/private 
partnership?
    Mr. Fanning. Thank you, Senator. We have two primary 
concerns that in many ways are one and the same. That's 
protecting the industrial base, that's shared commercial and 
defense in many cases, and preserving our workforce, which is 
critical. It's hard for our companies to recruit the right 
workforce. They spend a lot of time and money training them and 
they're working on retaining them and we want to make sure that 
that workforce is there when we come out of this.
    We also recognize that this is a long-term situation for us 
and so we're looking for solutions that allow us to do that 
over a longer period of time and we think a private/public 
model will allow us to share those costs, industry with 
government, and then extend the period of time that we do this 
beyond just getting to the fall because we need to have that 
workforce there when orders start coming in again, which again 
is a long-term prospect, in order to deliver on those and help 
get the economy going again.
    Senator Moran. Mr. Secretary, thank you. Let me see if I 
can get a question in or two for Mr. Hauptli.
    Mr. Hauptli, tell me what you think the condition of 
airports will be in the future at the point in time in which 
COVID's consequences are generally behind us? How will airports 
be different then than they are prior to COVID, and give you a 
chance to highlight, if there's a dramatic gap, what's 
required, what is needed once again to get rid of that 
detriment that's occurred in the interim?
    Mr. Hauptli. Thank you, Senator Moran, for the question. 
They'll be cleaner, airports will be cleaner. There's a lot of 
deep sanitization and cleaning that's gone on. It's never been 
a cleaner facility than it is now. We'll see that in the 
future.
    There will be thermal cameras in place. There will be 
plexiglass in place. There will be physical distancing in 
place. There will be a lot of changes. You members of the
    U.S. Senate travel back and forth every week. It will be a 
different travel experience for all of you in the future. 
That's going to cost billions of dollars and the money made 
available in the CARES Act is a great initial first step, but 
as I indicated earlier, it will require additional resources 
for airports to institute those measures that I talked about, 
the touchless travel experience.
    People aren't going to want to put their fingerprints down 
on things. They're not going to want to touch. They're going to 
want to be able to check in in a different fashion. They're 
going to need standoff detection equipment. There's an array of 
things that will look and feel different that you will see as a 
passenger and that you won't see behind the screen, if you 
will.
    Senator Moran. Mr. Hauptli, I wouldn't want to miss the 
opportunity in case you could help me and demonstrate or 
indicate the importance of the Contract Tower Program.
    Is it playing any particular role in COVID-19 days and 
again highlight for the Committee, if you would, the importance 
of that program?
    Mr. Hauptli. Again, Senator, thank you for the question. 
The Contract Tower Program is very important. The Contract 
Tower controllers and those towers, like the Federal towers and 
the Federal controllers, are right in the middle of all of this 
in the response to COVID-19.
    Medevac flights, air ambulances, cargo that is bringing in 
medical supplies, military training and readiness, these are 
all occurring within the Contract Tower Program, and at those 
facilities.
    In my testimony, Senator, I talked about the importance of 
not only the program but the need to provide the contract tower 
airports with $8 million. There are 93 non-primary commercial 
service and general aviation airports that will require about 
$8 million, about $88,000 apiece, to help with increased 
janitorial services, improvements at their facilities, 
etcetera.
    The final point, briefly, Senator, is I just want to thank 
you and a majority of the Committee for your support of the 
Contract Act which provides incentives for retired Federal air 
traffic controllers to move over and become contract 
controllers. That's very, very important.
    Senator Moran. Thank you for reminding us and highlighting 
that and let me say that how you are too right. I should thank 
all air traffic controllers for the tremendous effort that they 
are undertaking.
    I've had conversations with controllers in Kansas City and 
Wichita and there seems to be significant cooperation between 
them and their employers and the system seems to be working as 
a result of that.
    I thank the air traffic controllers for their tremendous 
work.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Moran.
    And next is Senator Klobuchar.

               STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 
Ranking Member Cantwell. Thank you for giving us this remote 
option.
    As you know, Senator Blunt and I with the Rules Committee 
have worked hard on this and we're glad it's working 
successfully.
    So, first, I want to thank our witnesses and we know how 
tough this is right now to be working in airlines, whether it 
is as an employee, whether it's a passenger. We also know that 
it's hard for other people in travel and tourism, as well.
    But I did want to follow up on something that Senator 
Cantwell was asking about at the end and that was making sure 
that passengers right now can stay at a safe distance and how 
important it is, as the doctor pointed out, to protecting their 
health but recent news reports, as she's pointed out, indicate 
that at least one airline, and that's Frontier, is requiring 
customers to pay an additional $39 fee for a more room seat 
option which would come with a blocked-off middle seat to 
provide passengers with additional distance from other 
travelers.
    This is already a budget airline and I'm just concerned. I 
don't think it's appropriate for some passengers who can't 
afford to pay an additional charge for a seat to be less safe 
than other travelers, and I wondered if you could comment on 
that.
    Do you think that we need to have guidelines from the CDC? 
What do we have to do to fix this?
    I would also then ask Dr. Godwin for her thoughts about it.
    Mr. Calio.
    Mr. Calio. Thank you, Senator. None of A4A's members are 
charging for separating their passengers. I can't speak for 
Frontier. They are not a member. I don't anticipate anything 
like that and, as I said earlier, our members are making every 
effort to keep passengers as separated as possible to make them 
comfortable.
    We are following CDC guidelines. We're not boarding from 
the back to the front, so people don't have to pass each other 
going to and fro.
    In many cases, we are passing out masks. As you know, we're 
requiring masks, as well.
    Senator Klobuchar. Just to be very clear, so if there was 
some kind of a--it's mandatory right now or a guideline put in 
place, it wouldn't be a problem for the rest of these airlines, 
the ones that are your members, I shall say?
    Mr. Calio. I'm sorry, Senator, I did not hear your 
question.
    Senator Klobuchar. I said that it would not be a problem 
for your airlines if there was some rule in place because 
they're following it?
    Mr. Calio. I think a rule put in place is not necessary at 
this time. Hopefully the marketplace will take care of that.
    Senator Klobuchar. Well, it didn't with Frontier.
    Dr. Godwin.
    Dr. Godwin. Thank you, Senator. I think the example that 
you raised is exactly the reason that some national level 
guidance, even if it's not a regulation, at least guidance, 
should be made available.
    I really commend the airlines that are stepping up and 
airports that are stepping up to the plate and doing a great 
job. Just having some uniformity across the entire industry and 
across the entire nation----
    Senator Klobuchar. Exactly.
    Dr. Godwin [continuing]. I think would be very helpful for 
travelers to have a better sense of what they can expect.
    Senator Klobuchar. Right. OK. Thank you. That's very 
helpful.
    Also, could I ask you, Dr. Godwin, we have the contact 
tracing issue, and do you think airlines are doing enough to 
collect passenger information and making it available for 
public health officials, and should we be doing this 
voluntarily? Do we need guidelines on this, as well?
    Dr. Godwin. So this is another area where I feel quite 
strongly that some national guidance would be very helpful.
    As you're probably aware and people who are testifying 
probably can provide more details, the last report that I saw 
out suggested that the airlines right now are getting maybe 56 
percent of passenger e-mails as part of their P&Rs and 75 
percent with phone numbers.
    That information needs to be more complete and it needs to 
be consistently gathered and also put into a system that is 
readily accessible to our local health jurisdictions across the 
country.
    One thing that's very challenging in the United States is 
that contact tracing is something that's left to local 
jurisdictions and so we need to have a system where each one of 
those little local jurisdictions can have access to this really 
critical information so that if someone who shows up in their 
jurisdiction who's traveled recently ends up positive for 
COVID-19, that they can use that information to contact other 
people who came in contact with that person when they're 
thought to have been infectious.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. That's very helpful, and I am out of 
time. So I will leave my other questions for the record about 
the pilots and the flight attendants.
    Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
    Senator Blumenthal.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
to you and the Ranking Member, thanks for having this very, 
very important hearing.
    Secretary Fanning, I just want to begin by saying that I am 
very grateful and keenly aware of the points that you raise 
about the aerospace supply chain. Many of them are in 
Connecticut. They are struggling and we sought to aid them 
through the PPP.
    I would like to work with you on other ideas and 
initiatives that you may have in mind. A number of us in the 
Senate, Senator Warner, myself, Doug Jones of Alabama, and 
Bernie Sanders of Vermont, spanning the ideological spectrum of 
the Democratic Party but also some on the Republican side, have 
a thought for a paycheck security act that would replace many 
of these programs and guarantee all the payroll of these 
companies, keep them intact, and prevent the freefall that we 
see coming to workforces and that is a very, very important 
point. So I look forward to working with you.
    Mr. Calio, I was prepared in coming here to be conciliatory 
but I must say, listening to your testimony and reading the 
paragraph that says in effect, and I'm quoting, ``To stem 
untenable cash drain,'' basically the airlines are going to 
continue their present practices, and regarding refunds to 
consumers, I want to quote to you an article from last week, 
April 29, from the Wall Street Journal, that begins with the 
following: ``The United States airline bailout ended up with no 
relief for travelers stuck with vouchers from airlines refusing 
refunds. Now airlines are getting more creative, even 
duplicitous, in pushing vouchers on customers to whom they owe 
money.'' That's the news article. It's not an opinion piece.
    The reports that I've seen--and I ask that this article and 
also one from NPR in the last week or so as well as Politico 
all be entered into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The information referred to can be found on the following 
links:]

Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-the-
coronavirus-bailout-all-i-got-was-this-lousy-airline-voucher-
11588170599

NPR: https://www.npr.org/2020/04/21/839678851/airlines-offer-vouchers-
credits-for-canceled-flights-customers-want-cash

Politico: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2020/04/
frustrated-with-airline-refusals-to-issue-coronavirus-refunds-
consumers-take-to-the-courts-1915225

    Senator Blumenthal. And ask also that a letter from the 
Airline Pilots Association International be entered into the 
record.
    The Chairman. And without objection, that will be done.
    [The information referred to follows:]

                 Air Line Pilots Association, International
                                        Washington, DC, May 5, 2020

Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:

    As you take up very critical questions about our Nation's air 
transportation system, I respectfully submit the views of the Air Line 
Pilots Association, International (ALPA) for consideration during your 
Committee's hearing on ``The State of the Aviation Industry: Examining 
the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic.''
    On behalf of our membership, we express our sincere gratitude for 
the immediate action of the U.S. government to secure the economic 
viability of the airline industry and protect its workforce. We 
appreciate Congress' swift measures to provide relief for our airlines 
through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) 
Act--and its directive to ensure that payroll continues to flow 
exclusively to frontline workers while protecting our collective 
bargaining rights. The Act is a lifeline for our industry to ensure 
that, when we emerge on the other side of this pandemic, we are well 
positioned for recovery. And it is our goal to facilitate a safe return 
to ``business as usual'' for air travel as soon as possible.
    Our country's airline pilots proudly serve on the frontlines 
fighting the COVID-19 pandemic--we're flying doctors, nurses, supplies, 
and equipment to the communities where Americans need them most. 
Indeed, we are the backbone of FEMA's Project Air Bridge that the 
Administration created to expedite the movement of medical supplies. 
We're equally prepared to increase our contribution to the recovery by 
transporting passengers, goods, and services as America gradually 
reopens and our economy strengthens.
    However, nearly 300 ALPA pilots have tested positive for COVID-19, 
and at least 3 have tragically lost their lives due to the virus. 
Despite pilots contracting the virus at a higher rate than the general 
public, some airlines are still ignoring the need for uniform and 
proper cleaning and disinfecting of our flight decks and the aircraft, 
as well as preventive measures to stop the spread of the virus. And 
unfortunately, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which 
regulates the safe and healthy operation of air carriers, has been 
unwilling to require U.S. airlines to follow CDC guidelines, despite 
its clear statutory authority to do so. Without this requirement, rates 
of sickness will continue to rise.
    The 63,000 members of ALPA reiterate our commitment to work 
collaboratively with you to address the challenges we face as a nation 
during this unprecedented time. As additional governmental response is 
considered to ensure workplace health and safety and economic recovery, 
we urge you to protect our Nation's pilots and flight crews and keep 
the air transportation system safe and secure for the citizens and 
businesses that rely on it.
    Like other essential employees, airline pilots are putting 
themselves in harm's way each time we go to work. We accept our 
responsibility willingly and proudly, knowing we are not only preparing 
our industry and economy to safely rebound as soon as possible, but 
also because we are committed to move urgently needed health-care 
workers, equipment, and medicine, as well as repatriating Americans 
from overseas and ensuring the air transportation system operates 
safely and efficiently.
    However, as for the state of our industry ALPA has dire concerns. 
Because of the economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis, business and 
leisure travel have disappeared. Our average daily passenger count is 
less than 10 percent of what it was a year ago. We need to consider 
what we as an industry need to do, steps we need to take to again 
attract passengers to our industry, and what steps we need to take to 
regain their confidence so they can travel safely, and equally 
important, remain healthy. We are concerned that our members--and the 
flying public--are being exposed to excessive and unnecessary health 
risks that could be avoided by clear government action.
    We believe that part of the reason is the failure of the airlines 
in following health and safety guidelines set forth by the FAA and the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Combined with the 
FAA's unwillingness to mandate compliance with the government's own 
guidance, this leaves our pilots exposed to unnecessary danger and 
poses systemic risks to the air transportation system. The FAA's 
failure to act as a safety regulator when Congress has granted it clear 
statutory authority to do so endangers employees, the public, and the 
effectiveness of the government's response to COVID-19.
    We have communicated our concerns to the FAA many times in recent 
weeks and while we were successful in getting FAA to issue guidance to 
the airlines using the CDC guidelines as a basis, FAA continues to 
refuse to mandate compliance by the airlines. As a result, compliance 
by the airlines continues to be voluntary and implementation is 
haphazard, inconsistent and confusing.
    Airline pilots are essential workers, yet we do not have uniform, 
reliable access to personal protective equipment. We have no assurance 
that our workplace has been cleaned and disinfected according to CDC 
guidance and with approved cleaning agents, and we are frequently told 
that disinfection supplies are unavailable. In addition, airline pilots 
are not consistently and properly notified when we may have been 
exposed to another employee who has tested positive for COVID-19 and 
are pushed to operate aircraft that may be contaminated.
    For example, we have many reports of pilots using their own supply 
of hand wipes to disinfect cockpit instruments because cleaning 
supplies are unavailable, multiple reports of visibly dirty cockpits 
which have been reported as ``cleaned'', and numerous instances of 
employees forced to stand shoulder to shoulder in company transport 
vans with no regard to social distancing protocols. There has also been 
a report of pilots flying with a flight attendant who did not call in 
sick because of fear of retaliation by the company and tested positive 
for COVID-19 several days later. Here is one example of a report 
submitted to ALPA:

        I contacted the company scheduling department by telephone that 
        I was ill & headed to the ER and would not be available for 
        work the next day. The ER diagnoses me as having COVID-19 
        (later proven correct when a POSITIVE result occurred on my 
        test kit from the ER). I called scheduling again in the early 
        morning and advised them that the hospital as well as the local 
        Health Department had advised me the entire crew should be 
        considered infected. Scheduling did not remove the rest of my 
        crew from their flights and they continued the rest of the 4-
        day trip. The company did not advise anyone I had flown with of 
        my diagnosis and their probable infection. I was forced to try 
        and reach out through friends of friends and other non-standard 
        sources to contact the multiple pilots and Flightcrew members I 
        had flown with to advise them of my confirmed positive 
        infection. The company refused to remove these pilots from 
        work, and most of them continued to be scheduled for work by 
        the company.

    As you consider necessary legislation to further address the health 
crisis and stimulate the economy, we urge you to prioritize the health, 
safety, and livelihoods of frontline airline workers, including pilots. 
Specifically, we ask Congress to direct the FAA to mandate that 
airlines comply with CDC and FAA guidelines related to aircraft and 
flight deck cleaning and disinfection, personal protective equipment 
for flight crews, and employee notification of test-positive cases in 
the workplace.
    We are mindful of the need to ensure the safety of all those who 
utilize and rely on our air transportation network which is why we 
support a requirement that all workers and passengers wear face masks 
in the aviation environment. We believe a holistic approach that 
ensures clean crews, clean aircraft and clean airports will help 
instill public confidence and a safe return to flying.
    As you undertake the difficult but necessary task of additional 
legislative measures to deal with the continuing impact of the 
pandemic, we also see an opportunity to execute needed technical 
corrections to the CARES Act to promote economic stability and to 
ensure that U.S. airline workers can contribute to our recovery in a 
meaningful way. We appreciate that under your leadership, the CARES 
Act, for the first time in U.S. history, provides financial assistance 
to airlines conditioned on promoting, rather than subordinating, the 
livelihoods of employees. In contrast, the financial assistance that 
was provided to air carriers after the attacks of September 11, 2001, 
did not flow through to employees, was heavily conditioned on eroding 
workers' collectively bargained wages and benefits, and protected 
airlines' shareholders at the expense of workers and the taxpayers. 
Airlines were free to reject, through a one-sided bankruptcy process, 
collective bargaining agreements and impose inequitable long-term 
conditions on their employees that endured far longer than the crisis. 
In the process, aviation workers conceded $83.5 billion in wage and 
retirement concessions, including the dissolution of almost every 
defined benefit pension plan. The CARES Act was crafted to avoid a 
repeat of these practices, but more must be done to safeguard hard-
working Americans in the airline industry.
    We anticipate the recovery from COVID-19 will be a lengthy process. 
Many airlines are expecting two to three years to sustainably return to 
pre-crisis levels, with a number of Wall Street analysts anticipating 
that it could take up to five years before we will see robust travel. 
We are concerned that airline workers who are protected under the CARES 
Act from involuntary furloughs and certain worker protections through 
September 30, 2020, may be faced with significant hardship and 
deficient safeguards if demand for air travel does not return both in 
the short and long term. As such, we urge you to extend worker 
protections and make necessary and appropriate reforms to the airline 
bankruptcy process to ensure that taxpayer relief to the airlines is 
not used to again facilitate disproportionate and long-term harm to 
employees during any airline restructuring. In addition, we believe 
that furloughed workers should be able to remain on employer health-
care plans at active employee rates.
    As you work toward additional COVID-19-related relief and economic 
stimulus legislation, we respectfully ask that you consider the 
perspective of frontline aviation employees and allow us the 
opportunity to collaborate with you to develop meaningful solutions to 
protect public health, U.S. jobs, and the global economy. Airline 
pilots are committed to working as equal partners with you and our 
airlines to navigate through these turbulent times. We know that 
working in partnership gives each of us the strongest opportunity for 
success on behalf of our passengers, shippers, and all who benefit from 
the U.S. air transportation system.
            Sincerely,
                                    Capt. Joseph G. DePete,
                                                         President.

    Senator Blumenthal. These articles document what we are 
hearing from our constituents, namely, they are receiving no 
cash refunds from canceled flights because they are given 
misleading and sometimes deceptive responses when they go to 
claim those cash refunds. Instead, they are given vouchers of 
questionable value. They need that cash in their pockets to put 
food on the table and pay their rent and utilities and they 
feel betrayed.
    So when you come to us and ask for more assistance, my mind 
goes back to the bailout we've just given you, more than $25 
billion in taxpayer money, and now in effect you are continuing 
to mislead and deceive those taxpayers who have given you that 
bailout.
    In effect, you are, forgive me, screwing the very taxpayers 
whose money is going into your pockets and you're giving 
basically no relief if those passengers on their own have to 
cancel flights out of a concern for public health.
    So I think that you come to this committee, and I'm 
speaking not about you personally, please don't take it 
personally, but the industry comes to this committee with a 
history. It's a history of bumping passengers, multiplying 
fees, shrinking seats, taking tax breaks and using them for 
stock buybacks and executive compensation, and I think getting 
those passengers back into your seats is going to depend on 
trust and credibility which you are failing to earn back.
    You won't get passengers back in your seats. Your companies 
won't be back on their feet. You won't get those planes back in 
the skies unless you regain trust and credibility and the 
policies that you have on refunds, which is basically to 
mislead consumers into taking vouchers or denying them any 
refunds if they themselves have to cancel those flights, I 
think, is leading you down a very, very dangerous path.
    I would be eager to hear your response.
    Mr. Calio. Thank you, Senator. First of all, Senator, I 
appreciate and understand your concerns, and if a passenger 
under current law and regulation is entitled to a cash refund, 
they are getting it, and if they are offered a voucher that has 
been clarified by DOT, instead it shouldn?t happen. It ought to 
be clear to them that they're entitled to a refund under 
current law.
    They're basically two bad choices here, however. It's been 
said that we should ignore or change the current law and 
regulation so that any passenger that cancels is entitled to a 
refund.
    I'll just lay it out there for you. Right now, negative 
revenue exceeds bookings. So that's where we're bleeding that 
cash every day. So you have one choice. You could insist that 
everybody get a refund who canceled the flight themselves 
instead of a voucher or you can drive the companies toward 
bankruptcy which would happen very quickly at the rate things 
are going in terms of the revenue coming in and the refunds.
    For all of our members right now, refunds are exceeding 
revenues and so if we want to protect the airline employees and 
keep us in business, it's really, I guess, a Hobson's choice. 
Is that the term? I truly regret that, but I don't think we're 
misleading anybody.
    I do know there were reports maybe four or 5 weeks ago 
where passengers were encouraged to take vouchers instead of 
refunds when we canceled the flight. I do not believe that is 
happening anymore.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, I can just tell you these reports 
are very recent. The Wall Street Journal's report is from last 
week. The calls I'm getting from my constituents are literally 
within 24-48 hours, and as you point out, there is a Federal 
law that requires you not only to make the refunds but, in my 
view, to tell passengers about those cash refunds.
    That's part of what you're failing to do and it may be 
painful, it may be inconvenient, but you are being sued, United 
and a number of other companies, now in court because they're 
violating that legal obligation. You have a Notice of 
Enforcement from DOT April 3.
    Mr. Calio. Correct.
    Senator Blumenthal. Of course, they have delayed any 
enforcement action and you have a moral and a political 
obligation to do the right thing here because you're coming 
back for more money. That's taxpayer money and those taxpayers 
are the ones who ultimately are suffering from these practices.
    So you are killing the goose that lays the golden egg for 
you.
    Mr. Calio. Senator, if I could clarify----
    The Chairman. Mr. Calio, if you could answer briefly, we've 
allowed considerable leeway in this series.
    Mr. Calio. All I was going to say is in no way did I 
mention that we were coming back for more money. It's the hope 
of our members that this money we got previously and the loan 
program already in place would be the bridge to the future that 
we need and not have to come back and ask for more money.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Lee, you are next.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to 
all of you for being here.
    This has been a really difficult time for our country and 
we want to find solutions to make it better.
    Mr. Calio, I'd like to start with you. The CARES Act 
provided a rather considerable amount of funding for airlines 
in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and cash assistance, but 
the CARES Act also authorizes the U.S. Department of 
Transportation to require that air carriers maintain scheduled 
flights that were in place prior to March 1, 2020.
    Given the drop in passengers that we've experienced due to 
travel restrictions and other government-imposed mandates, does 
the requirement that you have to maintain air service at pre-
COVID-19 levels and based on pre-COVID-19 flights, does that 
make sense, and does it allow the airline industry to 
restructure and do what else it needs to do in order to 
respond?
    Mr. Calio. Thank you, Senator. That's a very good question.
    First of all, we would like to commend Secretary Chao and 
her staff. They have been wonderful partners, both in the 
passage of the Act and trying to work with us on the essential 
air service. It is part of the CARES Act. It is causing an 
awful lot of planes to be flown with no passengers, one 
passenger, five passengers. That does not help any kind of 
liquidity problems and our employees in the long run.
    The law also says it should be reasonable and practicable 
in terms of the continuation of service. We hope for a closer 
look, and a rationalization, at the reasonable and practicable 
language, both on behalf of our crews and the industry.
    It doesn't make sense when you've got multiple carriers 
flying multiple flights into places where there is no demand.
    Senator Lee. Right. So, in other words, if you've got 
flights that are continuing to take off, especially if those 
are redundant of other flights, be they from the same carrier 
or another one, and these multiple flights are each operating 
with no passengers or very, very few passengers, in the end, 
tell me how that harms the consumer of airline services, of 
airline tickets.
    Mr. Calio. It harms the consumer because the recovery will 
be longer, the chance of keeping the most employees onboard 
will be undermined, and if you want to look at it from an 
environmental point of view, we shouldn't be flying airplanes 
that are empty.
    Senator Lee. Sure. When we look at it from the taxpayer 
standpoint, we've set aside a certain amount of money to help 
with this crisis.
    Wouldn't those same dollars go a lot farther if we allowed 
additional flexibility for airlines to take into account 
flights as to which there's no demand?
    Mr. Calio. Yes, sir, they would.
    Senator Lee. I think there is something of a false argument 
that the aviation industry cares nothing about health and 
safety of its customers or of its employees. That, of course, 
ignores a fundamental truth that unhealthy customers and 
employees means that you go out of business.
    I mean, it stands to reason that if you mistreat those who 
are your customers or your employees, either one of them, 
especially both of them, it's not going to be good for 
business. Am I out on a limb here or does this reflect what you 
see within the industry?
    Mr. Calio. No, Senator, we do not see you as out on a limb. 
We make the case all the time. Passengers and shippers have 
been voting with their feet, so to speak. Two and a half 
million passengers a day. So, I always tell the story, I was 
born in the 1950s in Cleveland, Ohio. Where I grew up, nobody 
was able to get on an airplane ever.
    The first time I flew was when I was being recruited for a 
sport in college and I flew two times after that until I 
graduated law school because we couldn't afford it.
    It's been more accessible and more affordable and the 
Deregulation Act has helped. We care deeply about our 
customers. The level of satisfaction last year was the highest 
ever by the J.D. Power study, not something that we produced.
    So there's, you know, two sides of this equation and 
somewhere the facts bear out about our customers and our 
employees.
    Senator Lee. Last I checked, the airline industry is still 
heavily regulated, not in the same way that it was prior to 
deregulation when, as you pointed out, air travel was 
unaffordable for nearly all Americans, but it's still heavily 
regulated, right?
    Mr. Calio. I think, if I recall correctly, 13 agencies, 
20,000 regulations.
    Senator Lee. Yes. And so if we were to add to those 
regulations right now, we were to compound the regulatory 
compliance costs, what does that do to the affordability of air 
travel?
    Mr. Calio. It decreases the affordability and increases the 
price.
    Senator Lee. And in the end, what impact would that have on 
the health of the American people if they can't travel?
    Mr. Calio. I think the American people would be 
disappointed. Many people get angry if a flight's late or 
something like that happens. But you take big machines, or 
weather, things happen. There are mechanical delays and we 
won't put a flight in the air if it's not safe for our 
passengers or our crew, and personally, I believe that people 
have taken flying for granted for some time. It still thrills 
me every time I get on an airplane because maybe, you know, 
growing up I couldn't do it, but I think it's going to be a 
real change in the American people's lives and our customers' 
lives with the restrictions that are in place now on air travel 
just out of necessity because of this pandemic and because of 
what's going to happen in terms of demand and potentially cost 
later.
    Senator Lee. One day I look forward to having other 
conversations that are more favorable circumstances on ways 
that we can diminish unnecessary talking on the public address 
system by flight attendants, the use of unnecessary terms like 
at this time, and the famed repetition of the same warnings 
over and over again, but for now, we're going to have to leave 
it at that, given the amount of time.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Calio. Thank you, Senator.
    The Chairman. Senator Lee, how would we get around the 
antitrust problems in doing what you suggested? I think all of 
us would be happy to find a way not to have empty planes.
    Senator Lee. Oh, yes. I was hoping you were talking about 
the unnecessary talking about flight attendants on the public 
address system.
    Yes. There is a complicated relationship between regulated 
industries and competition. In the railroad industry, you've 
got an excessive, elaborate system of regulations that inhibits 
competition. You've got corresponding exemptions from a number 
of otherwise applicable antitrust laws. The same thing could be 
a model for this industry.
    Now I'm not suggesting that anyone ought to simply shut 
down their flights, but what I am saying is that there ought 
not be artificial constraints by which we require an airline to 
continue operating air service for which there is no demand. 
There needs to be some flexibility on the part of the airlines 
because if there is not, we're going to burn through that money 
that much more quickly and we're going to make air travel that 
much less affordable.
    The Chairman. Surely we can think that through. Thank you 
very much.
    Senator Udall, you are joining us remotely and you are 
recognized, sir.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Udall. Thank you. Is my video on?
    The Chairman. We know what you look like.
    Senator Udall. Chairman Wicker, thank you so much.
    I think this is directed at Mr. Fanning and then maybe Mr. 
Calio, but we're hearing some calls from some industries that 
they want to be protected from paying damages to their 
employees and customers who get sick due to the lack of COVID 
protections.
    After receiving tens of billions of taxpayer support, are 
the airlines asking to expand liability protection and, if so, 
what specific and binding safety and consumer protection 
standards would the industry agree to in exchange for expanding 
protection from liability?
    Mr. Calio and Mr. Fanning, would you both give that a shot 
quickly because I want to come back on one more question here?
    Mr. Calio. Senator, I'm going to come back by saying that I 
will come back to you on that. I didn't realize until yesterday 
that this issue had arisen and I don't like to talk about 
things that I don't know about. So if I can get back to you in 
writing?
    Senator Udall. This is a big issue. I would prefer you tell 
me what you think today. We have you here before us. Tell us 
what you think.
    Mr. Calio. Senator, I'm not capable of answering the 
question appropriately. I'm sorry.
    Senator Udall. How about Mr. Fanning and the other airline 
witnesses?
    Mr. Fanning. Senator, I would just say that I don't think--
the conversation's at an early stage. Anybody that I know is 
not thinking about this type of protection or exemption for 
people that aren't following very strict safety rules, 
regulations, at a minimum what we hear from CDC and OSHA, but I 
know it's a concern for members of my association, particularly 
small businesses that don't necessarily have the resources to 
confront something like this.
    We have a member of our executive committee who has a 
business with 110 people and she says this keeps her up at 
night and scares her to death and so I would welcome having a 
conversation about this, but I think at a minimum this is for 
people that are adhering to the highest safety standards.
    Senator Udall. Yes. Would you--would all of the airline 
witnesses, would you agree to everything that Dr. Godwin has 
outlined in her testimony? She's given very specific and strong 
HEPA filters, disinfect between flights, flight manifests so 
that public health people can get into contact tracing. 
Everybody wears masks, physical distancing and overall reducing 
density on planes and in airports. Would you all agree to that? 
Those sound like good public health measures.
    Mr. Calio. Senator, those are good issues to discuss. We 
have already implemented or are implementing many of them. 
We're continuing to discuss them with our regulators. We're 
happy to discuss them with the Congress, as well. They're all 
things that need to be looked at and we will look at them. But 
to sign off on it, after a single hearing, just having heard 
them 30 minutes ago, I don't think is something I'm going to do 
today.
    Senator Udall. Mr. Fanning, how about you?
    Mr. Fanning. Senator, I would say airplanes already have 
HEPA filters on them. Just in a larger sense, if we don't get 
the safety issue right, the whole thing falls apart. If you 
think about the sequence here of the manufacturers building the 
plane, the airports being where you get on the planes, and the 
airlines flying the planes, if any one element of that doesn't 
get the safety aspect right, then people aren?t going to fly, 
and so it has to be a priority and I think it is a priority for 
everyone certainly in the manufacturing sector.
    Senator Udall. Thank you very much. I would yield back.
    The Chairman. What percentage of the planes have HEPA 
filters?
    Mr. Fanning. I think it's virtually all of them, but I can 
get you the exact number and by breakdown.
    The Chairman. OK. Well, please do that.
    Next, we have Senator Tester joining us remotely.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Tester. Well, I just have to say, first of all, 
thanks for everybody testifying and thank you for having this 
hearing, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
    Mr. Calio, I guess the first thing I would say, and this 
kind of goes off of Senator Lee's questions, is you guys can 
reduce flights. You just don't have to have this same level of 
service. You can reduce it.
    For example, from Great Falls, Montana, to Minneapolis, if 
you so choose, you don't have to have that be a direct flight. 
You can go through Salt Lake and up to Minneapolis, isn't that 
correct?
    Mr. Calio. Senator, that's partially correct. To my 
knowledge, it depends on filing for the exemption and how the 
DOT rules on that exemption.
    Senator Tester. OK. Because I'm here to tell you from 
personal experience that we don't have near the service in 
Montana now that we had 2 months ago. I mean, it's 
significantly less. For example, I had to fly--I mean, I had to 
drive 250 miles to get on a flight to get here. Otherwise, I 
would have had to get on a plane on Sunday and stay overnight 
to get here. But I'm from Montana and it's a rural state and 
I'll get to those in a second.
    The first question I have for you, though, Mr. Calio, is 
Congress has invested significant taxpayer dollars into the 
airlines. It's made significant investment, and it's important 
that the airlines that are relying on this cash are held 
accountable under the rules that Congress has put into place.
    Can I get a commitment from you that your association will 
work with Congress to ensure that all the airlines that you 
represent comply with congressional oversight of the CARES Act?
    Mr. Calio. Absolutely.
    Senator Tester. Good. I told you a minute ago I was from 
Montana. We're a rural state----
    Mr. Calio. I know that, Senator.
    Senator Tester.--and my concern is we're going to be 
disproportionately affected when air service comes back on and 
I would tell you that could have an enormous impact on our 
economy, on our business community, on our recreation economy, 
just go down the line.
    There have been a number of flights that have canceled, a 
bunch of flights that have been canceled, and I happen to live 
in Central Montana, which has kind of felt the brunt of it 
because I think my nearest airport is the fourth or fifth 
busiest in the state.
    But the question is, when we weather this storm, I am 
concerned that financial decisions will be made and we will 
still not have the service that we had before the COVID crisis.
    What are your recommendations to make sure that Rural 
America is not cutoff after this crisis is over?
    Mr. Calio. Senator, I guess what I would say is the reason 
you had the flights you had prior to this pandemic was because 
there was demand for those flights. If that demand comes back, 
I guarantee you you'll have the flights.
    Senator Tester. Yes. Well, the question becomes--and this 
applies to the economy as a whole. I believe until we get 
testing and ultimately a vaccine, that demand is going to be 
diminished and if in fact people think that flights are not--if 
they think they can contract coronavirus on a flight that will 
also push it back.
    So what is the plan to be able to make sure that that 
consumer confidence is there in flying to make sure that those 
numbers do bounce back?
    Mr. Calio. The plan is currently being executed and it's 
some of the things that I mentioned before, Senator Tester.
    The increased cleaning, which is substantial, the spacing 
people out where there's room to do it and before there's a 
vaccine or testing.
    Senator Tester. If you could stop just there for a second? 
This is tough doing it by videoconference. But if in fact we're 
going to have spacing within the airplane and if in fact we've 
got to have the demand back to where it was before because most 
every flight I flew out of Great Falls to Minneapolis or Salt 
Lake were packed to the gills, but if we're going to have 
spacing, they can't be packed to the gills and so how can I 
assume that we're still going to have that level of service and 
you're still going to have spacing and you're not going to have 
the numbers in that 70-passenger airplane? You might only have 
35 or 40 people that have proper spacing.
    Mr. Calio. Senator, I was addressing your question about 
instilling confidence and right now, while we're in the midst 
of the pandemic without any vaccine, without sufficient testing 
and a variety of other items, we have the--I guess I would call 
it the luxury of spacing. So we're doing that to help people 
feel like they can get back on the plane.
    I said earlier that we would not be for keeping all the 
seats open, that we can't space forever. That would be the same 
thing in terms of a movie theater, Broadway.
    Senator Tester. I hear you. I understand what you're 
saying. The question I have from a rural perspective, the fact 
that we've had service--and I'm not arguing that it shouldn't 
have been reduced. I mean, if the demand isn't there, it should 
be reduced.
    But the bottom line is, if you're going to have people that 
have faith in the airlines and you expect the numbers to be 
back up where they were pre-COVID before you bring those 
flights back, those two are counter to one another.
    Mr. Calio. Senator, I'm sorry. I missed the last part of 
what you said.
    Senator Tester. What I said was is that they seem to be 
opposites, going against one another. If in fact we have to 
have the numbers back to get the flights schedule back we had 
before COVID and if in fact you have to have spacing to have 
the kind of luxury you had and the fact that we're a year or 
year and a half out at a minimum for a vaccine for this, how 
can we expect places like Montana and it may apply to other 
places, too, by the way, ever have the ability to have the 
flights we had before, say, the first of March?
    Mr. Calio. Again, I think it'll be a product of demand and 
it's going to be a product of a private sector/public sector 
combination, everyone working to instill confidence in the 
public, and the way you instill confidence in the public is 
look across in this particular case the health system to make 
sure that people are comfortable and that we can do everything 
we can to make them comfortable and confident in flying.
    Senator Tester. OK. Well, I would just tell you I hope that 
there's some liberty given to the rural states on re-
establishing these flights. Otherwise, it's going to be an 
economic killer.
    Mr. Calio. Yes, sir.
    Senator Tester. Not that we haven't been through enough 
already, but airlines, as you well know, Mr. Calio, are very 
important to our economy. That's why the money was put forth in 
the CARES Act.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Tester, I like the haircut. I 
understand it took you 7 weeks to grow that head of hair.
    Senator Tester. When I grow up, I want to look like you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I think you look 20 years younger.
    We have Senator Duckworth next.

              STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Two months ago, the Aviation Subcommittee held a hearing 
about the role of aviation in containing the spread of 
infectious disease. At that time, Illinois had identified four 
individuals who testified positive for COVID-19. A mere 63 days 
later, 65,962 Illinoisans have contracted COVID-19 and my state 
has confirmed that 2,838 are known to have tragically died from 
this terrible pandemic and my heart breaks for every family and 
every individual touched by this pandemic, both medically and 
economically.
    So it's now clear that many of the systems we take for 
granted, including our aviation network, were not adequately 
prepared for this pandemic, despite having dealt with H1N1, 
MERS, and Ebola in recent years.
    Congress provided the aviation industry with a $60 billion 
bailout at the same time that President Trump stubbornly 
refused to support a single dollar to protect the 500,000 
United States Postal Service employees whose mission is 
enshrined in the Constitution.
    Leader McConnell suggests that states and cities that 
employ millions of Americans should use the bankruptcy route, 
whatever that means.
    I voted for the CARES Act to protect workers. I will vote 
on future relief efforts based on how it helps workers.
    Our aviation workforce was especially at risk in March and 
continues to be, but this uncertainty extends to every corner 
of our economy and every community in our Nation.
    I hope that Senators on both sides of the aisle can 
continue to work together on reasonable solutions that protect 
and reinforce the livelihoods of all of our neighbors, not just 
a few.
    The aviation industry is not alone in its struggles to 
endure this deadly pandemic but it has received significant 
support ahead of many other deserving Americans.
    With that said, I want to associate myself with the 
comments of Senator Cantwell and others who highlighted a 
potential mismatch between Senate Democrats' intent to protect 
workers through the CARES Act and how that dynamic is playing 
out in agreements between airlines and the Treasury Department.
    Mr. Calio, this is a complicated topic, but I want your 
commitment that you will continue to work with me and other 
Senators to make sure all the facts are available and that the 
issue is resolved. Thank you.
    Mr. Fanning, it has been 6 weeks since Congress passed the 
bipartisan CARES Act, yet many of your members are still 
waiting on the Treasury Department to finalize their loan 
applications.
    I worked closely with Senators Inhofe, Durbin, Moran, and 
Young to ensure that MRO companies that maintain and repair 
commercial aircraft were specifically eligible for loans in the 
relief package.
    Yet the furloughs that CARES Act was designed to prevent 
are still happening because Treasury is not approving 
applications in a timely manner. Airline contractors and 
catering companies are in the same boat.
    Mr. Fanning, I assume you're as frustrated as I am. What 
are your members telling you about Treasury's process and the 
consequences of current bureaucratic delays?
    Mr. Fanning. Well, it's a herculean task, I'm sure, what 
the Department of Treasury is facing, but in some instances, 
the rules took longer than in other instances to be established 
and to get out to businesses for them to decide whether they 
were eligible for this.
    This is an area where it's been a little bit slower than 
other areas and I'm glad you're highlighting it. It's an 
enormous workforce that often gets forgotten in the aviation 
industry.
    Congress moved very quickly for which we're very 
appreciative, but, of course, when we move at that speed, we 
see where there are gaps and some things were missed that we're 
addressing in this next wave.
    For example, a lot of maintenance work is not done at the 
airport or even on the plane and they weren't covered in the 
legislation, in the rules, and we're trying to get that fixed 
in the next wave, but thank you for keeping attention on this.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I'd ask Mr. Calio and 
Mr. Fanning to briefly share their thoughts about the FCC's 
recent decision to approve Legato Network's application to use 
L Band Spectrum for a 5G network.
    While the FCC's decision was unanimous, no less than a 
dozen Federal agencies, including DoD, DHS, and DOT, opposed 
the effort, saying it could harm our global positioning system.
    Mr. Fanning. Senator, we are strongly supportive of the 
development, deployment of 5G technology. We're all going to 
use it in our businesses, but we strongly oppose this decision. 
We think a decision impacting spectrum, especially an important 
one like this, should be based on data, and there are numerous 
tests showing clearly that there's interference on GPS that has 
national security implications.
    It has implications for air transportation. It has 
implications for everyone's life every single day, and we know, 
we have proven that there's interference there, and so we would 
like to have this decision changed and have a discussion about 
how to find room on the spectrum for 5G again that we'll all be 
relying on.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Mr. Calio, did you want to 
say something?
    Mr. Calio. Senator, Airlines for America would associate 
itself with Mr. Fanning's comments.
    We're opposed to the FCC's decision. It needs to be 
reconsidered or it needs to be corrected. There are some 
significant concerns and implications here that apparently the 
FCC, unlike many other agencies involved and departments 
involved, did not consider.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
    Senator Cruz.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this hearing on this critically important topic.
    Welcome to each of the witnesses. Thank you for being here.
    Mr. Calio, let me say I like the beard. It is a very strong 
look in a time of crisis to have a literal and figurative gray 
beard here advising us. It gives gravitas and wisdom to this 
gathering.
    Mr. Calio. Thank you, Senator. I knew somehow that you 
would approve it.
    Senator Cruz. So let's talk, first of all, about contact 
tracing. As you're well aware since the beginning of this 
crisis, Federal agencies have been attempting to mandate that 
your members collect data on passengers for contact tracing and 
that's obviously important for stopping the spread of a 
pandemic but there are serious logistical hurdles to executing 
upon that.
    As you know, on March 4, which seems like a lifetime ago, I 
chaired a subcommittee hearing on the coronavirus and its 
impact on aviation and during that hearing, I asked 
Administration officials if it would make sense for the 
government to run and maintain an online portal to compile 
passenger data, and the airlines, as I understand it, had 
offered to cover the startup costs for that but have it 
developed by a third party vendor and stood up online.
    I sent a letter subsequently with Senator Sinema to the 
Administration asking for the development of a secure app and 
web platform and the response we received from HHS and Homeland 
Security and DOT was less than encouraging and that's why 
Senator Sinema and I are together working on bipartisan 
legislation that would have the government implement a secure 
portal for contact tracing instead of trying to force the 
carriers to carry out that function.
    In your judgment, what's the right way to do this and how 
can we keep people safe and be effective at it?
    Mr. Calio. Thank you, Senator. We want to thank you and 
Senator Sinema for getting involved in this. It's been a source 
of great frustration to us. We've been trying to work with the 
CDC on this for some time, as you know. We have not been able 
to get our questions answered.
    We believe this is a government function and the best way 
to get the information and transmit the information is for the 
government to collect it. Currently, we are unable under our 
current systems to collect all the information they say that 
they want.
    Born out of that frustration, we did go to a third party 
vendor and we did get a mobile app and a website set up that so 
far it looks like it works and can get the information.
    We have offered to gift that to the government because we 
don't think it's appropriate for us to have all of that 
information. You know, we only sell 50 percent of our own 
tickets. So if somebody comes back to us and says that my e-
mail address is [email protected], we don't have a 
real way to check that. We don't know, we can't find out if 
they have a second phone number or not.
    So if you want the information quickly and want to transmit 
it quickly so it can be effective, this should be run by the 
government who can require that the information be provided.
    What they have asked us to do would take 12 months, 14 
months if we could do it, we will do it, but it's not going to 
do anything for this pandemic. Meanwhile, there are solutions 
right at hand. Along the way, we learned that the CDC actually 
has a website set up, but as far as we know, it's not being 
used.
    So there are some questions to be answered here, but we 
ought to be seeking solutions and doing them in the quickest 
and best way possible.
    Senator Cruz. Well, thank you for that, and we'll continue 
to work together to try to implement a system that is safe and 
effective.
    As everyone on this committee is well aware, the economic 
consequences of this pandemic have been devastating across the 
country and across the world, but aviation in particular has 
been hammered at an extraordinary level.
    In fact, I saw recent statistic that, to name just one of 
the major carriers, United Airlines is on pace to fly fewer 
people in the entire month of May 2020 than they flew in just 
any single day in May 2019. That is extraordinary. It is 
putting an enormous threat to millions of jobs across our 
country and all of us are united in wanting to be sure when we 
come out of this crisis and we will come out of this crisis 
that we have a strong and robust commercial aviation sector.
    Critical to that is people being safe when they fly and 
feeling safe when they fly.
    My question, Mr. Calio, is, is what should we be doing as 
we transition into reopening the economy, as we hopefully move 
out of this crisis, what should we be doing to enhance consumer 
confidence, to help people feel comfortable and safe, and are 
there steps government should be doing to bring the flying 
public back and be willing to get on airplanes and travel?
    Mr. Calio. For all of us, I think it's making a visible 
display and an understandable display of the steps that we are 
taking, both the government and the airlines, the airports, and 
the manufacturers, to protect the health of our customers and 
the flying public, and it goes broader than that actually.
    I think that is the first and the biggest step and there 
are many things that can be done. It's working in concert with 
each other to look at what, based on science and data, will 
help.
    Candidly, we are doing some polling and focus group work on 
a consistent basis to find out what people really think and 
what it's going to take to get them back on the airplane, you 
know, the combination of factors. We'd be happy to offer that 
briefing to anyone on this committee who would like it.
    But there has got to be a series of steps taken that ensure 
the health of the flying public down the line. We're all in 
uncharted territory. We all want to keep all our employees 
working, but this hasn't happened before, and if we had all the 
answers, it'd be a little easier, but we're going day by day 
but trying to make rational decisions based upon what we 
believe will happen, what we hope will happen, and how we can 
help it to happen.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cruz.
    Senator Markey, joining us remotely.

               STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and 
thank everyone who is making this entire day possible. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Calio, the airlines right now are refusing to give a 
refund to passengers who have canceled their own flights during 
this coronavirus pandemic. Understandably, families have great 
health concerns. They don't want to put their families in 
jeopardy. They've canceled.
    But the airlines are saying they don't want to give that 
money back to those families, that they want to give them a 
voucher for some future flight, but for families right now, 
that money in their pocket for food, for housing, for other 
necessities is absolutely invaluable.
    So, Mr. Calio, can you explain why the airlines are 
unwilling to just give that cash back to passengers and let 
them decide when they would want to ever fly again and give 
them that extra cash which they need for their families right 
now?
    Mr. Calio. Yes, Senator, I will try. First of all, we 
understand your concern. We understand our passengers' concern. 
We work with our passengers to try to meet their needs and 
their circumstances on this.
    There's no good answer here. There are two bad choices. We 
could refund. As you know, under the current law and 
regulation, if you cancel your own flight, you are entitled to 
a voucher and it depends on what kind of ticket you buy and a 
variety of other things.
    If we cancel the flight, you are entitled to a cash refund. 
We are currently sticking to the regulations as we have to for 
a very simple reason. We want to preserve the jobs in our 
industry. We want to be part of the economic recovery.
    As I explained earlier, right now refunds going out the 
door, and cash refunds exceed the revenue we are taking in by a 
significant amount. We're losing between $350 and $400 million 
a day.
    Senator Markey. No, I appreciate that, but Spirit and 
Allegiant have given refunds back to their passengers in this 
same situation, and my feeling is that using these passengers 
as the way in which the airlines are able to get a cash-flow is 
a situation where you're putting these families in a belt-
tightening situation. They have to make tough choices for their 
families.
    So again, Mr. Calio, I recommend very strongly to you that, 
given the Federal Government's help to the airlines, that the 
airlines should in turn try to help these passengers. Give them 
their money back. I think that would be the right thing to do. 
They need it just as much as the airlines do right now. It's 
just a very difficult situation all around, I appreciate that, 
but they're not flying because of the public health catastrophe 
which has hit our country. They deserve to have that. I would 
just say that to you, Mr. Calio, and that's something that I 
think is a very important thing to do.
    In the days to come, we have to address an unprecedented 
series of immediate and long-term challenges to securing the 
health and safety of the flying public. Just a small sample 
includes requiring all air travelers to wear face masks and 
securing personal protective equipment for crew members 
performing boarding and security lines in the age of social 
distancing, enhancing cleaning procedures for airlines and 
airports, for flying passenger health screenings while 
protecting privacy and preparing for the potential seasonal 
reoccurrence of the coronavirus.
    It will take a lot more than one hearing to address these 
challenges and to prepare for a new normal in air travel after 
the pandemic subsides. That's why Senator Blumenthal and I have 
introduced the Restoring Safety in the Skies Act. The 
legislation instructs the Departments of Health and Human 
Services, Homeland Security, and Transportation to establish a 
joint task force, including airports, airlines, aviation 
workers, public health experts, security officials, and more, 
who will provide the emergency and long-term plans we need for 
the future of air travel.
    So, Mr. Hauptli, do you agree that we urgently need an 
expert task force to help secure the health and safety of the 
flying public?
    Mr. Hauptli. Senator Markey, thank you for the question, 
and thank you for summarizing the challenges facing the 
industry going forward.
    Mr. Calio and I speak regularly along with the FAA 
Administrator, the TSA Administrator, airports, airlines, 
collectively. We are already doing that, but we do believe that 
consistent Federal guidance is necessary and so your 
legislation putting together a task force would, in my mind, 
sort of codify what we're already doing at this point and so we 
would be supportive of that effort.
    We need CDC, HHS, DHS, TSA, DOT, FAA, airports, airlines, 
the whole ecosystem working together. As Mr. Calio said 
earlier, unprecedented challenges for the industry and we're 
all going to need to work together to solve the problem.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Markey.
    Senator Markey. Thank you. I think we should do it as 
quickly as possible to make sure that it's formalized and 
reporting back to the Congress.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
    Senator Fischer.

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

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calio, I would like to know what airlines are doing to 
maintain their current contractual obligations. I've heard from 
airline contractors, such as those that provide ground handling 
services, that airlines are demanding reduced or delayed 
payments on current contracts.
    However, on April 30, the Treasury reported that it began 
disbursing funding from the CARES Act to airlines. Treasury has 
yet to provide similar CARES Act relief to contractors and 
that's another issue.
    So on the one hand, we have airlines and they're beginning 
to receive their CARES Act funding and, on the other, they're 
requesting concessions from contractors and while I certainly 
understand that airlines are in a difficult place financially 
through no fault of their own, so are those they have contracts 
with.
    Now that airlines are receiving CARES Act support, will 
airlines maintain their contractual obligations, such as those 
with ground handling service providers?
    Mr. Calio. Senator, I'm going to have to get back to you on 
that because that's a problem I have not heard of. To my 
knowledge, our carriers maintain their contractual obligations. 
Certainly, I've heard nothing about this.
    Senator Fischer. OK. We will definitely give you 
information on that probably before you get out the door today. 
Thank you very much.
    Mr. Hauptli, FAA programs, such as entitlement funding in 
the Airport Improvement Program, is based on previous levels of 
enplanements at airports.
    However, as you noted for the Lincoln Airport in Nebraska, 
enplanements at airports are down as much as 95 percent.
    What do you expect the impact on FAA grant programs, like 
AIP entitlement funding, will be if this year's enplanements 
are used to calculate AIP funding the next couple of years?
    Mr. Hauptli. Senator, thank you for the question. It goes 
right to the heart of what we were talking about earlier in 
terms of the need for flexibility going forward because you're 
exactly correct.
    If we use this year as a baseline, everything blows up. We 
can't do that. So we're going to need flexibility. The FAA has 
been great so far in administratively being flexible. If 
necessary, we may need legislative assistance in that regard.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you. And as you probably know, I'm 
also a strong supporter of the Essential Air Service Program. 
It provides a vital connection to seven of our communities in 
the state of Nebraska.
    What kind of challenges do you think that these small 
airports, such as those in the Essential Air Service Program, 
are going to face in retaining their commercial air service 
during and also after the pandemic?
    We've seen some really optimistic improvements in the 
Essential Air Service that we have in the state of Nebraska. We 
have good partners in those programs and I would hate to see us 
go backward in these really worthwhile programs that are so 
important in a state that has the vastness like mine.
    Mr. Hauptli. Senator, we agree completely with you. You've 
been a very strong supporter of the Essential Air Service 
Program. It's a vital link to making sure that all Americans 
have access to the aviation system and so that's something 
we're watching very closely. Very important issue and we'll 
need to be very careful and cognizant as we move forward and 
travel returns that everyone has access to the system.
    Senator Fischer. You know, we want to make sure that we can 
continue to keep that commercial air service that we have. We 
have good partners and we really would hate to lose them. So I 
appreciate your help in addressing that.
    Mr. Calio, to what extent are the Airlines for America's 
members going to continue service to smaller communities after 
the CARES Act minimum requirements are gone, particularly for 
communities that were seeing an increasing number of those 
enplanements prior to the pandemic?
    Mr. Calio. Senator, that is a question that I can't answer. 
That's for my members to answer. They make those decisions on 
their own and it's something that A4A does not get involved on 
I mean ever.
    Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you very much.
    And, Mr. Fanning, it's nice to see you again. We had some 
interaction when you were Secretary of the Army and you would 
come before Armed Services Committee. So nice to see you, sir.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
    I am told that Dr. Godwin has had some problems with 
connectivity. Are you back on? Are you back in touch with us, 
Dr. Godwin?
    Dr. Godwin. Yes.
    The Chairman. OK. And also for those in the audience, there 
are two members of this committee who are having problems 
getting connected remotely and we continue to work with them 
but for now, let me just ask; Dr. Godwin, does it surprise you 
that Secretary Fanning says almost all of the airline aircraft 
already have HEPA filters?
    Dr. Godwin. That does surprise me, based on what I had 
read, although I would hope that he would be even better 
informed than I would be, given his position.
    The Chairman. That would be good news.
    Dr. Godwin. I'm sorry. What?
    The Chairman. I think we could agree that would be good 
news and we'd be a step farther along with your proposal.
    Dr. Godwin. Oh, absolutely. I think you're just closing the 
loop and making sure that those remaining planes are covered 
would be great.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you; if I am on a plane sitting 
three abreast and we all have a face mask, a proper face mask, 
to what extent am I at a greater risk? Are you able to quantify 
that, Doctor?
    Dr. Godwin. It really depends upon the type of face mask 
that you are wearing. So as you're probably aware, we have 
three different kinds of face coverings that we routinely see. 
The most protective is the N95 mask, which is currently we're 
really reserving for individuals who are at high risk of 
exposure, for instance, our medical professionals.
    The next category would be the surgical masks that you see, 
those disposable masks.
    The Chairman. Well, I have a mask on that most Senators are 
wearing. So how much protection is that going to give the folks 
next to me?
    Dr. Godwin. Yes. It's giving them more protection than they 
would have if you were not wearing anything. It's giving you a 
little bit of protection but it's not providing either you or 
them a huge amount of protection the way that we would see with 
N95 masks really protecting the user to a very large extent.
    So it's better than nothing and we want you to continue 
wearing them, particularly in circumstances where you can't 
have social distancing, but if you're talking about a situation 
where people are sitting for long periods of time in close 
proximity to each other, that mask, while good and we want you 
to wear it, it does not give you absolute protection from the 
people that are surrounding you.
    The Chairman. And if I'm wearing gloves that helps a lot, 
also?
    Dr. Godwin. So gloves are helpful if you are someone who's 
working, for instance, in the screening areas where they would 
be touching a lot of objects that a large number of people had 
touched and so we're trying to protect them but also give them 
the ability to quickly remove those gloves and get rid of the 
contamination.
    They are less helpful in general for respiratory pathogens 
because the main mechanism of transmission in this particular 
case is through droplets and then next aerosols. So they're not 
quite as helpful as having a mask would be and definitely not 
as helpful as sitting farther apart from each other, keeping 
that social distancing.
    The Chairman. And, Doctor, Senators and House members are 
working today for the most part in a hot zone, Washington, 
D.C., and then we fly out on Thursday afternoons and Friday 
mornings and go back to our constituencies in our various 
states. That being the case, from a public health standpoint, 
not from a personal safety standpoint, would you recommend that 
Senators and Representatives be tested here in Washington so 
that we can know which of us ought to be isolated here and not 
return home and spread this around to 50 states?
    Dr. Godwin. So unfortunately, the testing doesn't tell us 
whether or not you've been exposed and are incubating the virus 
but have not yet built up high enough levels in order to test 
positive on the test or exhibit symptoms.
    So you could test negative today, if we tested you, but 
still end up developing COVID-19 a couple of days from now due 
to an exposure that happened today or yesterday. So just doing 
a single test is not enough. This is why we have had to resort 
to this process of identifying people who have been in close 
proximity, in contact with individuals who are known to be 
infected and then asking them to self-quarantine, to self-
isolate, and to monitor their symptoms. That is part of the 
contact tracing approach.
    It would be fabulous if we could have a test that would 
tell you you've been exposed but that actually is not the way 
most of our infectious disease tests work. Most of them require 
that you have not only been exposed but also have built up 
enough of the pathogen in your system to be able to detect it.
    The Chairman. Thank you. That's very helpful.
    Senator Rosen now joins us remotely. You're good, yes. You 
look great.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Rosen. Oh, perfect. OK. First time on this one in 
the office.
    Thank you, Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell, for 
holding this hearing and thank you for the witnesses for being 
here. It certainly is trying times for all of us in so many 
ways.
    But today, I want to talk a little bit about the economic 
impact of the pandemic on our airports and tourism, of course, 
in Nevada. Our economy depends on travel and tourism from 
restaurants to those casinos on the Las Vegas Strip, our 
outdoor recreation business near Lake Tahoe and everywhere in 
between. That's why the economic shutdown caused by the 
coronavirus, of course, has been so devastating to us and in 
few places no more evident than this as the Gateway to Nevada, 
our airports.
    In 2019, Las Vegas McCarron International Airport saw over 
50 million passengers, generated nearly $35 billion in economic 
output, supported approximately a quarter of a million jobs, 
and was responsible for 18 percent of our area's gross domestic 
product. But in the wake of the pandemic, passenger totals have 
dropped precipitously.
    At the Reno Tahoe Airport, travel has been down 96 percent 
in the last several weeks. This travel slowdown means job 
losses not only at our hotels and our convention halls but at 
the airports themselves, including places we might not 
immediately think of, such as the numerous small business 
retailers and the restaurants that operate inside our airports.
    So, Mr. Hauptli, what other additional hidden costs this 
pandemic to airports might we be unaware of and what can we do 
as Members of Congress to address these challenges and then 
more broadly to everyone on the panel, when it is fully safe to 
travel again, how can we work to instill confidence in the 
American people that they can come back to places, like Las 
Vegas or Reno, for a convention, vacation, or business and how 
can Congress help you and help everyone do this?
    Mr. Hauptli. Senator Rosen, thank you very much for the 
question. You're right. Your state relies on tourism and 
everybody coming in to your state. In fact, we'll be having our 
annual conference in 2021 in Las Vegas. So we're very anxious 
to make sure we get this fixed and ready to go by next spring 
when we will be out and joining you in Las Vegas.
    The Las Vegas airport director sent me a note the other day 
saying that they're going to be down 50 percent at minimum in 
terms of their lost revenue. You point out that Reno Tahoe is 
down 96 percent in traffic. It's a major, major issue for not 
only the airports in your state but clearly the airports all 
around the country.
    AAAE and ACI, the two airport organizations; Mr. Calio's 
organization, A4A; and an array of travel and hotel groups have 
all gotten together under the umbrella of U.S. travel and put 
out some guidance that I think will be very useful for people, 
passengers, people visiting hotels as we reopen the economy to 
provide comfort for folks that it is safe to travel and safe to 
stay in hotels and safe to go back to conventions and 
conferences going forward.
    So you've identified a very, very serious issue and 
problem, and a big part of the economic engine that the country 
needs and certainly your state needs is aviation.
    Senator Rosen. And more broadly to everyone, if you could 
really answer what can we do to help you particularly meet some 
of these challenges, especially for the small businesses, 
businesses that are at our airports?
    Mr. Hauptli. Senator, I would say in a sense you've already 
started that process by passing the CARES Act. I think it's 
monitoring and providing oversight like this committee is doing 
here today, to continue to do that and monitor real-time 
problems and make sure that the solutions are going to work and 
not be ineffective because they have not been backed by data 
and science.
    I think a better way to say it is, you know, everybody 
working together to try to get to a solution on this and I'm 
particularly aggrieved, I have to tell you, Senator, because 
one of the first victims of this pandemic was my yearly trip to 
Las Vegas with all of my high school friends that we've been 
doing for probably 25 years.
    Senator Rosen. We want to welcome you back as soon as we 
can.
    Mr. Hauptli. We're looking forward to it. Senator, if I 
could just tack on to my earlier comment, we've asked in our 
testimony for not only an additional $10 billion or more for 
airports in the next round of assistance but also billions of 
dollars for general aviation, business aviation, and, very 
importantly, to your question, to concessionaires that are 
operating at airports. That whole aviation ecosystem is 
intertwined and there are concessionaires that are hurt very 
badly and dislocated by this crisis, as well.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rosen.
    Senator Sinema--Senator Rosen. Senator Sinema is now 
joining us by voice only. We've had some trouble with that 
connection, but are you able to hear us, Senator Sinema?

               STATEMENT OF HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

    Senator Sinema. I think I'm here, Chairman Wicker. Can you 
hear me?
    The Chairman. Yes. We can hear you fine. You are 
recognized.
    Senator Sinema. Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
holding this hearing on the State of the Aviation Industry.
    You know, this is an important opportunity to discuss what 
Congress can do in the coming weeks and months to protect 
highly skilled aviation industry jobs while also protecting the 
health of passengers, employees, and the American public.
    We've seen a substantial decline in air travel as people 
across the world listening to health care professionals have 
stayed at home. It's essential to help lessen the spread of the 
virus, but it also creates significant economic challenges for 
the aviation and aerospace industries.
    Back in March, as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation and Space, Senator Cruz and I held a hearing, 
Examining the Role of Global Aviation in Containing Infectious 
Diseases.
    Now is an appropriate time for us to further examine this 
issue as we now manage the dual challenge of keeping our 
aviation system intact while protecting the jobs and health of 
employees and passengers.
    In order to bend the curve of the virus and prevent a 
second wave, we need contact tracing systems in place, cleaning 
and hygiene standards, and a workforce that's both protected 
from the virus and ready to support the industry.
    I'm grateful for today's witnesses and look forward to us 
working together to keep Americans employed and our travelers 
safe.
    My first question is for Mr. Calio. Contact tracing, when 
properly established, can mitigate the spread of coronavirus 
and similarly communicable diseases. Local governments and 
states are setting up their programs now, and I'm working with 
Senator Cruz, stakeholders, and other Members of Congress on a 
solution for international travel to the U.S.
    This government-implemented system would allow information 
to be directly collected from travelers and provide for more 
complete, accurate, and timely collection of data.
    Our legislation will also ensure that all persons entering 
the U.S. are held to the same standard during a health 
emergency.
    Are there any issues air carriers encounter when they 
attempt to conduct contact tracing given our current systems 
and the way data is shared with the government, and can you 
provide a few examples?
    Mr. Calio. Yes, Senator, I can. First of all, I'd like to 
thank you and Senator Cruz for everything that you have been 
doing on contact tracing. It's a significant issue and it's 
something that we need to handle going forward not just in 
aviation but across the board to try to control the disease.
    Currently, as you know, we have a passenger name record and 
advance passenger information system where much of the data 
requested that the government would like to have cannot be 
verified by us. In some cases, it can. In many cases, it can't 
because we don't sell all of our own tickets. There are global 
distribution systems. There are travel agents and then there 
are other airlines where we have connecting passengers.
    We can't validate the e-mail address and we oftentimes 
don't usually get anything near the address, phone numbers or 
the physical address.
    We think this is a government function. It's one that can 
be easily handled. It needs to be required and it would work 
more quickly and better if the government were to do it.
    As you know, because I think you've seen the demonstration, 
the mobile app and website we created. I mentioned earlier and 
again we are happy to gift this to the government. I don't 
think that's all that complicated but something like this, you 
know, with our technology could be stood up pretty quickly, 
even accounting for privacy concerns, and it would be much 
better if we had all of that information, if the government 
agencies had it themselves rather than through an intermediary.
    Senator Sinema. Well, I appreciate that and we agree. Thank 
you.
    So my next question is for Mr. Fanning. Mr. Fanning, in 
recent years, Arizona has been a leader in attracting aerospace 
manufacturing. We just created thousands of high-paying jobs. 
This includes large and small manufacturers. We developed fixed 
wing aircraft, helicopters, defense systems, spacecraft, and, 
of course, do the maintenance, repair, and overhaul 
capabilities to supplement it.
    What impact is the virus having on the aerospace industry 
jobs in Arizona, and what can Congress do to help keep these 
jobs afloat during this difficult time?
    Mr. Fanning. Well, I think you've already done an enormous 
amount to help. The initial focus, as the Chairman said, it was 
on liquidity, on trying to keep money flowing through the 
supply chain and keep it working.
    Now as we see how serious this is, even more so than we 
realized 7 weeks ago, our focus is really turning and trying to 
maintain the workforce and what programs we can come up with 
together to get us over what is really a longer period of time 
than we initially imagined.
    So in the way forward, we are exploring that private/public 
partnership concept where both sides are putting money in in 
order to retain the at-risk workforce so that it's there when 
business picks up again.
    Senator Sinema. I appreciate that. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, my time's expired. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sinema.
    Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other than 
not being able to get the video from Senator Sinema, I want to 
thank our colleagues, Senators Klobuchar and Blunt, for their 
hard work on getting the system set up so our committee and 
other committees in the Senate could participate this way. This 
has been a great experience and great work by the people who 
are working the audio and video. So thank them for all of that.
    I wanted to go back to Mr. Fanning. I started at my opening 
round of questioning with this issue about the supply chain and 
losing a workforce that is hard to replace.
    One of the things that has come up in the implementation of 
the CARES Act is that the definition of national security has 
limited the applications. I think for all of us who have been 
thinking about these issues for some time, we think of lots of 
things as part of national security. We didn't specifically 
mean you actually are producing X number of product as a 
defense contract.
    I mean, in general, we think that airlines and having an 
airline sector is part of national security. So what do we need 
to do to fix that element of the language or what do we have to 
do to clarify because we were clear and so we're definitely 
going to communicate to Treasury about this.
    Mr. Fanning. Well, I think--thank you for that question. 
There were a number of issues that probably precluded companies 
from accessing that money.
    The rules came out rather late on that one, later than 
most, and companies were only given a week to apply. That 
caused some problems, but I think the main problem is what you 
highlighted. It was a very narrow definition of national 
security. It was what they call a rather wonky DX designation, 
which really limited it very severely and left out a lot of 
companies that anybody would argue are doing national security 
work.
    But DoD and the Treasury are working on that right now and 
refining that definition. So I think we'll make some progress 
on that and make those funds available to a larger pool of 
companies that are very clearly doing national security work.
    Senator Cantwell. So if you're part of the supply chain for 
commercial aviation, should that be part of the national 
defense?
    Mr. Fanning. I think so, absolutely. The supply chain is 
shared and a lot of companies want a foot in both sides as a 
risk mitigator and that's important. It's great, but we are 
worried about the impact on the commercial side, what the 
commercial side might have on the national security side, and 
so I don't think that you should require a company to be doing 
a hundred percent national security to have them be critical as 
a part of the defense industrial base.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. And what do we do about the 
health care? Do you support us doing something to help further 
the health care of laid-off aerospace manufacturing workers in 
this time period?
    Mr. Fanning. I do. A number of our companies--we're first 
and foremost focused on not losing the workforce for all the 
reasons you mentioned in your question, but when it comes to 
that, many of the companies are extending benefits, giving 
extended periods for the benefits, but we would look for some 
help to help those people who no longer have their jobs as a 
result of this pandemic. The market is contracting and we're 
looking for ways to ride through that, but it's going to be a 
difficult journey.
    Senator Cantwell. And can you just explain that a little 
bit more because I think people think, well, of course people 
would want to go back to aerospace, but the point is if you 
lose your job in aerospace manufacturing now and you have 1 
year--I'm sorry--you have 1 month of health care from your 
employer under their COBRA system, and then you could yourself 
purchase another year or I think it's 12 months of that, but do 
you have the $2,000 or whatever the benefit is to purchase 
that? If you don't, you're going to not hang around and wait 
for the aerospace job to come back. Maybe I'm explaining it for 
you but anyway, I want to emphasize how critical it is that if 
we want to retain these workers and retain them being able to 
help us again in aerospace, which is a very competitive 
environment, that we need to do something about health care.
    Mr. Fanning. Absolutely. I think you got most of it. These 
are highly sought-after workers and if we can't keep them 
employed in aerospace industry, others will want to come after 
them obviously. They're highly skilled. They're highly trained. 
Other industries that might be able to ramp up faster than we 
would would be attractive and have jobs available perhaps.
    On the defense side of our industry, for example, some of 
the companies are hiring through this. So there are places out 
there that are hiring and we want to make sure we retain that 
workforce because this is an industry that is an important 
economic driver for the country in many ways. It's leveraged in 
terms of the economic activity that it engenders but it also is 
an important part of our global competitiveness.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. If I could, Mr. Chairman, just 
quickly?
    Dr. Godwin, would you give us your response about the 
temperature issue? I went to China I think maybe 10 years ago 
after H1N1 and was tested before I could be let into the 
country. Where do you think temperature checks play into the 
equation of aviation, even if it's on the international 
arrivals side?
    Dr. Godwin. I think that, you know, temperature checks, 
again coming back to this concept of a net, we want to have a 
bunch of different reinforcements. It's not like one thing is 
going to be key to protecting people and the temperature checks 
are a way to identify those people who are really active cases 
of either COVID-19 or some other infectious disease.
    So it's a great way to identify probably some really high-
risk people. What we've seen with this disease, though, is that 
not everyone runs a temperature and there are people who are 
asymptomatic who are still transmitting. So it's one piece of 
the puzzle but perhaps not--you know, it should only be one 
part of what we're doing, if it's not a quick fix.
    I would also like to say really basic like hand washing, so 
we want to make sure that we're providing people with 
opportunities to keep themselves safe, as well.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
and to this last point about what is it going to take to get 
the public going again, somebody mentioned that, one of our 
witnesses, I would say it's listening to Dr. Godwin and the 
health care officials. That's what's going to convince the 
public. When they say if these standards are here and this is 
what will make us safe, that's where we need to start.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I apologize that 
I have been out of the room at an Armed Services Committee 
hearing, but I want to thank all of the witnesses who are here 
today for this very valuable session and apologize if I'm 
covering ground that may have been asked by other members of 
the Committee.
    Senator Markey and I sent a letter to the United States 
Department of Transportation and the Department of Health and 
Human Services urging those agencies to immediately issue a 
rule requiring face masks for all individuals, whether in 
airports or on airplanes, a mandate that would in effect adopt 
the CDC guidelines.
    I'd like to ask--maybe this is a question for you, Mr. 
Hauptli and Mr. Calio--what your view on that kind of mandate 
would be? I know that some airlines are doing it voluntarily 
but it certainly is not a uniform mandate in all airports or on 
all airlines.
    Mr. Hauptli. Senator, thanks for the question, and it 
appears that there is this consensus growing around face masks 
at airports, airlines. TSA is using them for their screeners, 
and I read just today that TSA is contemplating requiring 
passengers, when they present themselves at screening, to be 
wearing a face mask.
    It would be my belief that airport workers and people 
passing through airports would be wearing face masks for the 
foreseeable future.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, the last category is the most 
numerous, right, people passing through? You can control TSA. 
You can control airport employees, but without some mandate, 
it's going to be voluntary. So would you be in favor--I 
recognize there's a growing consensus. Shouldn't there be some 
Federal mandate?
    Mr. Hauptli. What we've said, Senator, is there needs to be 
the very groups that you identified--CDC and others, HHS--
working together to come up with Federal guidelines to make 
sure we have a consistent approach throughout the travel 
experience, no matter which airline or which airport you 
travel.
    Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Calio?
    Mr. Calio. Thank you, Senator. It's something that needs to 
be seriously considered. You know, we are requiring it now. We 
have, from our gate agents to our customer-facing employees, 
you have to wear a face mask. We're requiring it of our 
customers. There are a lot of questions that arise from that, 
and when you have a situation where someone gets to the 
airport, goes through security without a mask and then gets to 
the gate and has to put a mask on, it begs the question.
    Senator Blumenthal. Yes. I would think that your position 
on requiring them would be greatly strengthened if the flight 
attendants or whoever's at the gate could say it's the law. 
It's not just our policy, it's the law, correct?
    Mr. Calio. Yes, sir.
    Senator Blumenthal. The letter that I put into the record 
earlier from the Airline Pilots Association International 
referred to the lack of uniform and proper cleaning and 
disinfected practices on flight decks and aircraft.
    Mr. Calio, I know you probably haven't had a chance to look 
at the letter, but I assume you're familiar with the substance 
of it. Could you respond to it?
    Mr. Calio. Yes, sir. We received a letter ourselves 
previously some while back. We asked the Airline Pilots 
Association for examples so we could follow up because whenever 
we get complaints like that, they're usually handled locally 
but we always look for trends, if there's a problem. We have 
been unable to find a trend. We're doing everything we can in 
our cockpits to keep it clean in terms of the pilots and our 
flight attendants. We've enhanced the cleaning procedures.
    So I guess we don't agree with the claims, and we've asked 
a second time probably now three or four weeks ago, for 
examples that we could trace down. We're also doing contact 
tracing now with our crews and so I guess bottom line we just 
don't agree with the claims.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, I would like whatever follow up 
there may be insofar as you may make further findings be made 
available.
    I'm going to have some more questions for the record, if 
that's OK, Mr. Chairman?
    I just want to make one last comment. Mr. Calio, when I 
referred earlier to possibly additional funds that are 
necessary for the airline industry, I was reacting to some 
extent to Mr. Hauptli's point about more resources being 
necessary to restore this industry.
    It may not be direct bailout money of the kind that the 
CARES Act or COVID 3 provided, but I assume you would not 
disagree that additional Federal commitments may be necessary.
    Mr. Hauptli, you seemed to indicate that they would be 
necessary.
    Mr. Hauptli. Senator, absolutely. The money that was 
provided to the airport community is greatly appreciated and is 
an important first step, but is nowhere near what airports 
need, business aviation, general aviation, the concessionaires 
need going forward. There are hundreds of millions and billions 
of dollars in gaps.
    Senator Blumenthal. And I'm not raising that point to say I 
question your judgment but Mr. Calio seemed pretty unequivocal 
about not needing any more money for the airlines and I would 
just make the point that it is an industry. Airlines are no 
good without airports and without the rest of the industry 
that's necessary to make them fly successfully and so I think 
there is an overall consumer trust issue here that needs to be 
addressed.
    Mr. Calio. Senator, may I?
    Senator Blumenthal. Sure.
    Mr. Calio. Yes. Perhaps I made my point imprecisely. 
Basically, we think it's early. We're doing everything we can 
self-help-wise to make it work.
    I said earlier at some point this is uncharted territory. 
Everybody's trying to work our way through it, you, us, 
everybody. So it would never be never, but I know with some of 
my members, their hope is that they don't need further 
government assistance. That's the point I was trying to make.
    Senator Blumenthal. And I just want to indicate that I 
voted for this package. I have urged stronger oversight 
measures and other potential improvements going forward, but I 
think we're all hoping for a successful airline industry, and I 
just want to again thank you for being here and thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I count 14 
Senators that were able to participate today either, in-person 
or remotely. I think we've had a good hearing and I'm getting a 
little feedback here.
    The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During 
this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the 
record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit 
their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible.
    I thank the witnesses for appearing today and I thank each 
member, and this hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

Prepared Statement of Timothy R. Obitts, President and Chief Executive 
            Officer, National Air Transportation Association
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, Chairman Cruz, and 
Ranking Member Sinema:

    The National Air Transportation Association has been the voice of 
aviation businesses for 80 years. In 1940, general aviation in the U.S. 
was at risk. With the looming threat of war, the U.S. Army sought to 
ban all flights by privately owned aircraft in the national airspace. 
That year, 83 charter members representing all types of general 
aviation businesses unified as a singular voice to successfully tell 
Congress and the Administration to keep the airspace open to this 
important industry.
    Today, NATA represents the interests of nearly 3,700 aviation 
businesses across a broad cross section of the industry, including 
FBOs, Part 135 air carriers and fractional ownership companies, flight 
training, maintenance, airport sponsors at general aviation airports, 
air medical operators, and others. The Association serves to elevate 
the safety and professionalism of its members by convening industry 
thought leaders on its policy committees, examining contemporary 
issues, and pursuing solutions that prioritize safety and economic 
viability. To that end, the Association's ongoing major policy 
initiatives include a campaign to educate and end the practice of 
illegal air charter, efforts to reform outdated hangar fire protection 
standards, elevating the professionalism of the air charter broker 
industry, and promoting a consistent regulatory framework.
Fixed Base Operators
    Fixed base operators (FBOs) are the primary service and fuel 
providers to general aviation aircraft operators. The FBO industry in 
the U.S. today are located at 3,233 airports around the country. FBO's 
may also provide maintenance; aircraft rentals, charters, aircraft 
management and/or aircraft sales; or flight instruction.
    Additionally, at many Part 139 commercial airports FBOs also 
perform line maintenance, cabin cleaning, and baggage handling for Part 
121 commercial, passenger, and cargo airline customers.
Airports
    One of NATA's fastest-growing membership categories is general 
aviation airports. Over 330 airport sponsors are NATA members. General 
aviation airports, 4500 in total, are vital economic engines, serving 
as arrival and departure points for economic developers, components for 
local manufacturing, agriculture missions, fire-fighting hubs, and 
access to critical medical care. By contrast, scheduled air carriers 
fly only to those places where the economics of operation justify 
service, approximately 500 airports.
Maintenance/Repair Stations
    The term ``repair station'' refers to a maintenance facility that 
has a certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
under 14 CFR Part 145 and is engaged in the maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, inspection, and alteration of aircraft and aircraft 
products. Another more general term used throughout the industry is 
MRO, referring to repair stations as maintenance, repair, and overhaul 
facilities.
Flight Training
    Across the country, a number of accredited universities and 
colleges integrate a flight training curriculum under 14 CFR 141 into 
the academic requirements for a degree in aviation science, educating 
the next generation of aircraft captains. In addition, many FBOs and 
independent flight instructors provide flight training under 14 CFR 
Part 61.
Part 135 On-Demand Air Charter
    One of the most important contributions of general aviation is 
providing on-demand (or as needed) transportation for freight and 
passengers--especially to airports that have no scheduled commercial 
air carrier service. Most operators using general aviation aircraft in 
a for-hire passenger and/or cargo service are certificated to operate 
under 14 CFR Part 135. Aircraft used in on-demand air charter 
operations are limited to no more than 30 passenger seats and a 7,500-
pound payload.
    Part 135 air charter businesses conduct numerous types of 
operations, including medical flights.
Fractional Ownership Companies
    For those who do not need the use of an airplane full time, 
fractional ownership plans offer all of the benefits of private 
aviation, including on-demand transportation, consistently high service 
levels, and an excellent safety record.
    As the term fractional implies, participants are brought together 
to buy into a specific airplane, with each holding a fractional share 
entitling them to usage of an airplane on a predetermined hourly basis, 
normally over a 12-month period. The day-to-day operational management 
of an aircraft involved in a fractional plan is carried out by the 
plan's operator who is responsible for the acquisition and management 
of the aircraft on behalf of the shareholders. This operator also 
provides flight crews and takes charge of maintenance and scheduling.
Aeromedical Services
    Approximately 250 organizations in the U.S. are currently engaged 
in the transport of seriously ill or injured people to hospitals for 
emergency care. Air medical transport saves lives by bringing more 
medical capabilities to the patient than are normally provided by 
ground emergency medical services, along with faster transit times to 
the appropriate specialty care location.
Aircraft Brokers, Dealers, and Distributors
    General aviation aircraft are marketed for sale primarily through 
dealers and brokers. The sale of new aircraft is handled by independent 
distributors.
    Since its foundation, NATA has not only focused on advocacy, but 
also on elevating the safety and professionalism of the industry. 
NATA's Safety 1st program is the industry standard for training general 
aviation support personnel. Since 2008, Safety 1st has trained over 
40,000 individuals. With Safety 1st, organizations and training 
administrators are empowered with flexible tools allowing them to 
customize learning pathways to meet the specific needs of their 
operations and the specific learning needs of their team members. 
However, at its core, the SFTC still employees its unique approach to 
online learning by blending online content and assessment with locally 
provided on-the-job (OJT) training and practical skills assessment. 
Topics include misfuelling avoidance, aircraft movement and ramp 
safety, regulated hazmat handling, and flight coordinator training.
    NATA also is represented on numerous working groups with U.S. 
Customs and Border Patrol and the Transportation Security 
Administration on issues pertaining to general aviation security.
    Over the years, NATA has worked with policymakers at the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) and in Congress, including the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to effect real 
policy changes that positively impact safety and ensure the economic 
viability of our industry, including key provisions in the FAA 
Reauthorization Act of 2018 that promote a more efficient regulatory 
framework, beginning to identify policy options to end the practice of 
illegal air charter, and important safety improvements.
    NATA's statement will focus on three subjects. First, the impact of 
the COVID-19 pandemic on our industry. Second, it will provide 
perspective on the implementation and effects of the CARES Act, and 
will close with policy recommendations we believe will lay the 
foundation for the next era of a prosperous industry.
    A viable general aviation industry is imperative to the existence 
of commercial airlines in this country. As the airlines return to 
service they will need to rely, as they always have, both directly and 
indirectly on a network of general aviation businesses to support their 
operations. But today, those businesses are struggling and their future 
is unclear. A shrinking general aviation industry will fundamentally 
alter the commercial aviation system that Congress worked to save in 
the CARES Act.
The Impact of COVID-19
    Commercial aviation in the U.S. can only function because it is a 
part of an interconnected industry that relies heavily on a general 
aviation workforce for supply chain, service, support, and workforce 
development. Congress acknowledged the national significance of the 
commercial airlines by providing them assistance in the CARES Act. As a 
condition of the receipt of their grants and loans, however, the U.S. 
Department of Transportation has required air carriers operating under 
14 CFR 121 to maintain certain minimum levels of service along the 
routes within their networks. But meeting such obligations will be 
difficult for air carriers in the absence of general aviation 
businesses that support their operations.
    In the week prior to the first case of COVID-19 in the United 
States, industry news reported earnings for air charter were up, the 
aircraft sales markets were solid, and some FBO's were reporting a 
record year as they closed out their financials for 2019.
    In the weeks that followed, companies began quarantining flight 
crews who returned from international trips, aircraft manufacturers 
began issuing guidance on aircraft sanitization, and industry observers 
calling the pandemic the ``biggest gut punch to the industry'' since 
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ March 16, 2020. Bruno, Michael. ``How COVID-19 Could Change the 
Aerospace and Defense Supply Chain.'' The Weekly Business of Aviation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 16, 2020, NATA led the general aviation industry in 
sending a letter to Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao, asking 
that general aviation be allowed to continue its record of operating 
safely during times of crisis.
    While NATA member companies responded quickly, developing and 
implementing standard operating procedures for aircraft cleaning and 
sanitizing, passenger facilitation, and daily operations, many 
companies that traditionally used Part 135 or fractional ownership 
carriers to transport staff implemented travel bans that led to 
declines in levels of activity never before seen in general aviation.
    Acknowledging the vital role they play, the CISA guidance issued 
March 28, 2020 in response to the COVID pandemic designated most 
general aviation workers as ``essential.'' The majority of NATA member 
companies are small businesses. In times of crisis, they are best 
equipped to provide lifesaving support and time sensitive supplies. 
These businesses support the movement of flights carrying medical and 
testing equipment, key personnel, and humanitarian relief supplies.
    For example, Grandview Aviation, and NATA member and small business 
based in Baltimore, Maryland has been in operation since 2004. 
Grandview is a Part 135 air carrier operating seven aircraft with 49 
employees. Prior to the pandemic, Grandview usually flew 400 hours per 
month, which has declined sharply to around 50 hours per month due to a 
decline in discretionary travel. However, Grandview also transports 
organ transplants, which saw an increase as the COVID-19 crisis 
worsened. They must maintain three crew shifts on daily to ensure it 
can be ready to fly at a moment's notice. Normally, Grandview supports 
the higher overhead associated with organ flights by flying private 
passenger charters. However, passenger operations have completely 
stopped since shelter in place orders were enacted. While Grandview 
received support through the PPP, they are unsure whether they will 
receive support under Title IV of the CARES Act, and believe they will 
have to reduce staffing to a level that will make it impossible to 
complete these vital organ flights and ground most or all of the fleet 
by June if additional assistance does not materialize.
    An essential lifeline to rural America, general aviation companies 
operate at nearly 4,500 airports and thousands of cities that are not 
served at all by the airlines, but are nonetheless impacted by major 
changes in industry activity. The aviation activity in these cities and 
towns supports good paying jobs, economic activity, and connectedness. 
General aviation airports and general aviation businesses support EMS, 
agriculture flights, police work, Border Patrol, executive transport, 
cargo, flight schools, vocational schools, research, drones, powerline 
patrol, pipeline patrol, conservation efforts, fire control/fighting, 
construction, seismic work, sightseeing, organ transport, non-emergency 
medical transport, charter, and providing medical staff from major 
cities to the community to provide routine medical service.
    Companies like Grandview are optimistic that they will see a 
rebound in business when the pandemic subsides; a number of their 
regular clients are elderly and immunosuppressed who choose to charter 
specifically out of health precautions.
Implementation and Effects of the CARES Act
    Title IV of the CARES Act provided relief to certain aviation 
businesses, some of whom are NATA members. However, many of those 
businesses, including those eligible as ``contractors'' to the 
commercial airlines have not yet received funding.
    Air carriers operating under Part 135 were eligible for assistance 
under Title IV of the CARES Act. NATA thanks Congress for its attention 
to the concerns of this important segment of the industry, which has 
played a key role in delivering personal protective equipment (PPE) and 
medical personnel in pandemic response efforts. While Part 135 air 
carriers fulfill critical and time sensitive missions that cannot be 
completed by commercial airlines, many of the businesses that support 
the existence of the commercial airline industry that Congress 
prioritized in the CARES Act and support rural America did not receive 
assistance under Title IV.
    NATA thanks this Committee and its staff for providing contact with 
key officials at the Department of Treasury to discuss implementation 
of the Title IV relief programs. We have found the Department to be 
responsive and receptive to our inquiries, even incorporating a number 
of our concerns in subsequent programmatic guidance. NATA was able to 
share with the Department the aspects of Part 135 businesses that would 
make, for example, mandatory service levels or the proffering of 
financial instruments unworkable for most of the industry. We 
appreciate that the Department incorporated those recommendations when 
implementing the programs.
    NATA member companies who have received Title IV assistance are 
pleased that the funds allow them additional flexibility during what 
could be a protracted recovery. And while we can appreciate that the 
Department of Treasury has been inundated with both applications and 
efforts to provide assistance quickly, the Association is aware of many 
members--in particular those who are eligible as Part 135 passenger air 
carriers, air cargo operators, and contractors to the airlines--who 
applied before the priority deadline of April 3rd and, as of today, 
have still have not received funding. Additionally, confusion about the 
particulars of the program and what would be required of participants 
that were not Part 121 passenger air carriers led to many eligible 
businesses who desperately need the relief not filing by the April 3rd 
priority deadline or not filing altogether.
    The CARES Act also provided $10 billion of assistance to airports. 
However, out of the $10 billion only $100 million went to the 4,500 
general aviation airports, with the remainder going to just over 500 
Part 139 certificated airports that serve Part 121 commercial passenger 
air carriers. This led to thousands of general aviation airport 
sponsors being eligible to receive $30,000 or less under the CARES Act, 
with many receiving only $1,000, while general aviation airports report 
declines in activity between 75 percent to over 95 percent. Per 
longstanding FAA policy under FAA Grant Assurance 24, airports that 
receive funds from the FAA are required to be as financially self-
sustaining as possible relying on user fees and rental income from 
tenant businesses. Those businesses are part of a broader operational 
ecosystem, and when they are unable to meet payroll obligations and the 
terms of their tenancy agreement with their airport sponsors, it 
imperils the ability of the airport to operate safely and efficiently.
    While the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) created by the CARES 
Act may have supported some general aviation businesses for a period of 
8 weeks, the future of these essential businesses is unclear as air 
traffic--and revenues--continue to decline. The PPP funds authorized in 
the CARES Act were allocated in two weeks, and as of today, the second 
round of funding is largely allocated, despite myriad of technical 
problems and difficulties with the application process.
    Likewise, the Emergency EIDL Grant program through SBA continues to 
experience problems. But perhaps most disconcerting is the fact that 
nearly half of the FBOs across the Nation are owned and operated by the 
airport sponsor, most often the local unit of government; thus, these 
critical system stakeholders were not eligible for PPP assistance at 
all. Faced with a decision to allocate scant Federal assistance to the 
airport or to, perhaps, a local health system, local government 
officials have little choice. As the pandemic subsides, loss of 
critical aviation infrastructure will jeopardize the revitalization of 
our Nation's commercial aviation system, and for a network of such 
strategic importance to our nation, cannot rely on a program with a 
history of mixed success.
Recommendations to Preserve an Essential Industry
    The future of our Nation's commercial aviation industry will rely 
on robust general aviation activity to support it.
    Because of the unique nature of our industry, experts are 
predicting a lengthy recovery period, well beyond the term of 
assistance provided by the PPP. Beside payroll, the lease obligations 
of NATA member companies to the sponsors of the airports on which their 
businesses reside represent one of the most significant operational 
expenses. And in many cases, the lease arrangements between an airport 
sponsor and tenant business include a Minimum Annual Guarantee (MAG). 
Thus, lease obligations also represent one of the largest 
vulnerabilities during times of reduced aviation activity. But because 
the airport sponsors rely on this revenue to finance the day-to-day 
operation of the airport itself, when tenants are unable to meet 
payroll obligations and the terms of their tenancy agreement with their 
airport sponsors, it imperils the ability of the airport to operate 
safely and efficiently.
    Congress may wish to consider providing assistance to airport 
sponsors and their tenant businesses for relief of lease obligations. 
One option would be for the Departments of Treasury and Transportation 
to analyze the amount of airport sponsors' revenues that account from 
the lease obligations of certain tenant businesses, and then to provide 
a level of relief equal to that amount with the requirement that 
airport sponsors abate lease obligations over the term of the 
assistance provided.
    Despite delays in delivering funds to successful applicants, the 
Title IV programs of the CARES Act allow more flexibility to aviation 
businesses. In the interest of efficiency, Congress may wish to 
consider reauthorizing and recapitalizing those programs. If Congress 
chooses to do so the Title IV, subpart B, programs of the CARES Act, we 
ask that you consider eligibilities for a broader ecosystem of 
businesses that provide support for the continued viability of all air 
carriers, not just Part 121 passenger air carriers.
    The fact that it was necessary for the Department of Treasury to 
prorate assistance under Title IV, subpart B, of the CARES Act to air 
carriers, including Part 135 operators because of the large number of 
applicants speaks to the level of need and thus an impetus for Congress 
to consider additional support in subsequent legislation.
    NATA looks forward to working with this Committee to find policy 
solutions that will support general aviation. We believe that support 
for general aviation is directly linked to the future of passenger air 
transportation in the United States. We thank the Committee for its 
attention to these concerns and recommendations.
                                 ______
                                 
          Prepared Statement of Ed Bolen, President and CEO, 
                 National Business Aviation Association
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, thank you for holding 
this hearing to discuss the unprecedented challenges our aviation 
industry is facing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The National Business 
Aviation Association (NBAA) represents more than 11,000 member 
companies that utilize general aviation aircraft to make their 
businesses more productive and successful. We welcome the opportunity 
to provide this statement to explain the unique challenges our segment 
of the aviation industry is facing each day, and how we are 
contributing to the humanitarian response.
    The United States business and general aviation industry, which 
includes all operations other than scheduled airline flights and the 
military, supports 1.2 million jobs and $247 billion in economic 
impact. Across the country, thousands of small and mid-size businesses 
that generate $77 billion in labor income are facing unprecedented 
challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic and require additional relief.
    Since early March, general aviation operations have declined more 
than 70-percent, resulting in severe economic consequences for a wide 
variety of businesses, from aircraft operators to airports and aviation 
manufacturers. For example, in Mississippi, airports are laying off 
workers, and flight schools at community colleges have closed. In 
Washington state, many general aviation airports are reporting steep 
declines in traffic. At Pierce County Airport in Puyallup, there has 
been a 95-percent decline in traffic, while at Boeing Field in King 
County, general aviation traffic and fuel sales have declined by more 
than 70-percent.
    Your efforts to provide near and mid-term relief for air carriers 
and small businesses under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 
Security Act (CARES Act) injected much-needed funds into general 
aviation businesses. Still, we believe additional assistance will be 
necessary. The uncertainty as to the longer-term prospects for aviation 
requires us to think creatively beyond the CARES Act.
    In addition to loans and grants for air carriers, the CARES Act 
suspended certain Federal excise taxes for commercial air 
transportation until January 1, 2021; however, it did not suspend non-
commercial aviation fuel taxes. While this excise tax suspension 
provides longer-term relief to commercial air carriers, most general 
aviation operations are non-commercial, and thus not eligible for this 
tax relief that will help incentivize aviation activity as we recover 
from the COVID-19 pandemic. As Congress considers a fourth relief 
package, we respectfully request that aviation fuel taxes paid by non-
commercial operators also be suspended.
    This temporary relief from fuel taxes will incentivize general 
aviation businesses to preserve jobs and resume flying once we begin to 
emerge from this crisis. For example, at crucial general aviation 
airports in Florida, including Venice Beach Municipal and North Perry, 
flight schools are either closed or seeing their business reduced 
drastically. Across the country, these small businesses employ nearly 
110,000 flight instructors and are a crucial driver of economic 
activity at community airports. The suspension of non-commercial fuel 
taxes will help reduce operating costs for flight schools and other 
small businesses and provide a much-needed incentive to get back in the 
air.
    In addition to these examples, many other general aviation 
airports, which are the backbone of our Nation's aviation 
infrastructure, are facing unprecedented challenges. These facilities, 
both large and small, provide communities a lifeline for critical 
supplies and air medical flights. As a result of aircraft operations 
dropping so drastically, these airports have lost their significant 
sources of revenue, derived from fuel sales and landing fees. While 
pavement will inevitably survive the crisis, airport operators are 
struggling to maintain their skilled staff, essential to the ability to 
operate the facilities safely. Fixed Base Operators and other airport-
based businesses are struggling to pay rent and retain their employees.
    General aviation depends on these airports, which will be critical 
in the recovery phase as well. Thank you for fully funding the Airport 
Improvement Program (AIP). We also applaud your efforts to provide 
airports with much-needed funding through the CARES Act by increasing 
the Federal share to 100-percent and ask for your continued support.
    We also recognize the COVID-19 pandemic has led to challenges for 
the Airport & Airway Trust Fund (AATF). However, we believe the 
suspension of non-commercial aviation fuel taxes would provide our 
industry with similar relief to what commercial operators have 
received. Also, temporary relief from the fuel taxes will serve as a 
catalyst to help small general aviation businesses recover once the 
immediate crisis begins to recede. In the long-run, this will benefit 
the aviation system, the AATF, and our entire economy.
    Beyond relief from air transportation excise taxes, the CARES Act 
provided grants and loans for air carriers and other general aviation 
businesses. These programs, administered by the Department of the 
Treasury, have provided much-needed relief to general aviation air 
carriers. To date, payroll support funds were provided to more than 90 
air carriers, many of which are small and mid-sized businesses.
    While this represents significant progress, air cargo operators and 
eligible contractors have not yet received support. Also, based on 
conversations with NBAA members, some air carriers are still awaiting a 
final decision on their payroll support application and disbursement of 
funds.
    This uncertainty as to potential support presents significant 
challenges to general aviation businesses that are already struggling 
to survive. Air carriers and contractors are facing drastically reduced 
revenues, which makes maintaining prior employment levels, potentially 
unsustainable. If applicants had more detail as to when payroll support 
decisions will be made, it would significantly inform their planning 
and business decisions during these uncertain times. As Congress 
continues its oversight of CARES Act programs, we respectfully request 
that you work with the Treasury Department to provide additional 
details on the timeline for a decision on payroll support payments to 
applicants.
    Along with the payroll support program, the Treasury Department is 
also overseeing a loan program for air carriers and other eligible 
aviation businesses. One challenge our industry is facing in applying 
for these loans is the requirement to track available seat miles, 
revenue per seat mile, and cost per available seat miles. Since most 
general aviation air carriers provide on-demand flights, they are not 
able to track these metrics as the large airlines do. As the Treasury 
Department processes loan applications, we ask that they provide 
flexibility for general aviation operators to suggest a metric that 
more accurately represents the service they provide to communities.
    We also applaud the recent action by Congress to provide an 
additional $310 billion in funding to the Paycheck Protection Program 
(PPP). Many NBAA member companies have been able to secure relief under 
the PPP, and we are hopeful that this additional relief will reach more 
general aviation small businesses. The $60 billion provided to small 
community banks is also critical, as many of our members have developed 
close relationships with their local lenders.
    Even during these challenging times, we have continued to see 
general aviation operators using their unique ability to connect more 
than 5,000 airports across the country for humanitarian purposes.
    Recently, our industry facilitated the delivery of one million 
protective face masks and more than half a million COVID-19 test kits 
from China. Other operators are using aircraft to transport medical 
supplies where they are needed most and assist with the logistics of 
moving medical equipment and personnel to communities experiencing a 
surge in cases.
    Through NBAA's Humanitarian Emergency Response Operator (HERO) 
database, we recently formed a partnership with the American Hospital 
Association to connect supplies and services with hospitals across the 
country, including those in small towns and rural communities. This 
response builds on past relief efforts coordinated by the HERO 
database, including in the wake of major hurricanes, earthquakes, and 
other natural disasters.
    Business and general aviation are resilient, and we will recover 
from this crisis; however, the road ahead will be very challenging. The 
CARES Act helped respond to some of the immediate challenges our 
community is facing, but additional long-term relief will be necessary 
over the coming months. Thank you for holding this hearing, and we look 
forward to continuing to engage with the Committee on efforts that will 
help our general aviation industry recover.
                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of Faye Malarkey Black, President and CEO, Regional 
                          Airline Association
    The Regional Airline Association (RAA) thanks the U.S. Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation for holding the 
hearing titled, ``The State of the Aviation Industry: Examining the 
Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic.'' RAA submits this statement for the 
record to inform the Committee on the current status of the regional 
airline industry and share with it the actions the industry is taking 
to safeguard our crewmembers, passengers, and support partners in 
response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    On behalf of our entire membership, I want to thank this Committee, 
along with the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee and 
House and Senate party leaders for their leadership in securing almost 
$60 billion dollars in relief for passenger and air cargo air carriers 
in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, And Economic Security (CARES) Act. 
These funds--specifically, the funding for air carrier worker support--
acted as a lifeline for the approximately 70,000 women and men working 
for the regional airline industry. You and your staff worked tirelessly 
to develop and enact meaningful legislation with speed and care and 
kept the needs of small community air service in mind by ensuring 
regional airlines were able to directly participate. Your leadership in 
this area has been a crucial, first step in helping regional airlines 
retain a ``ready status'' workforce that will be able to immediately 
stand air service back up when the pandemic abates. While significant 
needs remain, your actions increased the chance of survival for many 
smaller airlines who may not have shouldered the unprecedented economic 
blow without you. We are grateful for your support and determined to do 
our part to uphold air service to communities who rely on us.
CARES ACT
    We know that Congress is contemplating deep needs that extend far 
beyond the aviation sector, as harm has touched nearly every American 
and businesses of all sizes are facing significant challenges. 
Understanding this, we humbly ask that this Committee keep in mind the 
continuing vulnerability of regional airlines and the small communities 
they serve in the coming months as this pandemic continues. 
Specifically, we hope that Congress will differentiate between types of 
air carriers, because we have vastly different compositions and 
differing resources with which to deal with the economic impact 
associated with the Coronavirus; however, we are all critical pieces of 
the Nation's air transportation system.
    As you know, the CARES Act payroll assistance program was so direly 
needed, that air carrier claims far exceeded the available funds and 
air carriers expect to receive approximately 76 percent of 2019 payroll 
costs to help cover their full payroll costs today. Like most air 
carriers, regional airlines planned to accommodate the exponential 
growth seen across all aviation sectors and were typically staffed at 
20 percent higher than those 2019 levels. When a combination of 
government-mandated travel restrictions and the abrupt spread of COVID-
19 contagion decimated the aviation industry, regional airlines felt 
the downturn, and subsequent financial effects, almost immediately. 
Impacts on passenger loads have been nothing short of stunning and 
major airlines have dramatically reduced the schedules of their 
regional airline partners in response. Today, most of the regional 
airline fleet is parked, and capacity cuts are likely to persist and 
may worsen for months to come.
    Regional airlines' partner-centered business model is one reason 
the COVID-19 crisis has hit our sector particularly hard. Nearly all 
regional/mainline partnerships operate under Capacity Purchase 
Agreements (CPA's) where the larger airline sells the ticket and the 
regional airline does the flying at the direction of the partner. Under 
these arrangements, regional airlines typically dedicate 100 percent of 
their capacity to flying on behalf of one or more mainline partners and 
are compensated by the mainline--and not the passenger directly--for 
this work. In this way, regional airlines help major airlines reach 
smaller communities and passengers that major airlines could not 
otherwise serve. Typically, the CPAs governing these arrangements are 
fixed-term and, given the (heretofore) underlying stability and low-
risk nature of the relationships, reflect low profit margins. 
Additionally, these agreements do not afford regional airlines control 
of ticket prices or allow real-time rate adjustments. In fact, 
increasing revenues would require regional airlines to seek contract 
changes, an unlikely outcome given the margins underlying these 
contracts are fragile during the best of times.
    Today, these mainline partners are themselves deeply impacted by 
COVID-19 challenges and are making unprecedented capacity cuts. The 
aforementioned lack of direct, real-time revenue control limits 
regional airlines' ability to bolster future revenue streams to raise 
enough free cash flow to extinguish any debt or equity taken on to 
sustain a workforce that is not flying as a result. This is one reason 
that regional airlines are depleting liquidity at alarming rates during 
this crisis, as payroll expenses in excess of CARES Act grant receipts 
continue to deplete resources. While regional airlines are making every 
effort to reduce non-payroll expenses, these efforts will not reduce in 
tandem with revenue losses. Such ownership costs include IT systems, 
aircraft maintenance, crew and employee training, simulator upkeep, 
rent and leasing costs and more. Additionally, as with nearly all 
companies, many regional airlines are asking supply company partners to 
help shoulder the burden; however, regional airlines are vulnerable 
here as well, as suppliers to major airlines facing their own 
unprecedented liquidity crises.
    Another important distinction sets regional airline recovery apart 
from that of larger airlines. Where larger carriers can turn to the 
Treasury's Air Carrier Loan program for additional assistance; many 
regional airlines cannot. Despite the lower lending rates and stated 
purpose of serving as a lender of last resort, regional airlines are 
again constrained by the CPA structure that limits regional airlines' 
ability to extinguish debt. Additionally, the requirements for 
securitized loans and government equity stakes in concert with these 
loans present additional hurdles; regional airlines generally do not 
have significant unencumbered assets; as they lease or sublease their 
aircraft and few regional airlines have slots, gates, frequent flier 
programs, routes or other assets that could be leveraged for financing. 
Regional airlines nonetheless support this program because it helps 
their valued mainline partners. However, the inability to participate 
directly in this assistance further limits resources available to help 
weather the economic repercussions of the pandemic.
    Beyond the circumstances already described, a few regional airlines 
face additional challenges because they were erroneously categorized by 
the U.S. Treasury Department as major airlines because of the size of 
their payroll. Although these regional airlines collectively employ 
nearly 10,000 FTEs and provide air service to dozens of communities not 
served by mainline air carriers, they do not issue tickets or derive 
revenue directly from passengers. They are nonetheless required to 
provide an equity stake to the Federal government and to pay back 30 
percent of their Payroll Assistance grants. In addition to dramatically 
slowing the delivery of this assistance in support of these carriers' 
workforce, it subjected some, but not all, regional airlines to 
additional, disadvantaging conditions for aid. Treasury officials have 
been responsive and communicative with RAA and our members and for that 
we are grateful. However, we continue to firmly believe that warrant 
and repayment terms intended for larger airlines should not apply to 
any regional airline.
    Although regional airlines are doing all they can to survive 
despite these challenges, without additional resources, many remain 
extremely vulnerable. Already, three regional airlines have ceased 
operating due to the impacts of COVID-19. Trans States Airlines in 
Missouri and Compass Airlines in Minnesota ended their operations at 
the beginning of April. Between them, they supported 2,710 direct 
employees. Subsequently, Ravn Air Group, then Alaska's largest regional 
carrier, first filed a chapter 11 liquidation plan, then ceased all 
operations. Ravn employed 1,300 direct employees and served 115 
communities in Alaska--most of these remote and significantly isolated. 
Ravn Air Group noted in its liquidation communication that it could not 
secure enough assistance under implementation of CARES Act worker 
support or loan programs to improve its chances for recovery.
SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE
    As you know, the U.S. aviation system previously drove $1.6 
trillion in annual economic activity and supported 10.6 million jobs, 
with $446.8 billion in earnings. Regional airlines contributed to this 
economic footprint by operating 41 percent of U.S. commercial airline 
departures and serving approximately 153 million passengers last year. 
Importantly, 409 airports (about two-thirds of our Nation's commercial 
airports receiving scheduled air service) are too small to support air 
service from larger airlines with larger aircraft, yet still need 
reliable air service to receive perishable goods, connect with loved 
ones and business contacts, travel to destinations around the globe and 
participate fully in the economy. Regional airlines provide the only 
source of scheduled, commercial air service for these airports, 
connecting them with the Nation's air transportation system and the 
economic and quality of life options that air service brings.
    As you know, air service does not happen to communities in the 
aggregate. While larger cities, with historically high yield, higher 
density traffic may be confident that air service will return when the 
crisis passes, those U.S. airports served exclusively or primarily by 
regional airlines are vastly more vulnerable. With regional airlines 
facing an existential threat, communities served exclusively by 
regional airlines face an enormous downstream threat. This risk to 
small and medium sized community air service could have an outsized 
impact on state and local economies, where businesses need reliable air 
service to remain viable. The economic consequences of leaving these 
communities behind are not insignificant. In 2018, regional airline 
service to the Nation's smallest airports alone (non-hub and small hub) 
drove a conservatively estimated $134 billion in annual economic 
activity and supported more than 1 million jobs, with $36.4 billion in 
earnings at the state and local level.
    We do not need to look far back in aviation history to see that 
small communities are the first to lose air service when air service is 
retracted for any reason. Considering this, RAA greatly appreciates the 
role this Committee and other Congressional leaders played in support 
of small communities, by requiring continuation of certain air service 
for ticketing air carriers that accept government assistance. 
Additionally, we are thankful for the Department of Transportation 
(DOT)'s implementation of that requirement, which RAA believes to be 
measured, fair and thoughtful. Moving forward, meeting small community 
air service longer term relies upon the survival of regional airlines. 
If regional airlines disappear, air service to small communities will 
likewise collapse. Mainline airlines simply cannot serve smaller 
communities on their own. Their aircraft are too large and the unit 
costs and fuel inefficiencies of sending oversized aircraft with 150 
seats or more into communities where forty passengers travel at a time 
on three or four flights a day is untenable. Many communities lack the 
passenger load to fill mainline aircraft. Elsewhere, substitution of 
mainline aircraft would require dramatic reductions in frequency and 
destinations that would damage the connectivity value of the service to 
an economically unviable degree.
    For these reasons, RAA asks that Congress consider implementing a 
modest program designed to pick up where the CARES Act left off, in 
order to support the health of the carriers serving the Nation's 
smaller markets. For example, an unsecured, DOT-administered, 
forgivable loan program could help regional airlines cover remaining 
payroll and some modest, operating costs associated with small 
community air service. Such a program would help, although not fully 
offset, the extremely adverse cash flows that have weakened the 
regional airline industry. Because the industry is small and does not 
have a vast infrastructure, the cash requirements for such assistance 
would be relatively modest and would be fully offset by the economic 
benefit of preserving air service to smaller communities. Additionally, 
we ask that Congress craft a mechanism to forgive the implementation 
requirement for some regional airlines to repay a portion of the 
workforce relief payroll grants, an act that would extend protection to 
all regional airline workers and reduce the liquidity strain on those 
carriers.
    We also ask the Committee to help preserve meaningful air service 
to smaller communities in the future. We fully support flexibility 
today, where minimal service levels are required for each point. This 
appropriately reflects the enormity of the crisis and its impact on 
demand. In the future, additional support from DOT and Congress may be 
necessary to ensure small and medium-sized communities see service 
levels return, especially given that COVID-19 is expected to cause a 
prolonged economic downturn within the air carrier industry. Major 
airlines are anticipating a multi-year economic recovery period with 
their operations reduced to account for the drop in passenger demand 
and the potential for continuing travel restrictions. During this 
period of recovery, strong support and ample funding for the Essential 
Air Service Program will be vital to protect air service to 
participating communities. Additionally, Congress may need to consider 
creative solutions, such as an EAS-like program covering additional 
small airports, which will become newly vulnerable to air service loss 
or degradation due to COVID-19.
FUTURE WORKFORCE PROTECTION
    Today, many industry experts predict that extensive furloughs will 
follow this pandemic if it persists longer term. As this Committee 
knows, only a few months ago the entire aviation industry was facing 
workforce shortages across several work groups, most notably pilots. 
Veteran industry observers will recall that a pilot shortage was 
similarly developing in the late 1990s--averted only when the 
devastating terrorist acts of 9/11 spurred industry downsizing. While 
those 9/11 furloughs temporarily reversed the course of the pilot 
shortage, they also served to deter future pilots from the profession. 
By 2010, the shortage had returned and regional airlines, who are the 
entry point for the professional pilot career, were the first and 
hardest hit.
    Regional airlines have accordingly spent the last decade building 
and strengthening their workforce. This is another reason we are taking 
every step to sustain today's workforce. Looking further into the 
uncertain future, a return of the pilot shortage seems unlikely for 
many years. Nonetheless, RAA continues to believe that closing the 
funding gap between pilot training costs and student loan availability 
is important, because it helps support the future of our industry and 
because it ensures more pilots follow the structured training paths 
that produce higher levels of proficiency.
    RAA is pursuing language in an expected Higher Education 
Reauthorization package, aimed to expand the dollars available through 
the Federal student loan program (Title IV funds) for students who 
attend accredited flight education and training programs. Critically, 
given the uncertainty today's pilots face, we applaud Congress for 
supporting a suspension of Federal student loan payments until 
September 30th under the CARES Act and for the tax relief offered to 
companies who help students with student loan payments. We ask Congress 
to consider extending and expanding these provisions, as the need for 
such support of students who aspire to take flight will not expire on 
that date. Additionally, when legislation is introduced to help trainee 
pilots access sufficient higher education funding, we hope Committee 
members will support and help to advance it. Additionally, we encourage 
the Committee to continue to work with stakeholders who have led on 
technician workforce programs, to determine the best avenues for future 
support.
RETURN TO SERVICE AND COMMITMENT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY
    Regional airlines have been taking substantial steps to protect the 
health, safety and wellness of their passengers and employees since the 
World Health Organization (WHO) declared the novel 2019 coronavirus 
outbreak and COVID-19 infection a public health emergency of 
international concern. On January 31, 2020, the President issued 
Proclamation 9984 directing the Department of Homeland Security and 
other executive departments to take certain actions in response to the 
coronavirus threat and to protect the interests of the United States. 
Since then, RAA has been at the forefront of daily interactions and 
discussions with multiple government agencies, including the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and 
the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to ensure 
all our member carriers have the latest information necessary to follow 
the public health guidance.
    Following safety guidelines issues by the FAA in collaboration with 
the CDC, all RAA member airlines are proactively mitigating safety 
risks posed by the COVID-19 outbreak, both independently and by working 
closely with their mainline partners. These safety measures are either 
in compliance with or exceed CDC's recommended protocols. Such examples 
include, but are not limited to, crew members wearing face coverings 
and other PPE as appropriate, providing PPE kits and enhanced Universal 
Protection Kits (UPKs) on board aircraft; conducting aircraft cleaning 
with approved cleaning agents during operations and electrostatic 
cleaning or fogging during overnight maintenance. In addition, 
passengers are required to wear face covering to uphold the overall 
safety and protection of the travelling public and crew members.
    RAA continues to facilitate member airline discussions, through our 
Councils and Committees, and sharing of best practices related to 
upholding the safety of employees and passengers. Further, RAA believes 
the utilization of crucial safety programs and systems in place today, 
such as the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST), the Aviation Safety 
Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) and the Aviation Safety Action 
Program (ASAP) allow airlines to quickly communicate emerging safety 
and health risks and act to mitigate those risks using a data-driven 
approach. Recognized globally, CAST is particularly well-suited for 
advancing solutions given its successful government/industry working 
group with the broad participation in the program by air carriers, 
manufacturers and employee groups empowers the industry to meet the 
urgency of emerging issues by collaboration on solutions.
    As our country continues to battle this ongoing public health 
crisis, regional airlines will remain vigilant, placing the health and 
safety of their crew and passengers first. RAA will continue to work 
with this Committee, government agencies and our member airlines and 
their employee partners to help our members proactively meet and 
respond to evolving concerns with appropriate safeguards. We 
additionally hope the Committee will view RAA as a resource as you 
consider proposals. Our team stands ready to assist and share our 
ideas, expertise and insights.
Conclusion
    Thank you for your leadership securing vital assistance to 
passenger and cargo air carriers in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Your actions stabilized the financial health of our country's aviation 
system. The Regional Airline Association stands ready to partner with 
the Committee in its continued work to prevent and mitigate the spread 
of COVID-19 in air transportation and ensure the continuation of air 
service to all communities across the country. As we work together to 
combat this pandemic, please know that the safety and health of our 
crewmembers, passengers, and support partners are our foremost 
priority, as we continue to uphold the highest level of safety. We look 
forward to the day when we can safely bring air service back to 
communities of all sizes.
    Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments.
            Sincerely,
                                       Faye Malarkey Black,
                                                 President and CEO.
                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of Airport Restaurant and Retail Association (ARRA) 
              and Airport Minority Advisory Council (AMAC)
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

    As you know, airline travel has been devastated by the COVID-19 
pandemic, and the restaurant and retail airport industry has been 
particularly impacted, experiencing mounting losses in jobs and 
revenues.
    The Airport Restaurant & Retail Association (ARRA) represents the 
companies who operate restaurant and retail stores and shops at 
airports across the U.S. ARRA's mission is to work collaboratively with 
the airport community and the aviation industry on matters of policy 
decision-making with a collective impact on restaurant and retail 
operators. Our companies represent large and small operators, including 
many small minority and women-owned businesses.
    The Airport Minority Advisory Council (AMAC) is a trade association 
whose members include concessionaires, airports, contractors, 
professional services firms and airport officials. AMAC business 
members likewise include large and small firms, including minority and 
women-owned firms. AMAC's mission is to advocate for diversity and 
inclusion in the airport and aviation industry.
    We are submitting this statement and urging Congress to pass 
financial relief and assistance specifically for airport restaurateurs 
and retailers given the unprecedented and long term detrimental 
business impact caused by Coronavirus pandemic.
AIRPORT CONCESSIONS ARE A CRITICAL ELEMENT TO THE MULTI-BILLION AIR 
        TRAVEL INDUSTRY.
    Beyond air carriers and airport operators, airport concessionaires 
are third major partner in the ecosystem that serves air travelers. We 
transform empty airport terminals into vibrant shopping and dining 
destinations that generate $10B annually employ 125,000 workers in 
steady jobs that often offer good pay and benefits and opportunities 
for advancement. Moreover, concessionaires contribute $2.5B in non-
aeronautical revenue to airports under contracts and agreements that 
deliver services travelers and airports need, and that fuel airport 
operations, development, bond financing and growth.
AIRPORT CONCESSIONAIRES ARE A VITAL PART OF THE AIRPORT/AVIATION 
        ECOSYSTEM BUT WE ARE THE ONLY PARTNER NOT TO RECEIVE TARGETED 
        ASSISTANCE.
    In the CARES ACT (Phase III), passenger air carriers received $50B, 
air cargo carriers received $8B; airports received $10B and air carrier 
associated contractors received $3B in immediate financial aid and for 
future recovery. Airport concessionaires received $0.
    Airport concessionaires are uniquely dependent on airline passenger 
traffic. Airline passenger traffic (i.e., carrier/plane ``load 
factor'') is down by more than 95 percent--and as a consequence, most 
concessionaires' revenues are similarly down by 95 percent or more and 
a comparable number of locations have already been forced to close. 
Most industry experts do not expect passenger traffic and business 
sales revenues to return to pre-pandemic levels for 18-36 months.
THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM DOES NOT WORK FOR 
        AIRPORT CONCESSIONAIRES.
    Without immediate targeted help, many of these companies will 
simply fold, taking jobs and potential revenues with them. We need 
assistance now so when the economy begins to recover and air travel 
takes off again, we can be there to serve the public while the policy 
objectives of the of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) are 
admirable, as a practical matter, it contains key timing and duration 
limitations that are beyond the control of airport concessionaires. The 
re-hiring of employees and re-opening of stores within 8 weeks during a 
period when there are almost no air travelers, renders the program 
insufficient to meet the real needs of these businesses.
    Similarly while a few individual airports have indicated an initial 
interest in helping their concessionaires (e.g., by temporarily abating 
or deferring rents or other charges), it doesn't go far or deep enough. 
Given that there are no funds in any of the CARES Acts or other relief 
legislation specifically designated for the many issues confronting 
concessionaires, these discussions are likely to be protracted or, in 
the end, may not be successful. ARRA and AMAC have called on airport 
operators to waive or abate Minimum Annual Guarantees (MAGS) and rents 
for a period of 12-months. This is essential in order for these 
companies to at least cover operating costs, to survive and to be 
prepared to rehire employees and restart their restaurants and shops as 
travelers begin to return. Unfortunately, despite receiving CARES Act 
grants, of the top 50 airports, only about half have granted any type 
of relief to concessionaires. Many of those are only deferring the 
minimum rent, despite the fact that concessionaires have virtually no 
sales.
    However, even rent relief at local airports will not be enough to 
sustain airport concessionaires, save their businesses or enable them 
to fully participate in providing concessions services and revenues to 
airports when the aviation system and economy rebound.
CONGRESS SHOULD AUTHORIZE AND APPROPRIATE $5.0 BILLION FOR A NEW GRANT 
        AND LOAN SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO SUPPORT AIRPORT 
        CONCESSIONAIRES AND PROVIDE A FOUNDATION FOR RECOVERY.
   The proposal is not a new idea--in the Phase III stimulus 
        CARES Act; Congress authorized and appropriated $3 billion for 
        grants and loans reserved for air carrier contractors (to be 
        disbursed by the U.S. Treasury Department) as a means of 
        supporting those businesses and employees.

   Seventy percent (70 percent) of the funds would be made 
        available in the form of FAA grants; thirty percent (30 
        percent) would be in the form of loans (sourced from Minority 
        Depository Institutions, i.e., minority-owned banks).

   The amount of funding available to the concessions companies 
        at each individual airport would be based on that airport's 
        2018 enplanements (the most recent available.) Use of the funds 
        would be limited to provide economic assistance and relief for 
        concessionaires operating at the airport (i.e., to support an 
        individual concessionaire's operations at a given airport). 
        Concessionaires would be permitted to use the grants and/or 
        loans for re-opening expenses, employee wages, benefits and 
        training, inventory costs, utility costs, expenses related to 
        COVID-19 cleaning/sterilization requirements or protocols, 
        expenses related to airport security, interest and debt service 
        payment, or for workout arrangements.

   In addition to restaurant and retail operators, other 
        concessions companies operating at an airport (as defined by 
        C.F.R. 49 Section 23.3) would be eligible to apply for grants 
        or loans.

   For FAA grants, each concession company would prepare a 
        simplified FAA grant application that would be reviewed and 
        verified by the airport where they operate and then submitted 
        to the FAA. After review and determination that the application 
        meets the eligibility requirements, the FAA would provide the 
        grant assistance directly to the concession applicant for its 
        use for operating and capital projects only at that airport. 
        The funds could not be used at any other airport. FAA would 
        have authority to review and audit the expenditure of the funds 
        to ensure compliance with the eligibility and other 
        requirements.

   The proposal is not a new idea--in the Phase III stimulus 
        Cares Act, Congress authorized and appropriated $3 billion for 
        grants and loans reserved for air carrier contractors as a 
        means of supporting those businesses and retaining jobs.

    For these reasons, ARRA and AMAC urge Congress to SAVE OUR INDUSTRY 
and include financial relief and direct assistance to airport 
concessionaires as it works to mitigate the economic and public health 
implications of this unprecedented pandemic.
    Thank you.
                                 ______
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 ______
                                 
                    Aeronautical Repair Station Association
                                        Alexandria, VA, May 6, 2020

Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

RE: Coronavirus Relief for the Aviation Maintenance Industry

Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:

    On behalf of America's aviation maintenance industry, the 
Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA) thanks you for your 
efforts to provide relief to businesses suffering from economic 
disruptions caused by the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 (``coronavirus'') 
pandemic. We appreciate you convening today's hearing to examine the 
health of the aviation industry and discuss opportunities to help the 
aviation sector weather the unprecedented economic storm.
    Unfortunately, despite recent legislation, conditions for aviation 
businesses are dire. Hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs at 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certificated repair stations and 
parts manufacturing facilities throughout the country are in jeopardy 
(a state-by-state overview of the maintenance industry's employment and 
economic footprint is at arsa.org/news-media/economic-data).
    Oliver Wyman CAVOK (OW), a leading aviation consultancy that 
provides economic data for ARSA, recently reported that:

        While 9/11 represented a sudden, severe shock to the North 
        American aviation market and the 2008 financial crisis 
        presented immense global economic challenges, COVID-19 is 
        proving to be an even greater threat to commercial aviation 
        because of global travel restrictions and massive reductions in 
        consumer demand for air travel, evidenced in cancelled and lost 
        bookings, and the uncertain prospects for a return to normalcy. 
        Commercial airlines have already been forced to make 
        significant cuts to their capacity through a combination of 
        placing aircraft in storage and operating the remaining 
        aircraft at lower levels of utilization. [Emphasis added]

    OW has projected that because of the dramatic drop in aircraft 
utilization, global maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) spending 
will drop by more than 50 percent in 2020, from a pre-pandemic 
forecasted level of $91.2 billion to $42.3 billion in the post-pandemic 
world. In the United States, demand is expected to fall 43 percent.
    The jobs of more than 250,000 Americans who work in the aviation 
maintenance sector are at high risk due to the collapse of the MRO 
market. Worse still, while other industries are likely to rebound 
quickly from the present downturn, the aviation industry will take 
years to recover. Under OW's baseline projection, industry revenues 
will not return to pre-pandemic levels until late 2021; under the 
worst-case scenario, the industry may not recover until early 2023.
    Even once aviation activity returns to pre-pandemic levels, the 
effects of the coronavirus disruptions are expected to linger and 
suppress growth for years. OW projects that 4,500 fewer aircraft will 
be added to the global fleet over the next decade than originally 
anticipated and that maintenance spending in 2030 will be almost nine 
percent below prior predictions because of the lingering effects of the 
pandemic.
    In light of the foregoing, it is critical that Congress continue to 
provide immediate relief and identify opportunities to support aviation 
over the long-term to help the industry survive.
    The MRO sector is not only critical to air carrier operations, but 
also supports general, business, government and military aviation. 
Repair station workers are highly trained; it takes years to gain the 
necessary expertise to be an effective technician. If the industry 
loses a substantial portion of its workforce, repair stations will lack 
the capacity to support the Nation's civil and military fleets as 
aviation activity returns to normal levels. This, in turn, will pose 
long-term risks to both the efficiency of the aviation system and to 
national security.
    As you consider the next phase of relief legislation, we ask that 
you include the policy proposals below (and addressed in more detail in 
the attached white paper) to protect
    U.S. repair station jobs and ensure the survival of this vital 
economic sector.
    Specifically, ARSA encourages Congress to:

   Improve repair station access to Federal relief by directing 
        the Small Business Administration (SBA) to immediately increase 
        the small business size standard for all North American 
        Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes applicable to 
        aviation maintenance industry companies to at least 1,500 (and, 
        ideally, to 3,000) employees and by temporarily exempting 
        companies covered by those NAICS codes from SBA's affiliation 
        rules for purposes of accessing pandemic relief.

   Clarify the ability of air carrier maintenance contractors 
        and subcontractors to access Air Carrier Worker Support (ACWS) 
        resources.

   Provide significant additional resources for both the 
        Paycheck Protection and ACWS programs.

   Refrain from imposing unnecessary restrictions and 
        requirements on companies seeking access to relief.

   Create temporary tax incentives and grant programs to 
        encourage business investment in worker training, equipment and 
        facilities and air carrier investment in maintenance.

   Resolve the uncertainty surrounding the tax treatment of PPP 
        loans.

    ARSA and its members look forward to working with you to continue 
to implement the CARES Act and craft additional legislation to sustain 
the U.S. economy through this uncertain period.
    Thank for your consideration.
            Sincerely,
                                        Christian A. Klein,
                                          Executive Vice President.
                                 ______
                                 
        CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FOR THE AVIATION MAINTENANCE INDUSTRY
Background
    The civil aviation maintenance industry is a vital part of the U.S. 
economy and the aviation ecosystem. It provides close to two-thirds of 
the maintenance for U.S. air carriers and supports general, business, 
state and local government, and military aviation operations.
    As of March 9, 2020, America's 4,017 Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) certificated repair stations employed an estimated 
263,000 workers and contributed more than $25 billion annually to the 
U.S. economy. When aircraft parts and manufacturing distribution are 
factored in, the industry employed approximately 320,000 workers and 
generated more than $50 billion in annual economic activity. A state-
by-state analysis of the aviation maintenance industry's economic and 
employment footprint is available at http://arsa.org/news-media/
economic-data/.
    Because airlines are such important customers for so many repair 
stations, the maintenance industry has been hit hard by the air travel 
disruptions caused by the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 (``coronavirus'') 
pandemic.
    According to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), 
passenger traffic at airports is less than seven percent of what it was 
a year ago. The latest industry economic forecast by aviation 
consultancy Oliver Wyman CAVOK (OW) suggests that demand for 
maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) services in 2020 will drop 
nearly 50 percent compared to the firm's previous pre-coronavirus 
pandemic estimates. Under OW's baseline projection, industry revenues 
will not return to pre-pandemic levels until late 2021; under the 
worst-case scenario, the industry may not recover until early 2023. 
Even once the aviation activity returns to pre-pandemic levels, the 
effects of the coronavirus disruptions will linger for years, 
suppressing growth. OW predicts that 4,500 fewer aircraft will be added 
to the global fleet over the next decade and that maintenance spending 
in 2030 will be almost nine percent below prior predictions because of 
the lingering effects of the pandemic. Similarly, according to Argus 
International, charter flights are down 65 percent relative to the same 
time last year.
    The full impact of the disruptions and Federal relief is still 
uncertain, but hundreds of thousands of maintenance industry jobs 
throughout the country are at risk.
    While the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act 
(H.R. 748) has helped many maintenance companies, some repair stations 
have fallen through the cracks and are ineligible for certain CARES Act 
relief. And even those that have been able to access Federal resources 
will almost certainly require more support to survive.
    ARSA therefore encourages Congress and the administration to take 
the actions described below to save as many aviation jobs as possible 
in the months ahead. In addition to preventing repair station workers 
from ending up on unemployment rolls and keeping small and medium-size 
companies afloat, ARSA's proposals will help ensure that maintenance 
industry has the necessary capacity to maintain the U.S. fleet when the 
pandemic ends and air travel once again increases.
1. Update SBA Size Standard for Aviation Maintenance NAICS Codes

        RECOMMENDATION: To address inequities in the CARES Act, allow 
        more aviation maintenance companies to access PPP resources and 
        save more repair station jobs, the next relief bill should 
        direct the SBA to issue a direct final rule (or take other 
        appropriate administrative action) within 10 days of enactment 
        to increase the small business size standard for NAICS codes 
        336413 and 488190 to at least 1,500 employees or, ideally, 
        increase the size standards for all NAICS codes applicable to 
        aviation maintenance to 3,000 employees.

    Most aviation maintenance companies fall into one of the following 
four North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes:

   336411--Aircraft Manufacturing, including ``overhaul''

   336412--Aircraft Engine and Parts Manufacturing, including 
        ``overhaul''

   336413--Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment 
        Manufacturing

   488190--Other Support Activities for Air Transportation

    Pursuant to 13 CFR part 121, the Small Business Administration 
(SBA) establishes small business size standards for industries based on 
NAICS codes. Companies classified as 336411 and 33641 are considered 
small businesses if they have fewer than 1,500 employees. The standard 
for 336413 is fewer than 1,250 employees. The standard for 488190--the 
category into which many repair stations fall--is less than $35 million 
in annual revenues.
    Based on ARSA estimates that one employee, on average, is 
associated with each
    $100,000 in repair station revenues, a company with $35 million in 
revenues would have just 350 employees, 80 percent fewer workers than 
those companies considered small businesses in categories 336411 and 
336412 and 72 percent fewer than the number of workers at category 
336413 companies.
    The CARES Act has highlighted how this disproportionality works to 
the disadvantage of small and medium-size aviation businesses. Sec. 
1102 of the law created a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) through 
which certain companies may obtain forgivable loans to cover payroll 
and some overhead costs during the national emergency. To be eligible, 
a company must either have 500 or fewer employees or be considered a 
small business under its NAICS code (whichever is greater). Thus, while 
companies in many industries with significantly more than 500 employees 
will ultimately be able to obtain relief through PPP loans because of 
the size standard for their NAICS codes, many repair stations with more 
than 500 employees will not.
    ARSA therefore requests that the next relief bill require the SBA 
to issue a direct final rule or to take other appropriate 
administrative action within ten days of enactment to increase the 
small business size standard for NAICS codes 336413 and 488190 to at 
least 1,500 employees or, ideally, increase the size standards for all 
NAICS codes applicable to aviation maintenance to 3,000 employees.
2. Exempt Repair Stations from Affiliation Rules for PPP Purposes

        RECOMMENDATION: To allow a broader cross-section of small and 
        medium-size repair stations to access PPP relief, Congress 
        should exempt businesses covered by aviation maintenance 
        related NAICS codes from SBA's affiliation rules for PPP 
        purposes.

    The SBA's size standards and affiliation rules have also made it 
difficult for some aviation maintenance companies to access PPP relief; 
in particular, those partially or wholly owned by private equity 
companies or operated as a family of small companies with a common 
ownership umbrella.
    13 CFR Sec. 121.103(a)(6) states that, ''In determining the 
concern's size, SBA counts the receipts, employees, or other measure of 
size of the concern whose size is at issue and all of its domestic and 
foreign affiliates, regardless of whether the affiliates are organized 
for profit.'' (Emphasis added.) 13 CFR Sec. 121.103(a)(1) states that, 
``Concerns and entities are affiliates of each other when one controls 
or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties 
controls or has the power to control both. It does not matter whether 
control is exercised, so long as the power to control exists.''
    Thus, if Company A is owned wholly or partially by an individual or 
business with other business interests, the employees and receipts of 
those other business interests are imputed to Company A in determining 
whether it is a small business. As a result, many repair stations that 
would otherwise qualify for PPP relief are excluded based on their 
ownership structures.
    Recognizing that the affiliation rules would prevent small and 
medium-size businesses in certain industries from accessing PPP relief, 
Congress included language in the CARES Act exempting them from the 
affiliation rules. Sec. 1102 of the law waived the affiliation rules 
for companies with up to 500 employees per location if the company was 
assigned a NAICS code beginning with 72 (i.e., the accommodation and 
food service sectors), for franchises assigned an SBA franchise 
identified code and for business that receive financial assistance from 
SBA-licensed small business investment companies. However, despite 
being similarly situated and in desperate need of assistance, none of 
these exemptions apply to repair stations, precluding some from 
accessing PPP relief.
    To allow a broader cross-section of small and medium-size aviation 
maintenance companies to access PPP relief, ARSA urges Congress to 
exempt businesses with NAICS codes 336411 (``Aircraft Manufacturing), 
336412 (Aircraft Engine and Parts Manufacturing), 336413 (``Other 
Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing'') and 488190 
(``Other Support Activities for Air Transportation'') from the SBA's 
affiliation rules for PPP purposes.
3. Ensure All Repair Stations Serving Airlines Can Access to Air 
        Carrier Worker Support Program Resources

        RECOMMENDATION: Congress should amend Sec. 4111(3) of the CARES 
        Act to remove the requirement that airline contractors and 
        subcontractors must be ``on airport'' to access Air Carrier 
        Worker Support assistance.

    Subtitle B of Title IV (``Air Carrier Worker Support'') (Secs. 
4111-4120) establishes a program to provide direct assistance to 
airlines, cargo carriers and airline contractors. The term contractor 
is defined at Sec. 4111(3) to mean:

        (A) person that performs, under contract with a passenger air 
        carrier conducting operations under part 121 of title 14, Code 
        of Federal Regulations--
        (i) catering functions; or
        (ii) functions on the property of an airport that are directly 
        related to the air transportation of persons, property, or 
        mail, including but not limited to the loading and unloading of 
        property on aircraft; assistance to passengers under part 382 
        of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; security; airport 
        ticking and check-in functions; ground handling of aircraft; or 
        aircraft cleaning and sanitization functions and waste removal; 
        or
        (B) a subcontractor that performs such functions.

    The Treasury Department has recognized that maintenance is a 
function directly related to air transportation and confirmed that 
repair stations located at airports that provide maintenance to air 
carriers are eligible to apply for ACWS relief. However, the lion's 
share of aviation maintenance takes place ``off the aircraft'' and 
``off the airport'' at highly specialized FAA certificated component 
and engine maintenance facilities. These off-airport companies may be 
direct contractors of airlines or may be subcontractors of other on-
airport repair stations.
    ARSA believes that in creating the ACWS program it was Congress's 
intent to provide relief to the full spectrum of airline contractors 
impacted by the coronavirus-related airline disruptions. However, the 
language of statute discriminates against airline maintenance 
contractors not located at airports and is, at best, unclear about 
where a subcontractor must be located to be eligible for the ACWS 
program.
    ARSA therefore urges that Sec. 4111(3)(A)(2) be amended to add 
``maintenance performed under part 43 of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, regardless of whether such work is performed on the 
property of an airport'' to the list enumerated functions in that 
section.
4. Increase Loan and Grant Program Resources

        RECOMMENDATION: Congress should increase and extend financial 
        resources available to businesses under the CARES Act's loan 
        and grant programs and reduce burdensome requirements to ensure 
        all companies requiring relief are able to access it.

    The CARES Act created, inter alia, the $349 billion PPP for small 
and medium size companies; the ACWS Program, which authorizes $25 
billion for assistance to airlines, $4 billion for cargo carriers and 
$3 billion for airline contractors; and a $500 billion loan program, of 
which $25 billion is set aside in Sec. 4003(b)(1) specifically for FAA-
certificated part 145 repair stations, airlines and ticket agents. The 
law also authorized a ``main street'' lending program with preferential 
interest rates for medium size companies (i.e., those with between 500 
and 10,000 employees).
    The present crisis is likely to persist for at least several more 
weeks and it is highly unlikely that air travel will return to pre-
March 2020 levels before the end of the year. ARSA therefore urges that 
the grant and loan programs be extended and receive additional funds to 
sustain affected companies and their workers. Doing so will help 
maintain business capacity and worker readiness, thereby helping to 
facilitate a speedier recovery.
    ARSA also asks that Congress reconsider the various requirements 
associated with accessing loan and grant money to make it easier for 
already struggling companies to access these critical resources. 
Congress created these new grant and loans programs to protect jobs in 
industries affected by the coronavirus pandemic. However, the various 
``taxpayer protection'' requirements applicable to the programs may 
have the opposite effect. The CARES Act adds terms to loans that would 
be unthinkable in the commercial world because they impact business 
operations and limit decisionmaking well beyond the term of the loan. 
For example, Main Street Lending Program recipients are prohibited from 
outsourcing or offshoring jobs during the term of the loan and for two 
years thereafter.
    In other words, if a company facing desperate economic 
circumstances through no fault of its own takes on debt now through the 
program to pay its workers, even after the loan is paid off the company 
will be limited in its ability to adjust supply chains and take other 
actions to make itself more competitive in the future. By adding 
restrictions to loans at a time when businesses are desperate for 
liquidity, Congress has, in some respect, made it less attractive for 
companies to seek government relief than it would be to obtain a 
commercial loan.
    The CARES Act also included $1.5 billion for the Economic 
Adjustment Assistance (EAA) grant program administered by the 
Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration (EDA). 
While these resources can play a vital role in expanding local economic 
opportunities, particularly in distressed communities, the EDA has yet 
to provide guidance and release CARES Act funding. EDA should be 
encouraged to begin making grants as soon as possible because the 
resources will enable state EDA offices to provide grants to mitigate 
business lease and rent costs, support worker training and retraining 
and fund entrepreneurial ideas that can stimulate more employment.
    The CARES Act provides the infrastructure to channel economic 
relief to American businesses and workers. Now Congress must refine the 
programs to make them as effective as possible and ensure Federal 
relief continues to flow as quickly and freely as possible.
5. Tax Credits to Encourage Investment, Training and Maintenance 
        Activity

        Recommendation: Congress should create additional short-term 
        refundable tax incentives and/or grant programs to encourage 
        activity that will sustain affected industries during the 
        pandemic and position companies and workers for future success.

    Historically, tax incentives such as the highly successful 
depreciation bonus created after 9/11 have incentivized stimulated 
economic activity by encouraging businesses to shift future purchasing 
into the present.
    While any relief provided to all employees and small-to-medium 
sized organizations will be helpful to the long-term health of repair 
stations, additional measures will no doubt be needed for the entire 
aviation supply chain to survive intact. ARSA therefore proposes 
Congress and the administration create a temporary refundable tax 
credit for airlines and other aircraft operators equal to 50 percent of 
the cost of maintenance contracted to and performed by U.S. repair 
stations between April 1 and Dec. 31, 2020. The temporary tax credit 
would encourage airlines and other aircraft operators to continue to 
contract for maintenance during the downturn. Aside from creating 
economic activity that will flow through the supply chains, this will 
ensure that aircraft remain airworthy and that worker skills remain 
sharp.
    Similarly, Congress should use the tax code to incentivize 
businesses to invest in employee skills during the downturn, when many 
workers have been idled. ARSA therefore proposes that Congress create a 
grant program or a temporary refundable tax credit equal to 50 percent 
of training costs incurred by U.S. companies between May 1 and Dec. 31, 
2020. This would encourage businesses whose employees are idled to 
invest in those workers, allowing them to maintain proficiency and 
acquire new expertise.
    Finally, to help companies prepare for the ultimate recovery, 
Congress should explore new ways to incentivize business investment in 
research and development, facilities and capital equipment placed in 
service before the end of the year. This could potentially be done 
through refundable tax credits, grants or changes to depreciation 
rules.
6. Resolve PPP Tax Uncertainty

        Recommendation: Congress should work with the IRS to resolve 
        the uncertainty created by the IRS surrounding the tax 
        treatment of PPP loans or amend the CARES Act to waive the 
        applicability of 26 USC Sec. 265 to PPP loan forgiveness.
    On April 30, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2020-
32 which ``clarifie[d] that no deduction is allowed under the Internal 
Revenue Code (Code) for an expense that is otherwise deductible if the 
payment of the expense results in forgiveness of a covered loan 
pursuant to section 1106(b)'' of the CARES Act. The IRS notice 
apparently contradicts Sec. 1106(i), which states that, with regard to 
the ``taxability'' of the loan forgiveness available to PPP recipients, 
any amounts forgiven by a PPP loan ``shall be excluded from gross 
income.''
    Many repair stations are small and medium size entities that have 
likely taken advantage of the PPP. ARSA is concerned that, contrary to 
the apparent intent of Congress, this IRS ruling will increase tax 
liability for PPP recipients in the aviation maintenance industry at a 
time when many companies are struggling to survive.
    We believe that IRS's interpretation is inconsistent with the 
intent of the law. Congress should work with the IRS to resolve the 
inconsistency or amend the CARES Act to waive the applicability of 26 
USC Sec. 265 from applying to PPP loan forgiveness.
                                 * * *
    For additional information regarding these proposals, please 
contact ARSA Executive Vice President Christian Klein at 
[email protected].
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                           Hon. Eric Fanning
    Question 1. Mr. Fanning, your testimony discussed the difficulty 
your industry members face in responding quickly once orders for your 
products begin to climb, and the importance of ensuring that domestic 
suppliers--both large and small--have access to assistance programs 
provided by the CARES Act.
    Given the reliance of your industry on a truly global supply chain, 
can you discuss some of the difficulties your members face in 
navigating the various restrictions on the movement of goods?
    Answer. Like others, our industry did face some initial challenges 
when states and localities began restricting movement through the 
issuance of ``stay at home'' orders in March. However, with strong 
support at the federal, state and local level, these issues have been 
largely resolved. In the international arena, there have been issues 
with the non-coordination across governments about which industries 
should be deemed ``essential'' and therefore allowed to continue 
working and producing products. Once those products are produced, U.S. 
government agencies have been effective at ensuring items declared 
essential are allowed into the United States. The larger issue for our 
industry has been the effect of COVID-19 at reducing the output of 
overseas suppliers which provide important parts, products, and 
supplies to companies in the United States.

    Question 2. To follow up on that, do you have any suggestions for 
how the Federal government can be helpful in resolving these supply 
chain challenges?
    Answer. The Federal government should continue to recognize that 
commercial aviation manufacturing is a highly competitive global 
business with a necessarily global supply chain. As world leaders in 
this sector, U.S. aircraft manufacturers and their suppliers will 
increasingly serve overseas export markets that are projected to grow 
fastest over the coming decades. As the world recovers from the COVID-
19 pandemic, we should do all we can to ensure overseas suppliers are 
able to continue supporting U.S. aviation manufacturers.

    Question 3. You also mentioned that Aerospace industries 
Association is working closely with International Civil Aviation 
Organization on restoring public confidence and development of safety 
standards in response to the pandemic. Could you provide additional 
information on these discussions and some of the standards being 
considered?
    Answer. AIA currently chairs the International Coordinating Council 
of Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA) which includes AIA and 
similar aerospace organizations in other countries and regions. ICCAIA 
has been heavily involved with the International Civil Aviation 
Organization's (ICAO's) Council Aviation Recovery Taskforce (CART), 
which was established to provide guidance to countries and industry on 
how to restart aviation safely and incorporate appropriate measures to 
reduce the transmission of COVID-19. CART has now published its report 
setting out key principles that governments and industry should follow, 
along with guidance for public health risk mitigation across the entire 
aviation system. AIA believes this international focus is the best 
approach to restore confidence in commercial aviation around the world 
while helping to provide a roadmap to recovery. For more detail, the 
ICAO CART report and its accompanying ``Takeoff'' Guidance can be 
reviewed here: https://www.icao.int/covid/cart/Pages/default.aspx.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
                           Hon. Eric Fanning
    Question 1. I think we all agree that a strong airline industry is 
critical to our economic recovery. The amount of passengers screened by 
the TSA is down by about 94 percent. It's clear that in order to 
increase confidence in air travel, we'll need to implement robust 
health testing and screening protocols at our Nation's airports until a 
vaccine becomes available. I'd like to get the panel's thoughts on 
possible testing and screening options, including the feasibility of 
temperature testing at TSA checkpoints, and whether you believe TSA is 
the appropriate entity to carry out these activities?
    Answer. The health of both passengers and aviation workers is the 
highest priority for the entire aviation industry. AIA supports 
measures that will provide confidence to the traveling public in 
airport screening procedures while protecting the screening workforce. 
We believe it is important for airlines and airports to be involved in 
discussions about the requirements that would work best. The industry 
is already taking measures such as increased cleaning of airplanes and 
the use of passenger face masks. When combined with the hospital-grade 
air filters found on commercial aircraft, these additional steps will 
help minimize the risk of transmission during flight.

    Question 2. What is the U.S. airline industry doing, or could be 
doing, to build the confidence of the travelling public by sharing the 
preexisting and new measures in place to protect the health of 
passengers, such as the use of HEPA filters in air filtration systems?
    Answer. Passengers need to feel safe throughout their entire air 
travel experience, from the curb at the airport to the cabin of the 
airplane to when they arrive at their destination. ICAO's CART 
guidelines provide a strong starting point to begin reassuring the 
flying public. As AIA represents companies across the aviation 
manufacturing sector and supply chain, we're also coordinating with 
leaders representing airlines and airports to develop resources and 
materials for passengers to learn and understand both the pre-existing 
and new measures in place to ensure their health and well-being.
    The use of HEPA filters on aircraft is an important element of 
strong cabin air quality. As the International Air Transport 
Association (IATA) said in a 2018 issue paper: ``The majority of 
modern, large, commercial aircraft, which use a recirculation type of 
cabin air system, utilise HEPA filters. . .HEPA, or high efficiency 
particulate air, filters have similar performance to those used to keep 
the air clean in hospital operating rooms and industrial clean rooms. 
These filters are very effective at trapping microscopic particles as 
small as bacteria and viruses. . .HEPA filters are effective at 
capturing greater than 99 percent of the airborne microbes in the 
filtered air. Filtered, recirculated air provides higher cabin humidity 
levels and lower particulate levels than 100 percent outside air 
systems.''
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 
                           Hon. Eric Fanning
    Question. In response to the pandemic, Congress was able to provide 
much needed support to the aviation industry and its workers. The CARES 
Act provided up to $46 billion available for Federal loans and loan 
guarantees to the aviation sector. In West Virginia, DOT has so far 
awarded more than $9.3 million from the FAA to help fund continued 
operations and make up for lost revenue for airports across my state. 
As we move forward, what would be the primary recommendation for 
Congress in future COVID support?
    Answer. Although the reduction in airline activity is expected to 
reduce demand in the short-and intermediate-term, it is important to 
preserve the manufacturing workforce and its smaller suppliers so they 
are still available as demand returns. One excellent and creative 
example of how to accomplish this is the ``Private-Public Partnership 
to Preserve Jobs in the Aviation Manufacturing Industry Act of 2020'' 
(S. 3705), a bipartisan bill introduced last month by Senators Jerry 
Moran and Mark Warner. This bill would establish a cost-sharing 
partnership between industry and the Treasury Department to preserve 
the jobs of at-risk manufacturing employees.
    Congress could also consider the expansion of research and 
development partnerships that support the aviation sector. One example 
of these is the FAA's highly successful Continuous Lower Emissions, 
Environment and Energy (CLEEN) program. Through a government-industry 
cost share, CLEEN has helped maintain U.S. aerospace leadership by 
accelerating the advancement of several technologies that have improved 
the environmental performance and fuel efficiency of aircraft.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                           Hon. Eric Fanning
    We are hearing some calls from some industries that they want to be 
protected from paying damages to their employees and customers who get 
sick due to lack of COVID protections.

    Question 1. After receiving tens of billions of taxpayer support, 
are the airlines asking for liability protection too, and if so, what 
specific and binding safety and consumer protection standards would the 
industry agree to in exchange for protection from liability?
    Answer. AIA can only speak on behalf of our membership, which 
includes aviation manufacturers and their suppliers. AIA believes that 
liability is one area where policy dialogue is warranted. Precedents 
for such protections were authorized as the Nation recovered from the 
9/11 terrorist attacks. Companies of all sizes are concerned about 
lawsuits, especially small businesses. We believe that legal protection 
for companies doing their best to control the spread of this disease 
with the limited guidance available should be considered by Congress. 
However, providing businesses with targeted and limited safe harbors 
during these difficult times is not the same as shielding companies 
from all liability. Liability protections should be tailored and 
focused on the current pandemic and critical infrastructure businesses. 
We do not believe that those who behave with gross negligence, willful 
misconduct, intentional criminal misconduct, or intentional infliction 
of harm should be protected or shielded from their actions. Creating 
uniform Federal legal standards and limited, rational safe harbors for 
companies that are acting responsibly will go a long way to ensure the 
availability of people and products that are essential during the 
pandemic and as we recover. Congress could also consider expanding 
current ``Good Samaritan'' provisions to further address product and 
volunteer liability issues.

    Question 2. Would you agree to everything that Dr. Godwin has 
outlined in her testimony?
    The main elements of Dr. Godwin's testimony focused on commercial 
operations of the aircraft, and we would defer to the airlines on those 
subjects. We have provided additional information on HEPA filter usage 
for the hearing record to provide more clarity on this subject.
    This is not the first time that the airline industry has needed 
dramatic help from the government and relief from taxpayers to get it 
through rough times. We definitely recognize that the airlines are 
being hit hard by the lull in travel driven by the coronavirus pandemic 
and this is through no fault of their own. But we are facing another 
major crisis: climate change. If we assume that once the pandemic 
subsides that travel will return to normal, we will still be 
confronting a major issue that many Americans care about. If we are 
going to continue to use their tax dollars to get you through this 
rough patch, we should be able to offer them benefits in return. If 
anything, this time offers the airline industry a moment of pause to 
replan and think creatively about how to reduce its carbon footprint. 
And not just with offsets--actual reduction.
    Question 3. So, how can airlines use this pause to rethink the 
industry and the major crisis we are facing on climate change?
    AIA can only speak on behalf of our membership, which includes 
aviation manufacturers and their suppliers. However, the entire 
aviation industry is committed to reducing climate change impacts. For 
example, we would point to strong industry cost-sharing in the FAA's 
Continuous Lower Emissions, Energy and Noise (CLEEN) program, which is 
focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as aircraft noise. 
With strong support from both industry and Congress, this program is an 
example of a successful public-private partnership that will help us 
meet long-term aviation environmental goals. Ensuring the aviation 
industry remains successful will be key to making these goals a 
reality, as well as continued investment in Federal R&D and sustainable 
aviation fuels.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                             Nicholas Calio
    Question 1. Mr. Calio, you mentioned in your testimony that more 
than 3,000 aircraft, or about half of the airline fleet, has been 
grounded as a result of the evaporation in demand.
    On average, how long does it take to bring grounded aircraft back 
into service, and how does the grounding of so many aircraft affect the 
industry's ability to quickly respond as demand picks back up?
    Answer. In general, there is not an average, as each aircraft in 
storage is different in age and number of cycles which affects the 
level of maintenance necessary to reactivate. However, reactivation 
work can take anywhere from 50-225 man hours per aircraft depending on 
how much outstanding work is open with each aircraft. The efforts to 
bring aircraft out of storage are also impacted by the total number of 
aircraft being considered for reactivation, the more aircraft, the more 
labor intensive and man hours needed. Bringing aircraft back into 
service also requires necessary coordination with the FAA and the 
airplane manufacturer.

    Question 2. Can you speak to the effects the major reductions in 
scheduled flights will have on crew training, and how airlines plan to 
adapt?
    Answer. Severe disruptions due to dramatically reduced flying and 
the temporary closure of training facilities has impacted the ability 
to conduct recurrent training and qualification requirements for ground 
personnel, crewmembers, and aircraft dispatchers. These requirements 
include training, testing, checking, evaluation, recency, and 
observation activities. A4A has and will continue to work with the FAA 
to mitigate challenges and ensure the completion of various training 
and qualification requirements. As the situation evolves, managing the 
backlog of personnel who still require training to maintain currency 
will continue to be a challenge given limited access to training 
facilities and simulators.

    Question 3. Your testimony also discussed many of the immediate 
actions airlines have taken to protect their employees and the 
traveling public, including expanded disinfection protocols and mask 
requirements.
    As the industry looks toward long-term recovery, could you 
elaborate on your discussions with Transportation Security 
Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the 
Department of Transportation, and other government agencies on measure 
such as temperature checks, testing regimens, and contact tracing?
    Answer. As health screening is a government function, we would 
encourage Congress support the Transportation Security Administration 
(TSA) in conducting temperature checks during the pandemic. Doing so 
would create a consistent and well-recognized experience for passengers 
at every U.S. airport. Temperature screenings are a critical component 
of a multilayered and risk-based screening process and also instill 
passenger confidence in overall health safety along with serving as an 
effective deterrent to those that may be sick from going to the airport 
in the first place.
    We appreciate the leadership shown by TSA Administrator Pekoske 
throughout the pandemic. TSA has been a steadfast partner through the 
COVID-19 crisis and has routinely sought stakeholder input and provided 
consistent communication to the industry at a time when coordination 
efforts are at their most difficult.
    Airlines also support the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) in collecting passenger contact information with the 
shared goal of combating the spread of COVID-19 and mitigating any 
future public health emergencies. We believe public health screening is 
a government function and recommend the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) should develop, 
operate, administer and maintain a government process to collect 
contract tracing data that will allow for direct and timely action on 
an incredibly complex problem. To foster harmonization and improve 
accuracy, reliability, and privacy protections, the U.S. government 
should collect contact information directly from international 
passengers in a holistic process across all modes of transportation and 
through a Federal Government portal or mobile application. Importantly, 
this direct collection by the U.S. government is the recommended 
practice by the Council Aviation Recovery Task Force (CART) of the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
    Unfortunately, collaboration and dialogue with the CDC has not been 
as productive as with other Agencies. A4A has had an ongoing (but off 
and on) conversation since January about aviation contact tracing, with 
no resolution. Airlines have repeatedly asked the CDC for technical 
specifications--including in writing on several occasions--so that 
airlines may begin the 12-18-month process of updating multiple 
information technology (IT) systems to comply with the CDC's interim 
final rules requiring airlines' collection of contact information. We 
have received no response to our inquiries, and the last discussion 
airlines had with CDC on this issue was March 2, 2020.
    More importantly, even if airlines are required to collect the 
information, they cannot guarantee the accuracy or validate the 
information. The CDC, on the other hand, can collect accurate 
information directly from passengers under the penalty of law. Simply 
put, airline collection does not get the CDC what it needs: accurate 
contact information. Notably, the CDC has already created its own 
contact information collection website that it estimated could be 
operated at a small fraction of the costs for airlines to collect 
contact information. However, the CDC appears to have abandoned this 
option, without explanation.
    Further, the CDC has not adequately considered the privacy 
implications of airlines collecting the information, which is best 
demonstrated by the CDC's interim final rules. For example, the 
collection of information from residents in the EU will trigger 
protections under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In 
fact, DHS had to enter into a special US-EU agreement for the sharing 
of Passenger Name Record (PNR) information by airlines with the U.S. 
government, which does not cover the airlines sharing of passenger 
information for public health purposes. These privacy issues must be 
addressed and are better address through the U.S. government's 
collection of contact information directly from passengers.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
                             Nicolas Calio
    Question 1. Mr. Calio, there has been a general notion that cargo 
carriers have not been heavily damaged by the economic impacts of 
COVID-19--that is true for some cargo airlines. However, many smaller 
carriers like Lynden Air Cargo and Northern Air Cargo from my state 
have been greatly damaged by the tremendous economic downturn. Would 
you agree that we need to ensure smaller cargo carriers are not 
forgotten in the consideration of possible future assistance?
    Answer. Yes, all air carriers should receive consideration.

    Question 2. Mr. Calio, almost all passenger carriers are providing 
masks to passengers and flight crew, with most carriers requiring that 
passengers and/or flight crew wear masks. We all know there is a global 
shortage of N95 masks, which should be provided to health care 
providers and first responders before the general public. Have you 
received any feedback from your carriers on the availability of 
alternative cloth masks?
    Answer. A4A carriers have not encountered systemic challenges in 
obtaining sufficient quantities of alternative face coverings for 
employees or passengers.

    Question 3. Mr. Calio, since the CARES Act requires the Secretary 
of Treasury to coordinate with the Secretary of Transportation on 
implementation of the distribution of the loans, as DOT is best able to 
determine the needs of the variety of stakeholders operating in the 
national airspace, do you agree with the judgement of Congress that the 
Treasury is to rely on the expertise of the Secretary of Transportation 
for determining the manner in which to distribute the loans?
    Answer. Section 4006 of the CARES Act directs Treasury to 
coordinate with the Secretary of Transportation as it pertains to air 
carrier financial assistance. We support this provision and encourage 
Treasury to coordinate with the Secretary of Transportation in 
accordance with the statute.

    Question 4. I think we all agree that a strong airline industry is 
critical to our economic recovery. The number of passengers screened by 
the TSA is down by about 94 percent. It's clear that in order to 
increase confidence in air travel, we'll need to implement robust 
health testing and screening protocols at our Nation's airports until a 
vaccine becomes available. I'd like to get the panel's thoughts on 
possible testing and screening options, including the feasibility of 
temperature testing at TSA checkpoints, and whether you believe TSA is 
the appropriate entity to carry out these activities?
    Answer. As health screening is a government function, we would 
encourage Congress support the Transportation Security Administration 
(TSA) in conducting temperature checks during the pandemic. Doing so 
would create a consistent and well-recognized experience for passengers 
at every U.S. airport. Temperature screenings are a critical component 
of a multilayered and risk-based screening process and also instill 
passenger confidence in overall health safety along with serving as an 
effective deterrent to those that may be sick from going to the airport 
in the first place.

    Question 5. What is the U.S. airline industry doing, or could be 
doing, to build the confidence of the travelling public by sharing the 
preexisting and new measures in place to protect the health of 
passengers, such as the use of HEPA filters in air filtration systems?
    Answer. The safety and wellbeing of passengers and employees is the 
top priority of U.S. airlines. Since the onset of this health crisis, 
carriers have been taking substantial, proactive steps--in many 
instances exceeding CDC guidance--to protect passengers and employees.
    As noted, in addition to requiring facial coverings, at check-in 
counters and gate areas, travelers may see agents sanitizing counters 
and kiosks. Some airlines have installed plexiglass shields over the 
counters to provide additional protection, and some have marked the 
floors to ensure appropriate distance is maintained. All A4A airlines 
have aircraft equipped with HEPA filters, which help generate hospital-
grade air quality. In fact, the CDC has said that, ``Because of how air 
circulates and is filtered on airplanes, most viruses and other germs 
do not spread easily on flights.''
    U.S. airlines have also implemented intensive cleaning protocols, 
in some cases to include electrostatic cleaning and fogging procedures 
in addition to increasing the frequency of deep cleaning procedures for 
both domestic and international flights.
    For the most up to date and on-going efforts we would also 
encourage you and your staff to visit https://
www.airlinestakeaction.com/ The website provides a robust view of the 
multi-layered approach outlined above and it also highlights our ``Fly 
Healthy. Fly Smart.'' campaign.
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to 
                             Nicolas Calio
    Question 1. What do you believe is the appropriate method for 
conducting contact tracing for the travelling public?
    Answer. Airlines support the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) in collecting passenger contact information with the 
shared goal of combating the spread of COVID-19 and mitigating any 
future public health emergencies. We believe public health screening is 
a government function and recommend the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) should develop, 
operate, administer and maintain a government process to collect 
contract tracing data that will allow for direct and timely action on 
an incredibly complex problem. To foster harmonization and improve 
accuracy, reliability, and privacy protections, the U.S. government 
should collect contact information directly from international 
passengers in a holistic process across all modes of transportation and 
through a Federal Government portal or mobile application. Importantly, 
this direct collection by the U.S. government is the recommended 
practice by the Council Aviation Recovery Task Force (CART) of the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

    Question 2. Do you think the airlines have been given the proper 
guidance on contact tracing? I'm very concerned the Federal Government 
is demanding that the private sector collect irrelevant information 
from U.S. citizens and invade their right to privacy.
    Answer. No. Airlines have repeatedly asked the CDC for technical 
specifications--including in writing on several occasions--so that 
airlines may begin the 12-18-month process of updating multiple 
information technology (IT) systems to comply with the CDC's interim 
final rules requiring airlines' collection of contact information. We 
have received no response to our inquiries, and the last discussion 
airlines had with CDC on this issue was March 2, 2020.
    More importantly, even if airlines are required to collect the 
information, they cannot guarantee the accuracy or validate the 
information. The CDC, on the other hand, can collect accurate 
information directly from passengers under the penalty of law. Simply 
put, airline collection does not get the CDC what it needs: accurate 
contact information. Notably, the CDC has already created its own 
contact information collection website that it estimated could be 
operated at a small fraction of the costs for airlines to collect 
contact information. However, the CDC appears to have abandoned this 
option, without explanation.
    The CDC has not adequately considered the privacy implications of 
airlines collecting the information, which is best demonstrated by the 
CDC's interim final rules. For example, the collection of information 
from residents in the EU will trigger protections under the EU General 
Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In fact, DHS had to enter into a 
special US-EU agreement for the sharing of Passenger Name Record (PNR) 
information by airlines with the U.S. government, which does not cover 
the airlines sharing of passenger information for public health 
purposes. These privacy issues must be addressed and are better address 
through the U.S. government's collection of contact information 
directly from passengers.

    Question 3. A number of airlines are now requiring passengers to 
wear masks and facial coverings. To help contain the spread of the 
Coronavirus, do you believe airports should require masks and/or screen 
the temperature of airline passengers at terminal entry points?
    Answer. A4A announced in late April that our member passenger 
carriers voluntarily would be requiring that customer-facing employees 
and passengers wear a facial covering over their nose and mouth 
throughout the journey--during check-in, boarding, in-flight and 
deplaning. We encourage airports and the TSA to similarly require 
facial coverings in the airport.
    A4A also announced in early May that our member carriers are 
supporting the TSA to begin checking the temperature of the traveling 
public and customer-facing employees as long as necessary during the 
COVID-19 public health crisis. As all screening processes for the 
traveling public are the responsibility of the U.S. government, having 
temperature checks performed by the TSA will ensure that procedures are 
standardized, providing consistency across airports so that travelers 
can plan appropriately. We urge the Administration to move forward, as 
this is an important layer to protect the traveling public and instill 
passenger confidence.

    Question 4. I would like to commend your members' efforts on 
Project Air Bridge. This is a great example of a well-executed public-
private project. Could you please explain to my colleagues how 
important this project is to the American people?
    Answer. Consistent with information on the FEMA website, Project 
Air Bridge was created to reduce the time it takes U.S. medical supply 
distributors to receive personal protective equipment and other 
critical supplies. FEMA covers the cost to fly supplies into the U.S. 
from overseas factories, reducing shipment times. The program is a good 
example of a successful public-private partnership as it allowed for 
the efficient distribution of vital resources to hospitals, nursing 
homes, long-term care facilities, state and local governments, and 
other facilities critical to caring for the U.S. public during this 
pandemic.

    Question 5. Do you feel your communication with the CDC has been 
pristine and dependable? If not, what troubles are you still 
encountering?
    Answer. No. CDC has only been willing to engage the airline 
industry through the FAA and has not engaged directly.

    Question 6. Is there a contact you can e-mail or call at CDC and 
receive a reply immediately?
    Answer. No. Our substantive communications with CDC have all been 
coordinated through the FAA.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                             Nicolas Calio
    Question 1. As you noted in your testimony, the CARES Act enabled 
airlines to preserve jobs and support the salaries and benefits of 
workers through September. As much as Congress wants to help, I believe 
that it is more important now that we evaluate what is needed to be 
done over the long-term. What steps are airlines taking to evaluate the 
long term impacts the COVID-19 pandemic will have on the airline 
industry?
    Answer. The short answer is that airlines are evaluating every 
single aspect of their business in order to sustain and survive the 
economic challenges caused by the pandemic. The industry is focused on 
ensuring the safety and well-being of its employees and customers and 
its ability to weather through the current crisis and position itself 
for a recovery.
    The crisis hit a previously robust industry at lightning speed. 
Unfortunately, recovery from the crisis will not be as swift. We 
anticipate a long and difficult road ahead. For context, passenger 
volumes took 3 years to recover from 9/11 and over 7 years to recover 
from the global financial crisis in 2008. Once demand does recover, it 
will take years to retire the newly accumulated debt and to address the 
sizable interest accrued, thereby limiting carriers' ability to 
reinvest in their people and products. History has shown that air 
transport demand has never experienced a V-shaped recovery from a 
downturn.
    Our industry is adapting on an almost daily basis to the unique 
near, mid-, and long-term challenges of the pandemic. However, to set a 
realistic and practical expectation, while the industry will do 
everything it can to mitigate and address the multitude of challenges, 
no factual doubt exists that the U.S. airline industry will emerge from 
this crisis smaller than what it was just three short months ago. There 
is simply no way around the detrimental and lasting economic impact 
this pandemic will have on commercial aviation.

    Question 2. What do airlines plan on doing to keep and support jobs 
in the long run?
    Answer. Please see answer to Question 1.

    Question 3. I appreciate the efforts U.S. airlines are taking to 
protect passengers and employees during this time. I believe efforts 
like the ones you described in your testimony (complying with CDC 
cleaning protocols, increasing deep cleaning procedures, employees 
wearing facemasks) can play a positive role in keeping travelers safe 
and secure in the short-term. How are airlines planning to build 
consumer confidence going forward?
    Answer. The safety and wellbeing of passengers and employees is the 
top priority of U.S. airlines. Since the onset of this health crisis, 
carriers have been taking substantial, proactive steps--in many 
instances exceeding CDC guidance--to protect passengers and employees.
    As noted, in addition to requiring facial coverings, at check-in 
counters and gate areas, travelers may see agents sanitizing counters 
and kiosks. Some airlines have installed plexiglass shields over the 
counters to provide additional protection, and some have marked the 
floors to ensure appropriate distance is maintained. All A4A airlines 
have aircraft equipped with HEPA filters, which help generate hospital-
grade air quality. In fact, the CDC has said that, ``Because of how air 
circulates and is filtered on airplanes, most viruses and other germs 
do not spread easily on flights.''
    U.S. airlines have also implemented intensive cleaning protocols, 
in some cases to include electrostatic cleaning and fogging procedures 
in addition to increasing the frequency of deep cleaning procedures for 
both domestic and international flights.
    For the most up to date and on-going efforts we would also 
encourage you and your staff to visit https://
www.airlinestakeaction.com/ The website provides a robust view of the 
multi-layered approach outlined above and it also highlights our ``Fly 
Healthy. Fly Smart.'' campaign.

    Question 4. When do airlines anticipate people coming back?
    Answer. There are many variables outside of aviation that will 
impact air travel demand, such as a vaccine and/or treatment options, 
the lifting of stay at home orders and others, that make it difficult 
to anticipate timing. What we do know is it will be a long and 
difficult road. Passenger volumes took 3 years to recover from 9/11 and 
over 7 years to recover from the global financial crisis in 2008. Once 
demand does recover, it will take years to retire the newly accumulated 
debt and to address the sizable interest accrued, thereby limiting 
carriers' ability to reinvest in their people and products. History has 
shown that air transport demand has never experienced a V-shaped 
recovery from a downturn.

    Question 5. What further measures are need in order to rebuild 
consumer confidence?
    Answer. Temporary Temperature Screening: As health screening is a 
government function, we would encourage Congress support the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in conducting temperature 
checks during the pandemic. Doing so would create a consistent and 
well-recognized experience for passengers at every U.S. airport. 
Temperature screenings are a critical component of a multilayered and 
risk-based screening process and also instill passenger confidence in 
overall health safety along with serving as an effective deterrent to 
those that may be sick from going to the airport in the first place.
    Contract Tracing: Airlines also support the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) in collecting passenger contact 
information with the shared goal of combating the spread of COVID-19 
and mitigating any future public health emergencies. We believe public 
health screening is a government function and recommend the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
should develop, operate, administer and maintain a government process 
to collect contract tracing data that will allow for direct and timely 
action on an incredibly complex problem. To foster harmonization and 
improve accuracy, reliability, and privacy protections, the U.S. 
government should collect contact information directly from 
international passengers in a holistic process across all modes of 
transportation and through a Federal Government portal or mobile 
application. Importantly, this direct collection by the U.S. government 
is the recommended practice by the Council Aviation Recovery Task Force 
(CART) of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

    Question 6. As businesses begin to gradually reopen--while taking 
precautions--I believe that liability protections are essential. We 
know that the spread is still there and we need to make sure that the 
businesses that are reopening safely aren't unduly punished.
    Answer. We agree, Congress should enact targeted liability relief 
in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Airlines participating in CARES 
Act grants or loans are required by law to maintain air service at 
certain levels, therefore crucial protections should be put in place to 
safeguard the industry from excessive and speculative lawsuits. Absent 
a safe harbor, uncertainty from liability threatens to impede economic 
recovery. There is precedent for granting safe harbor in the wake of 
prior crises, such as post-9/11. Lawsuits do nothing to reduce 
transmission of COVID-19 but they could hamper industry recovery. 
Airlines should be focused on utilizing strained resources on recovery 
not potential litigation.

    Question 7. What are the liability concerns you are anticipating?
    Answer. Airlines participating in CARES Act grants or loans are 
required by law to maintain air service at certain levels, therefore 
crucial protections should be put in place to safeguard the industry 
from excessive and speculative lawsuits stemming from employees and/or 
passengers.

    Question 8. Do you believe that such protections are necessary for 
the aviation industry?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 9. In response to the pandemic, Congress was able to 
provide much needed support to the aviation industry and its workers. 
The CARES Act provided up to $46 billion available for Federal loans 
and loan guarantees to the aviation sector. In West Virginia, DOT has 
so far awarded more than $9.3 million from the FAA to help fund 
continued operations and make up for lost revenue for airports across 
my state.
    As we move forward, what would be the primary recommendation for 
Congress in future COVID support?
    Answer. .Liability Protection: Congress should enact targeted 
liability relief in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Airlines 
participating in CARES Act grants or loans are required by law to 
maintain air service at certain levels, therefore crucial protections 
should be put in place to safeguard the industry from excessive and 
speculative lawsuits. Absent a safe harbor, uncertainty from liability 
threatens to impede economic recovery. There is precedent for granting 
safe harbor in the wake of prior crises, such as post-9/11. Lawsuits do 
nothing to reduce transmission of COVID-19 but they could hamper 
industry recovery. Airlines should be focused on utilizing strained 
resources on recovery not potential litigation.
    Temporary Temperature Screening: As health screening is a 
government function, we would encourage Congress support the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in conducting temperature 
checks during the pandemic. Doing so would create a consistent and 
well-recognized experience for passengers at every U.S. airport. 
Temperature screenings are a critical component of a multilayered and 
risk-based screening process and also instill passenger confidence in 
overall health safety along with serving as an effective deterrent to 
those that may be sick from going to the airport in the first place.
    Contract Tracing: Airlines also support the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) in collecting passenger contact 
information with the shared goal of combating the spread of COVID-19 
and mitigating any future public health emergencies. We believe public 
health screening is a government function and recommend the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
should develop, operate, administer and maintain a government process 
to collect contract tracing data that will allow for direct and timely 
action on an incredibly complex problem. To foster harmonization and 
improve accuracy, reliability, and privacy protections, the U.S. 
government should collect contact information directly from 
international passengers in a holistic process across all modes of 
transportation and through a Federal Government portal or mobile 
application. Importantly, this direct collection by the U.S. government 
is the recommended practice by the Council Aviation Recovery Task Force 
(CART) of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
    Aviation Excise Tax Holiday Extension: Section 4007 of the CARES 
Act provided temporary aviation excise tax relief through January 1, 
2021. In order to establish, encourage and bolster long-term airline 
recovery, Congress should further extend the suspension of aviation 
excise taxes through at least January 1, 2022. Until aviation demand 
and financial health of the industry return, the revenues collected 
from the excise taxes will in no way cover budgetary needs of the FAA. 
The general fund will need to serve as the primary funding source of 
the FAA regardless of tax policy. Tactical and mid-to-long-term excise 
tax relief will promote economic recovery and be one less impediment 
that discourages air travel.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to 
                             Nicolas Calio
    Question 1. Mr. Calio, has the industry come up with any further 
policy recommendations that might assist airlines as they work to 
recover from this crisis?
    Answer. Temporary Temperature Screening: As health screening is a 
government function, we would encourage Congress support the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in conducting temperature 
checks during the pandemic. Doing so would create a consistent and 
well-recognized experience for passengers at every U.S. airport. 
Temperature screenings are a critical component of a multilayered and 
risk-based screening process and also instill passenger confidence in 
overall health safety along with serving as an effective deterrent to 
those that may be sick from going to the airport in the first place.
    Contract Tracing: Airlines also support the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) in collecting passenger contact 
information with the shared goal of combating the spread of COVID-19 
and mitigating any future public health emergencies. We believe public 
health screening is a government function and recommend the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
should develop, operate, administer and maintain a government process 
to collect contract tracing data that will allow for direct and timely 
action on an incredibly complex problem. To foster harmonization and 
improve accuracy, reliability, and privacy protections, the U.S. 
government should collect contact information directly from 
international passengers in a holistic process across all modes of 
transportation and through a Federal Government portal or mobile 
application. Importantly, this direct collection by the U.S. government 
is the recommended practice by the Council Aviation Recovery Task Force 
(CART) of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

    Question 2. In the near term, a return to any semblance of normalcy 
in the travel industry is likely going to require health testing and 
screening protocols at our Nation's airports until a vaccine becomes 
available.
    Mr. Calio, who is the appropriate entity to carry out these 
protocols and how do you envision that process in practice--walk me 
through what the ``new normal'' experience will be for someone who is 
flying in the next few months?
    Answer. We believe health testing and screening is a Federal 
responsibility and the U.S. government is the most appropriate entity 
to carry out those protocols.
    For an up to date and comprehensive review of the `new normal' we 
would encourage you and your staff to visit https://
www.airlinestakeaction.com/ The website provides a robust view of the 
multi-layered approach outlined above and it also highlights our ``Fly 
Healthy. Fly Smart.'' campaign.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Rick Scott to 
                             Nicolas Calio
    Question 1. Mr. Calio, I wrote a letter, which I will submit for 
the record, asking members of your association to clearly lay out their 
plans to protect passengers and employees as we return to a `new 
normal.' Many airlines have recently instituted new requirements while 
on board their aircraft, including the wearing of facemasks. What 
additional measures are your members in the process of implementing?
    Answer. The safety and wellbeing of passengers and employees is the 
top priority of U.S. airlines. Since the onset of this health crisis, 
carriers have been taking substantial, proactive steps--in many 
instances exceeding CDC guidance--to protect passengers and employees.
    As noted, in addition to requiring facial coverings, at check-in 
counters and gate areas, travelers may see agents sanitizing counters 
and kiosks. Some airlines have installed plexiglass shields over the 
counters to provide additional protection, and some have marked the 
floors to ensure appropriate distance is maintained. All A4A airlines 
have aircraft equipped with HEPA filters, which help generate hospital-
grade air quality. In fact, the CDC has said that, ``Because of how air 
circulates and is filtered on airplanes, most viruses and other germs 
do not spread easily on flights.''
    U.S. airlines have also implemented intensive cleaning protocols, 
in some cases to include electrostatic cleaning and fogging procedures 
in addition to increasing the frequency of deep cleaning procedures for 
both domestic and international flights.
    For the most up to date and on-going efforts we would also 
encourage you and your staff to visit https://
www.airlinestakeaction.com/ The website provides a robust view of the 
multi-layered approach outlined above and it also highlights our ``Fly 
Healthy. Fly Smart.'' campaign.

    Question 2. Mr. Calio and Mr. Hauptli, what additional measures do 
your members think should be taken by the Federal Government to ensure 
the safety of passengers?
    Answer. Temporary Temperature Screening: As health screening is a 
government function, we would encourage Congress support the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in conducting temperature 
checks during the pandemic. Doing so would create a consistent and 
well-recognized experience for passengers at every U.S. airport. 
Temperature screenings are a critical component of a multilayered and 
risk-based screening process and also instill passenger confidence in 
overall health safety along with serving as an effective deterrent to 
those that may be sick from going to the airport in the first place.
    Contract Tracing: Airlines also support the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) in collecting passenger contact 
information with the shared goal of combating the spread of COVID-19 
and mitigating any future public health emergencies. We believe public 
health screening is a government function and recommend the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
should develop, operate, administer and maintain a government process 
to collect contract tracing data that will allow for direct and timely 
action on an incredibly complex problem. To foster harmonization and 
improve accuracy, reliability, and privacy protections, the U.S. 
government should collect contact information directly from 
international passengers in a holistic process across all modes of 
transportation and through a Federal Government portal or mobile 
application. Importantly, this direct collection by the U.S. government 
is the recommended practice by the Council Aviation Recovery Task Force 
(CART) of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

    Question 3. Mr. Calio, The CARES Act provided substantial funding 
to the airline industry. What oversight measures by your members are in 
place to ensure these taxpayer dollars are spent wisely?
    Answer. The aviation industry is very thankful for the financial 
assistance opportunities provided in the CARES Act. Air carriers have 
and will strictly adhere to their terms of agreement with the Treasury 
and all other Federal laws and regulations.
    The CARES Act also contained the establishment of an Office of the 
Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (Sec. 4018) and a 
Congressional Oversight Commission (Sec. 4020), both of which will 
provide additional oversight of taxpayer funding. It is also expected 
that the Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector General 
and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) may add additional 
layers of oversight. Airlines welcome and encourage oversight on this 
matter.

    Question 4. Mr. Calio, it has been reported in a recent Financial 
Times article that a major foreign airline leasing company, backed by 
the Bank of China, is using the opportunity to buy up airplanes from 
distressed U.S. airline companies and lease them back. Is that common 
practice for your members to lease planes from foreign companies backed 
by known foreign advisories and couldn't this cause vulnerabilities for 
a critical domestic industry?
    Answer. U.S. commercial aviation is a global industry and air 
carriers routinely utilize aircraft leasing as a financing mechanism. 
Of note, as referenced in the GAO excerpt below, U.S. airlines are also 
subject to specific ownership and control laws. While the U.S. aviation 
industry, in some instances, does use lease back agreements, all of 
those financial agreements are done in strict accordance with all U.S. 
laws and regulations.
    ``U.S. aviation citizenship requirements--ownership and control--
are defined in statute. In order to operate as a U.S. airline, an 
entity must obtain approval from DOT. This approval includes meeting 
aviation ``citizenship'' criteria. The requirements were enacted in the 
Air Commerce Act of 1926 and the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 and have 
largely remained the same since then. A ``citizen of the United 
States'' is an individual U.S. citizen, a partnership whose members are 
U.S. citizens, or a corporation or association organized under U.S. law 
where at least 75 percent of the total voting interest is owned and 
controlled by U.S. citizens. The law does not specify any limits on 
foreign investment in nonvoting stock or limits on the provision of 
debt financing. The law also specifies that the airline president, as 
well as at least two-thirds of the board of directors of the 
corporation, must be U.S. citizens, and the airline must be under the 
actual control of U.S. citizens.'' (GAO-19-540R Airline Foreign 
Ownership)
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                             Nicholas Calio
    Aviation Emission Trends. I understand that, according to the 
Environmental Protection Agency, greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from 
the aviation sector accounted for 130.8 million metric tons of 
CO2 equivalent in 2018, or about 7 percent of all 
transportation sector GHG emissions. And that currently aviation 
accounts for roughly 2 percent of global carbon emissions, but that 
portion is expected to expand significantly as other sectors such as 
energy and ground transportation make rapid progress to decarbonize. In 
fact, the United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization 
(ICAO) projects global aviation emissions will triple by 2050, and by 
that time aviation could account for 25 percent of global carbon 
emissions. And that a recent study from the International Council on 
Clean Transportation found that global carbon dioxide emissions from 
airlines over the past 5 years increased at a rate that is 79 percent 
higher than the projections used by ICAO when they found emissions 
could triple by 2050.

    Question 1. Mr. Calio, do you agree with these assessments?
    Answer. A4A believes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA) GHG emissions inventory is reasonably accurate and, in fact, A4A 
routinely cites the inventory in our work and communications. Here you 
note the figures of the aviation sector accounting for 130.8 million 
metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2018, or about 7 percent of 
all transportation sector GHG emissions. We concur with these figures. 
We also note that this means that aviation accounts for 2 percent of 
the Nation's total GHG output.
    We also concur that aviation accounts for approximately 2 percent 
of global carbon emissions, as confirmed by sources such as ICAO and 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    While we note that certain ICAO analysis did determine that global 
aviation emissions could triple by 2050 under an aggressive traffic 
growth scenario (that was projected before the COVID-19 crisis) and 
absent industry action, our industry has rigorous climate goals and 
initiatives in place to address our GHG emissions so that will not 
occur.
    By way of context, the U.S. airlines have a strong climate change 
record and a continuing commitment to further reduce the industry's 
carbon footprint. Between 1978 and 2019, the U.S. airlines improved 
their fuel efficiency by more than 135 percent, saving over 5 billion 
metric tons of CO2--equivalent to taking more than 27 
million cars off the road on average in each of those years. And 
between 2000 and 2019, U.S. airlines improved their fuel and carbon 
emissions efficiency by 40 percent.
    These numbers are not happenstance. As an industry, we have 
achieved this record by driving and deploying technology, operations, 
and infrastructure advances to provide safe and vital air transport as 
efficiently as possible within the constraints of our air traffic 
management system.
    Indeed, for the past several decades, airlines have dramatically 
improved fuel efficiency and reduced CO2 emissions by 
investing billions in fuel-saving aircraft and engines, innovative 
technologies like winglets (which improve aerodynamics), and cutting-
edge route-optimization software.
    A4A and our members are not stopping there. Since 2009, we have 
been active participants in a global aviation coalition that committed 
to 1.5 percent annual average fuel efficiency improvements through 
2020, with a goal to achieve carbon neutral growth beginning in 2020, 
subject to critical aviation infrastructure, technology, operations and 
sustainable fuels advances by government and industry. Further, we have 
adopted a long-term goal to achieve a 50 percent net reduction in 
CO2 emissions in 2050, relative to 2005 levels.
    The initiatives the U.S. airlines are undertaking to further reduce 
our GHG emissions are designed to responsibly and effectively limit our 
fuel consumption, GHG contribution and potential climate change impacts 
while allowing commercial aviation to continue to serve as a key 
contributor to the U.S., state and local economies as our Nation works 
to recover from the COVID crisis.\1\ A4A and our members are keenly 
focused on these initiatives, both at the national and international 
levels. In addition to helping us achieve our environmental goals, 
reducing fuel consumption directly reduces airline costs, thus 
improving airline sustainability from both an economic and 
environmental perspective. Further, as advancing technology, 
operations, air traffic and ground-based infrastructure, and 
sustainable aviation fuels to meet our rigorous goals requires 
coordination across our broader industry and supply chain, our 
coalition includes the airlines, business aviation, airframe and 
aircraft engine manufacturers, airports, and air navigation service 
providers from across the world.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ While we outline a number of our initiatives below, in response 
to other questions, we note that a brief summary is available on A4A's 
website at this link: https://www.airlines.org/airlines-fly-green/.
    \2\ Details on our coalition and its initiatives are available at 
these web links: https://www.atag.org/ and https://
aviationbenefits.org/environmental-efficiency/climate-action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is through these measures that we will prevent the worst-case 
emissions growth scenarios that have been postulated and, in fact, 
reduce the industry's emissions consistent with our 2050 target.

    Question 2. Please detail any concerns or qualifications you may 
have with any of these studies or their conclusions.
    Answer. We believe you are referring to the ICCT Working Paper 
``CO2 Emissions from Commercial Aviation,'' dated September 
2019, which asserts an ``emissions growth rate'' for ``the past five 
years'' that is ``70 percent higher than assumed under current ICAO 
projections.'' \3\ A4A respectfully disagrees with the ICCT analysis, 
as we believe there are underlying flaws in ICCT's methodology and 
calculations. In fact, adjusting for these data and methodology issues, 
one could conclude that global aviation CO2 emissions were 
rising slower than ICAO had been projecting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ This is the only ICCT study we found with a five-year analysis 
compared to ICAO projections. If so, we respectfully point out what may 
be a typo in your question, which asserts a 79 percent higher growth 
rate, rather than the 70 percent in the ICCT study we found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, it appears that ICCT inaccurately used data from the wrong 
year--2012--as if it were 2013 data as a basis for its five-year 
calculation. ICCT cites data from the International Air Transport 
Association (IATA) to assert that the industry emitted 694 million 
metric tons (MMT) of CO2 in 2013. However, this was a 2012 
figure, whereas system-wide global commercial CO2 emissions 
in 2013 were 710 MMTCO2. Second, ICCT appears to have 
inappropriately mixed in its own modeling and methodology with IATA's, 
without adjusting for the differences, thereby inflating the 2018 
CO2 number.\4\ Third, the selection of 2013 as reference for 
the ICCT analysis is arbitrary and ignores the cyclical nature of the 
aviation industry. The five years chosen, 2013-2018, were 
characteristic of the second half of a cycle. If the same analysis had 
been conducted using a 11-year time window (which is on average the 
period of a cycle of upward traffic and profitability in the aviation 
industry and is typically used in trend assessments),\5\ ICCT would 
have found that emissions were not rising faster than ICAO projections, 
but were in fact rising approximately 18 percent slower than ICAO 
projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ As ICCT acknowledges, ICCT's modeling approach resulted in 
overshooting the 2018 CO2 emissions by 2 percent relative to 
IATA's data. (See page 4 of the ICCT report).
    \5\ See Jiang, H. H., Hansman, R. J., 2004, ``An Analysis of Profit 
Cycles in the Airline Industry,'' available at: https://dspace.mit.edu/
handle/1721.1/35759. We sadly note that this Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology analysis and widely used reference point for industry cycle 
analysis appears to have been somewhat prescient, in that year-end 2019 
was when the industry reached its eleventh year in the cycle and the 
COVID crisis in 2020 has clearly set the industry back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rather than debate the ICCT analysis, however, we reemphasize that 
our industry's commitments to achieving carbon-neutral growth in the 
near term and a 50 percent net reduction in CO2 emissions in 
2050 relative to 2005 levels are aimed at ensuring we responsibly 
manage and reduce our industry's carbon footprint.

    Question 3. On March 2013, the International Air Transport 
Association (IATA) Director General and CEO said that ``the ability to 
manage our carbon emissions is our license to grow.'' Do you agree with 
this statement?
    Answer. Yes. As detailed above, A4A and our members are committed 
to rigorous climate goals and initiatives as these are core elements of 
sustainability, both for the industry and our planet. We believe that 
environmental stewardship is not only critical to having a proverbial 
``license to grow,'' it is critical to having a license to operate.

    Adherence to Carbon Offsetting and Reduction System for 
International Aviation Goals. I understand that ICAO adopted the Carbon 
Offsetting and Reduction System for International Aviation (CORSIA) 
program in 2016 and that it requires airlines to monitor and report 
international emissions and to offset the growth in emissions above 
average 2019-2020 levels using a global market-based carbon offset 
program. The program is voluntary from 2021-2027 and does not address 
domestic emissions from airlines.
    On March 13, 2020, ICAO said they intend to move forward with 
CORSIA without any modifications, but reports since then indicate that 
ICAO intends to consider requests to modify the baseline during the 
next scheduled meeting in June. Since March 30, 2020, IATA has argued 
for modifications to the baseline because significant drops in 
passenger traffic in 2020 would result in an unfair increase in the 
cost to airlines to comply with emissions reductions over the 15-year 
duration of CORSIA.

    Question 4. Mr. Calio, are A4A and its members still committed to 
the original targets and timeline of the CORSIA program?
    Answer. A4A and our member carriers take our role in controlling 
GHG emissions very seriously. Our primary focus is on getting further 
fuel efficiency and emissions savings within the industry, through new 
aircraft technology, sustainable aviation fuels and air traffic 
management and other operational and infrastructure improvements. 
However, A4A and our members strongly supported Congress' directive 
under Public Law 112-200 that U.S. officials should conduct 
international negotiations to pursue a global approach to address 
aircraft emissions, and we have strongly supported both of the ICAO 
agreements reached in 2016 as a result of this directive, i.e., the 
CORSIA agreement, and the ICAO fuel efficiency and CO2 
certification standard for future aircraft (which is slated to become 
effective for new-type design aircraft this year and in 2023 for newly 
manufactured in-production aircraft).
    As you may know, the CORSIA agreement has two parts. First, 
beginning on January 1, 2019, it required that all aircraft operators 
with international flights emitting more than 10,000 metric tons of 
CO2 monitor, verify, and report their emissions under a 
common set of rules. All A4A members began complying with these 
requirements in 2019. (Although U.S. aircraft operators have reported 
fuel burn and emissions to the U.S. government for many years, the ICAO 
CORSIA agreement called for reporting in a different format. It also 
made such reporting a global requirement, such that other countries' 
aircraft operators were compelled to start reporting activities that 
U.S. airlines had been undertaking for decades). Second, CORSIA 
includes a carbon offsetting obligation, which is slated to commence in 
2021 and continue through 2035.
    A4A and our members remain committed to CORSIA and the emissions 
target that the countries agreed to when adopting it in 2016, to help 
achieve carbon-neutral growth in international aviation from the levels 
of CO2 emissions then projected to occur over the average of 
2019-2020. When CORSIA was adopted, the projections were that 2020 
international emissions would be above 2019 levels. The original 
thought behind a two-year baseline was that it could smooth against 
small market disruptions such as air traffic closures due to a volcanic 
eruption in a particular region. However, no one envisioned a 
disruption anywhere near as significant as that caused by COVID-19. 
Accordingly, A4A supports the proposal before ICAO to use verified 2019 
CO2 emissions data for calculating the baseline under 
CORSIA, rather than using an average of 2019 and 2020 emissions, as 
using the 2019 data will ensure that the potential for growth of 
international aviation emissions is capped at the level the countries 
intended when they entered the CORSIA agreement.

    Question 5. If A4A and its members support any changes to its 
commitments under CORSIA, please explain what they are and what impact 
they would have in terms of additional aviation sector emissions?
    Answer. As noted above, using the 2019 emissions data for CORSIA 
will ensure that international aviation emissions are capped as 
expected and intended. A4A has collaborated with IATA closely on this 
matter. As illustrated in an IATA briefing on which we collaborated, 
the average of the actual emissions in 2019 and 2020 is expected to be 
equivalent to the sector's total emissions in 2010.\6\ As a result, 
should this approach be used, the CORSIA baseline would be about 30 
percent more stringent than it would have been without the COVID-19 
crisis. Thus, we respectfully submit that using 2019 emissions for the 
baseline has the intended impact on aviation emissions, whereas using 
an average of 2019-2020 would be dramatically different than what the 
counties agreed when adopting CORSIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ The briefing, entitled ``COVID-19 and CORSIA: Stabilizing Net 
CO2 at 2019 `Pre-Crisis' Levels, Rather than 2010 Levels,'' 
is available at this web link: https://www.iata.org/contentassets /
fb745460050c48089597a3ef1b9fe7a8/covid19-and-corsia-baseline-
190520.pdf.

    Question 6. How would a delay or decrease in the original agreed to 
CORSIA targets impact the rate of deployment of technologies that can 
help decarbonization the aviation industry?
    Answer. We do not believe that ensuring CORSIA's emissions cap is 
implemented at the intended level (using 2019 emissions data as the 
baseline) will negatively impact technology deployment. However, the 
COVID-19 crisis has negatively affected airframe and aircraft engine 
manufacturers, who report that their research and development budgets 
may be negatively affected due to the economic consequences of the 
pandemic, and alternative fuel producers, who are reportedly struggling 
as well.

    Prospects for Sustainable Aviation Fuels. I am a strong supporter 
of sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) and believe they will be a key 
component for airlines to meet future carbon pollution limits. In fact, 
almost a decade ago, I chaired an Aviation Subcommittee hearing on 
aviation fuels alternatives, and I authored legislation creating an FAA 
biofuels Center of Excellence that was included in the 2012 FAA 
reauthorization bill.
    However, despite these investments, and notable multi-million-
dollar commitments by major airlines to purchase sustainable aviation 
fuels, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that biofuel 
accounted for less than 0.1 percent of total aviation fuel consumption.

    Question 7. Mr. Calio, what do you think it will take to make SAFs 
a significant portion of the domestic and international jet fuel 
supply?
    Answer. A4A and our members are also strong supporters of SAF, 
which is a key pillar to the achievement of the aviation industry's 
aggressive GHG emissions goals. Accordingly, the aviation industry has 
worked hard to create the foundation for airline deployment of SAF, and 
we appreciate your support for its development and deployment.
    A4A was pleased to testify before your Aviation Subcommittee 
hearing on SAF in 2011 and A4A and our members have continued to 
steadily advance SAF since then. While we have made great strides, 
making SAF reasonably cost competitive at scale remains a challenge. 
Yet, before detailing that challenge and how we can overcome it, it is 
important to take into account what has been done to create this 
industry and in a relatively short time-frame (basically starting in 
2006) as compared with ground-based alternative fuels that have had 
substantial technology and policy support since the late 1970s.
    As you know, to be sustainable, alternative jet fuel (i.e., SAF) 
must be (1) as safe as petroleum-based fuels for powering aircraft; (2) 
more environmentally friendly than petroleum-based fuels; and (3) 
capable of being produced to provide cost-competitive, reliable supply. 
A4A and our members have been working with government partners and 
other stakeholders in a concerted effort to meet these criteria. For 
example, in 2006, A4A, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the 
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) and Airports Council 
International-North America (ACI-NA) co-founded the Commercial Aviation 
Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) \7\ to serve as the driving and 
coordinating force for the development and deployment of SAF meeting 
these criteria. We have made huge strides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See CAAFI's website at www.CAAFI.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are ensuring safety by requiring that all SAF meet the jet fuel 
specification, having developed specific standards and processes for 
this to be demonstrated. Accordingly, there are now seven approved 
``pathways'' for SAF production, pairing processing technologies with 
renewable feedstocks such as forestry residues, grasses, energy crops, 
municipal solid waste and other biomass or industrial wastes, with 
other pathways pending.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ In addition, there are two pathways approved for jet fuel 
production through co-processing renewable feedstock with crude oil-
derived middle distillates in petroleum refineries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are ensuring environmental benefits by assessing the reduction 
in GHG emissions associated with the production, transportation and use 
of SAF, and an evaluation of the fuel under other relevant 
environmental and social ``sustainability'' criteria. Indeed, as carbon 
is fundamental to powering aircraft engines, the CO2 
generated upon combustion cannot be eliminated through the use of SAF, 
but it can be reduced by increasing the per-unit energy provided in the 
fuel, reducing or avoiding GHG emissions somewhere along the 
``lifecycle'' of the fuel, or some combination of the two. As a result, 
SAF has been shown to achieve up to an 80 percent emissions reduction 
as compared with fossil-based jet fuel.
    As SAF currently tends to be considerably more expensive than 
traditional jet fuel, we are working on means to scale up supply and 
reduce costs. A key role our airlines are playing is to send 
appropriate market signals to SAF producers (and would-be SAF 
producers), the farmers and others who generate energy feedstock, and 
investors in the alternative fuels industry. Further, A4A teamed with 
the U.S. Department of Defense's procurement arm to encourage 
alternative fuel producers to include SAF in their product slate and we 
co-founded the Farm-to-Fly program with Boeing, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture and other partners ``to accelerate the availability of a 
commercially viable sustainable aviation biofuel industry in the United 
States, increase domestic energy security, establish regional supply 
chains and support rural development.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See Agriculture and Aviation: Partners in Prosperity, available 
at http://www.airlines.org/Documents/usda-farm-to-fly-report-jan-
2012.pdf; see also Agriculture and Aviation: Partners in Prosperity: 
Putting Aviation at the Forefront of the President's Biofuels Targets, 
Part II. Industry Recommendations, available at http://
www.airlines.org/Documents/Farm_to_Fly_Recom
mendations-A4A-Boeing-Jan2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our efforts are bearing fruit, such that United Airlines has been 
taking commercial supply of SAF at Los Angeles International Airport 
since 2016; American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, FedEx, Southwest, and 
JetBlue (as well as United) all have prospective SAF purchase 
agreements with the few existing and start up SAF suppliers; Alaska 
Airlines has a Memorandum of Agreement with a SAF producer that is 
intended to lead to procurement; and our other members have engaged in 
demonstration flights and other activities to support SAF.
    The aviation industry and existing and would-be SAF suppliers are 
on the cusp of creating a viable SAF industry, but government support 
is needed to provide financial bridging and other tools necessary to 
help us get over the cusp. It is critical that Congress and the 
Administration continue to provide positive support for alternative 
energy programs and for public-private initiatives with SAF projects 
such as CAAFI, FAA's Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise 
(CLEEN) program and the Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels 
and the Environment (ASCENT) that you championed.\10\ Moreover, after 
years of providing tax incentives and other support to ground-based 
alternative fuels (in some cases reaching back into the 1970s),\11\ 
Congress should establish SAF-specific tax incentives (as discussed in 
detail in response to Question #9 below) and SAF-specific loan 
guarantee, grant and other such programs to support our efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ For more detail on the U.S. airlines' SAF initiatives, 
progress and remaining challenges, see A4A's primer, ``Deployment of 
Sustainable Aviation Fuel in the United States'' (August 2019), 
available at http://airlines.org/media/deployment-of-sustainable-
aviation-fuel-in-the-united-states/.
    \11\ See, e.g., Congressional Research Service, Energy Tax Policy: 
History and Current Issues, Oct. 30, 2008 (detailing ``action taken 
during the 1970s to implement the new and refocused energy tax policy'' 
including ``the introduction of numerous tax incentives or subsidies 
(e.g., special tax credits, deductions, exclusions)'' for ground-based 
alternative fuels).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are strong policy arguments in favor of SAF-specific positive 
incentives. First, while other sectors and modes of transportation can 
be powered via a variety of energy sources, including electricity, 
nuclear, solar, hydrogen and wind, to name a few, airlines will be 
flying aircraft and engines requiring liquid, high energy-density fuels 
for the foreseeable future. This drives our industry to be keenly 
focused on the development and deployment of significant supplies of 
liquid SAF. Yet this source of alternative energy has received no SAF-
specific tax or other incentives under Federal policy.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ As discussed in our answer to question #9 below, however, some 
SAF, that which is biomass-derived, does qualify as ``renewable 
diesel'' for purposes of the biodiesel and renewable diesel tax credit 
in 26 U.S.C. section 40A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, commercial aviation offers unique benefits to prospective 
alternative fuels producers. First, fuel demand is highly concentrated. 
The 40 largest U.S. airports account for an estimated 90 percent of all 
the Nation's jet-fuel demand, while the top 10 airports account for 
about half of demand. The country's largest airports--Los Angeles 
(LAX), New York-Kennedy (JFK), Chicago O'Hare (ORD) and Atlanta (ATL)--
each demand more than one billion gallons of jet fuel annually. Demand 
from Air Force bases and Navy installations is also highly 
concentrated, and, in many cases, those facilities are located near 
commercial airports. Thus, airports essentially compose a network of 
markets that alone could support all the output from SAF production 
facilities. In addition, with high-demand nodes across the country, the 
aviation industry can support production from the full gamut of 
potential producers, who will rely on different feedstocks depending on 
where they intend to operate.
    The benefits of a cost-competitive SAF industry that is capable of 
producing at scale would not inure to the airline industry or would-be 
SAF providers alone. The U.S. military, which has been a very active 
partner to A4A in the pursuit of jet fuel alternatives, shares many of 
the same interests as our airlines. Like airlines, jet fuel represents 
a significant share of costs to the U.S. military, particularly the 
U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force. Volatile prices wreak havoc on military 
budgets and present significant challenges for military planners. At 
the same time, GHG emissions from military jet operations represent a 
large portion of the Federal government's carbon footprint. Access to 
stable supplies of SAF would also allow the armed services to address 
these concerns and further enhance national security.
    In addition, a vibrant SAF industry would support additional 
American jobs and spur economic development at a time when this is 
sorely needed. Rural America would benefit greatly from access to new 
markets for new agricultural biomass crops, communities would benefit 
from having increasing quantities of municipal solid waste diverted 
from landfills and put to productive use, while industrial areas would 
be revitalized through construction of new refineries and processing 
facilities or revitalization of those that have been mothballed. At the 
same time, a stable supply of SAF would improve our Nation's security 
by further ensuring energy independence and would support national 
economic security by improving our trade balance.
    A4A and our members are committed to continuing to work to make SAF 
commercially viable and we appreciate your support in this important 
endeavor.

    Question 8. The IEA estimated that roughly $10 billion would need 
to be invested in at least 20 refineries for biofuels to account for 2 
percent of annual aviation fuel demand and to make aviation biofuel 
markets self-sustaining, do you agree with that assessment?
    Answer. We believe this question is referring to the aviation 
biofuels discussion in the International Energy Agency's (IEA) October 
2018 market report, ``Renewables 2018: Analysis and Forecasts to 
2023.'' \13\ In that discussion, IEA pointed out, correctly, that the 
so-called HEFA [hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids] pathway is the 
only SAF production pathway that ``is currently technically mature and 
commercialized.'' Almost two years after the release of the Renewables 
2018 report, the HEFA method is still the only commercialized pathway. 
IEA went on to state that, absent other commercialized SAF production 
processes, approximately 20 new HEFA SAF refineries would be required 
by 2025 in order to supply 2 percent of the world's aviation fuel 
demand, at an estimated investment cost of approximately $10 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Available at this web link: https://webstore.iea.org/download/
direct/2322. The aviation biofuels discussion appears at pp. 123-128, 
and was expanded upon in a March 2019 IEA commentary piece, ``Are 
Aviation Biofuels Ready for Take Off?,'' which is available at this web 
link: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/are-aviation-biofuels-ready-for-
take-off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We agreed with the IEA's assessment when it came out, and we still 
agree with it, although we would note that the total estimated 
investment cost may now be higher due to the passage of time, the oil 
price drop, and the COVID-related economic decline that has occurred 
over the last few months. We also observe that HEFA refineries that 
produce or are capable of producing SAF typically also produce 
renewable diesel and other products, and for economic reasons they may 
prefer to make more of their non-SAF product slate and, 
correspondingly, less SAF. Thus, a key part of SAF supply scale up is 
not only financing and capitalization of refining capacity but also 
providing incentive support to make SAF more competitive with renewable 
diesel and other products that have long enjoyed such support.

    Question 9. For over a decade, Senator Grassley and I have 
championed and managed secure extensions of the Section 40a tax credit 
that provides a $1 per gallon tax credit for some kinds of biojet fuel. 
Why do you think this credit has not had more of an impact in spurring 
the adoption of sustainable aviation fuels?
    Answer. A4A and our members are grateful for your work and that of 
others to secure the ``biodiesel and renewable diesel tax credit,'' at 
26 U.S. Code Sec. 40A, to provide a $1.00/gallon tax credit to those 
who mix (i.e., blend) certain biofuels in the biofuel production supply 
chain. While referred to as a ``biodiesel/renewable diesel'' credit, 
and originally intended for ground-based fuels, Section 40A(f)(4) 
expanded the eligibility criteria for the credit so bio-based jet fuel 
meeting the relevant ASTM standard can qualify for the credit. While a 
useful tool to help reduce the price gap between SAF and petroleum-
based jet fuel to a degree, it has not been sufficient to narrow the 
gap given (a) the higher hurdle of producing SAF relative to ground-
based alternative fuels and (b) the fact that ground-based alternative 
fuels (renewable diesel in particular) are eligible not only for this 
tax credit, but many other incentives across the supply chain, which 
make it more profitable for producers to produce. In addition, while we 
very much appreciate Congress having included in the FY 2020 
appropriations package a retroactive reinstatement and extension 
through 2022 of the credit for biodiesel and renewable diesel under 
section 40A, the two-year lapse did come at a crucial time for would-be 
SAF producers and they have indicated to us that a longer time horizon 
for such a tax credit is needed for SAF given the nascency of the SAF 
industry.
    To address these issues, we have been working with a coalition of 
SAF producers, airlines, airports, labor, airframe and engine 
manufacturers, and business aviation in urging consideration of a 
unique, stand-alone blender's credit for SAF in the Internal Revenue 
Code, as was done years ago with ground transportation alternative 
fuels like ethanol and biodiesel/renewable diesel. (The tax credit for 
ethanol and other alcohols (section 40) was put in place in 1980, while 
the tax credit for biodiesel/renewable diesel (section 40A) dates back 
to 2004/2005. Unlike ground-based alternative fuels, SAF has never had 
its own dedicated, fuel-specific provision). Based on feedback from 
alternative fuel producers who are capable of producing SAF or ground-
based alternative fuels, it is our understanding that to truly bridge 
the gap and promote SAF production and use, the SAF-specific blender's 
credit would need to be set at $2.00 per gallon, or $1.00 more than the 
current level provided to biomass-derived SAF under section 40A. In 
addition, such a provision would need to extend over a longer period, 
such as over 10 years, to provide the market certainty the SAF 
producers need. Moreover, whereas the current blender's credit in 40A 
only applies to biomass, the SAF producers note that a SAF-specific tax 
incentive should be defined to encompass fuel derived not only from 
biomass but also the other feedstocks that are under development, 
including waste streams and recovered gaseous carbon oxides.

    Question 10. What other measures do you think the Federal 
government could take to increase the production and utilization of 
sustainable aviation fuels?
    Answer. While A4A and our members are committed to doing our part 
to make SAF commercially viable, we do believe the Federal government 
has a role to play to complement our efforts. A SAF-specific blender's 
tax credit, such as that outlined in our response to Question #9, is 
one such measure. In addition, it is critical that Congress and the 
Administration continue to fund the programs under the Energy Title of 
the Farm Bill, make sure that these programs also are made available 
for SAF, and support public-private initiatives such as CAAFI, CLEEN, 
and ASCENT, which help enhance SAF technology and feedstock research 
and development. Other potential options for consideration could 
include SAF-specific grants and loan guarantees for production; support 
for the review and approval process for new SAF pathways; a SAF-
specific production tax credit; development and enhancement of 
production through tax creditable SAF production facility bonds; and 
ensuring SAF regulatory parity with renewable diesel or preferably a 
credit multiplier for SAF under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Currently under the RFS Program, renewable diesel is accorded 
an equivalence value of 1.7 (40 C.F.R. Sec. 80.1415), whereas SAF has 
an equivalence value of 1.6. This means a gallon of renewable diesel 
generates 0.1 more RINs (Renewable Identification Numbers) than does a 
gallon of SAF, a disparity that, albeit small, contributes to 
alternative fuel producers preferring to make the former over the 
latter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We suggest that the following principles could help guide 
complementary government action to further support commercially viable 
SAF production and deployment:

   Implementation of a policy framework that prioritizes 
        aviation and SAF production and use over road and maritime 
        transport alternative fuels. The road and maritime transport 
        sectors do indeed have other ``alternatives to decarbonize,'' 
        such as electric vehicles, whereas aviation does not have 
        similar viable alternatives.

   Selection of policy timeframes that match return-on-
        investment timeframes, usually ten to twenty years, to reduce 
        investment risk.

   Providing opportunities for public-private partnerships in 
        SAF production.

   Providing continued support for SAF research and 
        development, including development of feedstock supply chains 
        and new and innovative SAF production technologies.

   Consideration of all potential SAF feedstocks (e.g., 
        traditional biomass sources, municipal solid waste, animal 
        fats, waste oils and greases, waste gases) and production 
        pathways.

    We would be glad to discuss these and any other ideas with you in 
detail should that be of interest.

    Question 11. What do you think of the European Commission's 
proposed initiative, ReFuelIEU Aviation, which aims to boost the supply 
and demand for SAFs? Do you believe the U.S. market would benefit from 
a similar initiative?
    Answer. A4A reviewed and submitted comments on the overview 
document the European Commission issued explaining what it plans to 
consider under its ``ReFuelEU Aviation--Sustainable Aviation Fuels'' 
review. While this ``Inception Impact Assessment'' document for 
ReFuelEU Aviation was light on details,\15\ as we conveyed to the 
Commission, we believe several of the positive incentives and 
supportive initiatives under consideration could be helpful, including, 
for example, an increased multiplier for SAF credit under the recast 
European Renewable Energy Directive (RED); a mechanism under which 
funding assistance would be provided to SAF producers and/or airlines; 
feedstock prioritization for SAF (over green (i.e., renewable) diesel 
and other road transport alternative fuels); a central auctioning 
scheme for SAF; a collaborative platform to facilitate SAF purchase 
agreements; and technical facilitation and support for SAF producers 
seeking qualification and approval of their fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ The Inception Impact Assessment document is available at this 
web link: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/12303-ReFuelEU-Aviation-Sustainable-Aviation-Fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A4A supports the creation of ``a stable policy framework over a 
sufficient time horizon to provide investors with the necessary 
confidence to invest in the production of [SAF] and for airlines to 
pursue efficient fuels policy'' as the Commission noted in its 
Inception Impact Assessment. However, as we conveyed to the Commission, 
we believe their plan to consider imposing a SAF blending and use 
mandate is premature at this juncture. As the Commission acknowledged 
in the Inception Impact Assessment, SAF are still a long way from being 
commercially viable at scale. Until they are, we believe the focus 
should instead be on positive measures and incentives that are geared 
towards improving cost-competitiveness, expanding supply, and 
establishing the long-term commercial viability of SAF.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ The approach taken by Norway is instructive in this regard. On 
January 1, 2020, a SAF blending mandate of 0.5 percent by volume of 
total aviation fuel sold per year, excluding the military, went into 
effect in the country. See https://lovdata.no/dokument/LTI/forskrift/
2019-04-30-555. We understand from a European airline that the mandate 
has led to a significant increase in the price of SAF. Due to the lack 
of SAF availability, the mandate has had the predictable effect of 
shifting pricing leverage to SAF producers. A4A is concerned that the 
same outcome and market distortion would result if the EU or one or 
more Member States were to impose a blending mandate before the SAF 
industry has become more mature and the price of and market for SAF are 
made more cost-competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In our comments on the Inception Impact Assessment, A4A noted that 
we and our members would be glad to be stakeholders in the ReFuelEU 
Aviation process, sharing our experience from CAAFI and other 
initiatives.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                             Nicholas Calio
    Reports have highlighted the high rate of coronavirus infections in 
flight crews, including the hundreds of pilots and flight attendants 
who have tested positive for the virus. You testified that your 
organization's member airlines are now requiring employees and 
passengers to wear masks.

    Question 1. Are airlines providing masks for both employees and 
passengers free of charge?
    Answer. Yes, A4A member airlines are providing masks for both 
employees and passengers at no cost when a crew member or customer does 
not have a mask of their own.

    Question 2. Do airlines have access to sufficient supplies to 
provide masks to employees and passengers, and do airlines have 
contingency plans in place if they encounter supply issues?
    Answer. Yes, A4A member airlines currently have sufficient supplies 
and each respective air carrier has contingency plans, to the extent 
feasible, for supply issues that may arise.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to 
                             Nicholas Calio
    Question 1. I support efforts by airlines to now require all 
passengers to wear face masks on airplanes. However, significant 
questions remain about the implementation of these policies across 
different companies. To your knowledge, how do the various airlines 
intend to enforce this policy? What are the procedures and penalties 
for non-compliance, and how will airlines continue to protect the 
health and safety of crew members and fellow passengers in the event of 
non-compliance?
    Answer. A4A member carriers are vigorously enforcing face covering 
policies. This step is just one critical element of the multiple layers 
that A4A carriers are implementing to mitigate risk and protect 
passengers and crew. Air carriers also have implemented other policy 
updates regarding face coverings, including:

   Preflight Communications: Each airline clearly articulates 
        its individual face covering policy in communications with 
        customers, which may require passengers to acknowledge the 
        specific rules during the check-in process.

   Onboard Announcements: Onboard the aircraft, crew members 
        announce specific details regarding the respective carrier's 
        face covering policy including the consequences passengers 
        could face for violating the policy.

   Consequences for Noncompliance: Each carrier determines the 
        appropriate consequences for passengers who are found to be in 
        noncompliance of the respective airline's face covering policy 
        up to and including suspension of flying privileges on that 
        airline.

    Question 2. To your knowledge, has there been a science-driven 
study of what exactly constitutes safe distancing in an aircraft cabin, 
with and without the use of masks? Do you know of any science-based 
studies that have contributed to the development of current airline 
policies for seating or other behavior in aircraft cabins?
    Answer. Just as there is no known vaccine or specific antiviral 
treatment to prevent COVID-19, our industry, and nearly every other 
business globally, awaits scientific studies and breakthroughs in order 
to better understand how the virus acts and can be mitigated in 
specific environments and situations. That said, along with the broader 
work being done by the scientific community, individual airlines, 
industry, trade associations and many others in the aviation community 
are all conducting or facilitating research to better guide policy 
decisions. As the science progresses, so will airline policies. The 
aviation industry has been and will continue to evaluate all the 
current layers of protective health measures across the passenger 
journey to determine science-based efficacy and continuous reassessment 
of better methods to mitigate risk of transmission. While risk can 
never be eliminated, until a vaccine or treatment is available, 
airlines will continue to take extraordinary steps to mitigate 
transmission of the virus.
    For more information on mitigation efforts, I would encourage you 
to visit www.AirlinesTakeAction.com. I would also highlight A4A's 
awareness initiative, ``Fly Healthy. Fly Smart.'' This initiative calls 
attention to the enhanced cleaning and procedural changes U.S. airlines 
are implementing as well as reminding the traveling public of steps 
they can take to mitigate transmission. Some of these efforts include:

   A4A's member airlines are requiring passengers and customer-
        facing employees to wear a face covering over their nose and 
        mouth throughout the journey--check-in, boarding, in-flight and 
        deplaning.

   A4A member airlines have aircraft equipped with HEPA 
        filters, which help generate hospital-grade air quality. The 
        Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has said that, 
        ``Because of how air circulates and is filtered on airplanes, 
        most viruses and other germs do not spread easily on flights.''

   U.S. airlines have implemented intensive cleaning protocols, 
        in some cases to include electrostatic cleaning and fogging 
        procedures.

   Carriers are working around the clock to sanitize cockpits, 
        cabins and key touchpoints--including tray tables, arm rests, 
        seatbelts, buttons, vents, handles and lavatories--with EPA-
        approved disinfectants.

   Carriers have implemented a range of policies--including 
        back-to-front boarding and adjusting food and beverage 
        services--to help allow for distancing between people.

   As an additional layer of protection, A4A's member airlines 
        have endorsed temperature screenings conducted by TSA.

    Question 3. Do you believe that public safety is best served by 
what appears to be a patchwork approach to cabin safety by each of the 
airlines, including seat blocking and aircraft sanitization?
    Answer. The aviation industry has been and will continue to 
evaluate all the current layers of protective health measures across 
the passenger journey to determine science-based efficacy and 
continuous reassessment of better methods to mitigate risk of 
transmission. These efforts all have a unified outcome-based approach 
to mitigate risk but may vary operationally at each carrier and/or 
airport. There are certain layers of the mitigation process, such as 
A4A member airline endorsed temperature screenings conducted by TSA, 
that rigid uniformity may address well.
    However, other variables such as boarding or check-in may not, as 
neither all aircraft nor all airports are the same. Airlines care 
deeply about their passengers and their crew members and will continue 
to implement and continually evaluate better methods to mitigate risk 
to best serve their health and safety.

   Do you believe that the public and crewmembers would be 
        better served by uniform and consistent policies--based on 
        science--for safe occupancy of aircraft cabins during this 
        pandemic?
    Answer. Please see previous answer.

   To that end, do you support my legislation--the Ensuring 
        Health Safety in the Skies Act--that will charge a joint task 
        force of aviation, security, and public health experts to 
        develop recommendations for such policies?
    Answer. While we appreciate the obvious well-intended premise of 
the legislation, A4A does not believe a broad sweeping task force as 
envisioned is the most effective and efficient approach to addressing 
the COVID-19 circumstances. We are certainly willing to work with you 
on the concept, but we do not believe high-level task forces are 
equipped or the proper venue to determine such detailed and varied 
topics as airplane boarding, de-boarding and baggage handling, amongst 
others. We believe Congress would find greater value in supporting and 
encouraging scientific breakthroughs and government centric 
responsibilities such as contract tracing and TSA temperature 
screenings.

    Question 4. Do you believe that frontline essential workers, such 
as flight attendants and other airline crewmembers, should be eligible 
for retroactive ``pandemic pay,'' or hazard pay, for the risks they 
assume through their everyday employment?
    Answer. A4A is not aware of a specific proposal or the parameters 
of such a proposal to determine a policy position on this matter.

    Question 5. Despite $25 billion in emergency relief for airline 
workers, many major carriers are predicting massive layoffs this fall. 
What are your carriers doing to prevent a tragedy in which tens of 
thousands of workers could lose their jobs?
    Answer. Airlines sincerely appreciate Congress for reaching 
agreement on the bipartisan CARES Act, which included provisions 
intended to assist the U.S. airline industry to continue making payroll 
and protect the jobs of pilots, flight attendants, gate agents, 
mechanics and others. As this unprecedented event unfolds, airlines 
will continue to evolve to survive. They are severely impacted by the 
operational and financial realities of circumstances beyond their 
control during this crisis. As we all face the difficulties of these 
unparalleled times, please know that air carriers fully recognize 
employees are the backbone of our industry and its' greatest resource 
and are working every day to protect airline jobs.

   Will you be looking for the Federal for government to again 
        step in on the behalf of frontline workers, and if so, what 
        might that support look like?
    Answer. A4A is not aware of any efforts to seek additional Federal 
assistance.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                             Nicholas Calio
    We are hearing some calls from some industries that they want to be 
protected from paying damages to their employees and customers who get 
sick due to lack of COVID protections.

    Question 1. After receiving tens of billions of taxpayer support, 
are the airlines asking for liability protection too, and if so, what 
specific and binding safety and consumer protection standards would the 
industry agree to in exchange for protection from liability?
    Answer. Airlines sincerely appreciate Congress for reaching 
agreement on the bipartisan CARES Act, which included provisions 
intended to assist the U.S. airline industry to continue making payroll 
and protect the jobs of pilots, flight attendants, gate agents, 
mechanics and others. Those funds help the industry to protect airline 
jobs.
    As part of a broader coalition of businesses both small and large, 
including the New Mexico Association of Commerce & Industry and the New 
Mexico Retail Association, airlines support safe harbor from 
unwarranted lawsuits. Attached are two letters we believe you may find 
useful as Congress deliberates this issue.

    Question 2. Would you agree to everything that Dr. Godwin has 
outlined in her testimony?
    Answer. A4A appreciates the ideas and concepts Dr. Godwin brought 
forth in her testimony. However, as Dr. Godwin's testimony is not an 
A4A product, we neither endorse nor oppose any of the content.
    This is not the first time that the airline industry has needed 
dramatic help from the government and relief from taxpayers to get it 
through rough times. We definitely recognize that the airlines are 
being hit hard by the lull in travel driven by the coronavirus pandemic 
and this is through no fault of their own. But we are facing another 
major crisis: climate change. If we assume that once the pandemic 
subsides that travel will return to normal, we will still be 
confronting a major issue that many Americans care about. If we are 
going to continue to use their tax dollars to get you through this 
rough patch, we should be able to offer them benefits in return. If 
anything, this time offers the airline industry a moment of pause to 
replan and think creatively about how to reduce its carbon footprint. 
And not just with offsets--actual reduction.

    Question 3. So, how can airlines use this pause to rethink the 
industry and the major crisis we are facing on climate change?
    Answer. The U.S. airlines have a decidedly strong fuel efficiency 
and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions record that is often overlooked or 
misstated. In fact, between 1978 and 2019, the U.S. airlines improved 
their fuel efficiency by more than 135 percent,\17\ saving over 5 
billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), equivalent to 
taking 27 million cars off the road each of those years. Before COVID-
19 struck, U.S. airlines were transporting a record 2.5 million 
passengers and 58,000 tons of cargo per day, while contributing just 2 
percent of our Nation's GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Using a more recent timeframe, the U.S. airlines improved 
their fuel-and carbon emissions-efficiency by 40 percent between 2000 
and 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These numbers are not happenstance. We have achieved this record by 
developing and deploying technology, operations and infrastructure 
advances central to providing safe and vital air transport as 
efficiently as possible within the constraints of our current air 
traffic management system. Even as the world is beset by a pandemic, 
one that has decimated our industry, we reaffirm our commitment to 
protecting the planet as we reconnect it.
    Since 2009, we have been active participants in a global aviation 
coalition that committed to 1.5 percent annual average fuel efficiency 
improvements through 2020, with a goal to achieve carbon neutral growth 
beginning in 2020, subject to critical aviation infrastructure, 
technology, operations and sustainable fuels advances by government and 
industry. Further, we have adopted a long-term goal to achieve a 50 
percent net reduction in CO2 emissions in 2050, relative to 
2005 levels. As we work to rebuild our previously robust and healthy 
industry and the global economy, we will continue our unwavering 
commitment to these goals.
    The initiatives the U.S. airlines are undertaking to further reduce 
our GHG emissions are designed to responsibly and effectively limit our 
fuel consumption, GHG contribution and potential climate change impacts 
while allowing commercial aviation to continue to serve as a key 
contributor to the U.S., state and local economies as our Nation works 
to recover from the COVID crisis.\18\ A4A and our members are keenly 
focused on these initiatives, both at the national and international 
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ While we outline a number of our initiatives below, in 
response to other questions, we note that a brief summary is available 
on A4A's website at this link: https://www.airlines.org/airlines-fly-
green/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We will meet our commitment to protect the planet by bringing back 
into service fuel-efficient aircraft and engines, by continuing to 
develop and deploy sustainable aviation fuels and by implementing more 
efficient procedures, both in the air and on the ground. Moreover, we 
continue to strongly support both international aviation GHG emissions 
agreements reached in 2016 under the International Civil Aviation 
Organization, the United Nations body that sets standards and 
recommended practices for civil aviation. The first of these agreements 
established a fuel efficiency and CO2 certification standard 
for future aircraft, which is slated to go into effect this year for 
new-type design aircraft and in 2023 for newly manufactured in-
production aircraft. The second, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction 
Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) represents the first and 
only global market-based measure for GHG emissions from an individual 
business sector.
    The Federal government has an important role to play in 
complementing our efforts in four key areas:

  1.  Continuation and proper funding of aviation environmental 
        research and development programs to support the industry's 
        technology and operations initiatives;

  2.  Recognizing that the U.S. Federal government controls the air 
        traffic management infrastructure and airspace in which 
        aircraft fly, business-case-based implementation of a 
        modernized air traffic control system prioritizing existing 
        aircraft equipage;

  3.  Stable policies to further support making sustainable aviation 
        fuel commercially viable; and

  4.  Continuing commitment to the two international aviation climate 
        agreements reached under the International Civil Aviation 
        Organization in 2016.

    We would be glad to discuss these initiatives with you in greater 
detail at your convenience.
                                 ______
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 ______
                                 
                                                       May 20, 2020

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS:

    The undersigned chambers of commerce urge Congress to pass timely, 
temporary and targeted liability relief legislation to provide 
businesses a safe harbor from unwarranted lawsuits that, left 
unchecked, will endanger the fight against the pandemic and undermine 
the safe and orderly return to work for millions of Americans.
    From distillers who switched to producing hand sanitizers, to 
manufacturers that transformed their operations to construct personal 
protective equipment (PPE) and ventilators, to front line medical 
professionals treating the afflicted, to pharmaceutical companies that 
are expediting research into cures, American businesses have rallied to 
fight the pandemic. During the stay-at-home orders, essential 
businesses have remained open and innovated in ways that permitted them 
to continue to provide critical services and supplies. Now millions of 
other businesses are in the process of reopening, desiring to do so in 
a safe manner that protects their employees and customers.
    This is an unprecedented situation and despite employers' best 
efforts to comply with public health guidance, many are concerned that 
they will be forced to defend themselves against a wave of lawsuits. 
Their concern is driven by the fact that each day brings news of more 
lawsuits that have already been filed. That is why Congress should 
provide a safe harbor that holds truly bad actors accountable, but that 
protects those employers who are working to follow public health 
guidance. Specifically, temporary protections should remain in place 
for the duration of the pandemic crisis and response that cover:

   Businesses that work to follow government guidelines against 
        COVID-19 exposure claims.

   Healthcare providers and facilities on the front lines of 
        the COVID-19 response.

   Manufacturers that repurposed production and distribution to 
        provide PPE, sanitizers, and other needed countermeasures.

   Companies that have donated their stock of supplies to 
        hospitals and medical professionals.

   Public companies that could face securities lawsuits, 
        including those driven largely on stock price drops resulting 
        from the global pandemic under the spurious assertion that 
        management failed to warn investors.

    To ensure that we continue to wage war against the pandemic while 
also safely returning Americans to work, Congress must act without 
delay.
            Sincerely,
    Business Council of Alabama
    Alaska Chamber
    Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
    Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce/AIA
    California Chamber of Commerce
    Colorado Chamber of Commerce
    Connecticut Business & Industry Association
    DC Chamber of Commerce
    Delaware State Chamber of Commerce
    Florida Chamber of Commerce
    Georgia Chamber of Commerce
    Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii
    Idaho Association of Commerce & Industry
    Illinois Chamber of Commerce
    Indiana Chamber of Commerce
    Iowa Association of Business and Industry
    Kansas Chamber of Commerce & Industry
    Kentucky Chamber of Commerce
    Louisiana Association of Business and Industry
    Maine State Chamber of Commerce
    Maryland Chamber of Commerce
    Associated Industries of Massachusetts
    Michigan Chamber of Commerce
    Minnesota Chamber of Commerce
    Mississippi Economic Council
    Missouri Chamber of Commerce & Industry
    Montana Chamber of Commerce
    Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry
    Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce
    Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire
    New Jersey Chamber of Commerce
    New Mexico Association of Commerce & Industry
    The Business Council of New York State
    North Carolina Chamber
    Greater North Dakota Chamber
    Ohio Chamber of Commerce
    State Chamber of Oklahoma
    Oregon Business and Industry
    Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry
    Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce
    South Carolina Chamber of Commerce
    South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry
    Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry
    Texas Association of Business
    Salt Lake Chamber
    Vermont Chamber of Commerce
    Virginia Chamber of Commerce
    Association of Washington Business
    West Virginia Chamber of Commerce
    Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce
    Wyoming State Chamber of Commerce
    U.S. Chamber of Commerce
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                              Todd Hauptli
    Question 1. Mr. Hauptli, I appreciate you mentioning the CARES Act 
Airport Improvement Program assistance to Rapid City Regional Airport, 
which has seen a precipitous decline in revenues the past two months. 
Rapid City and the surrounding Black Hills are a major tourist 
destination, and the airport is already anticipating a major decline in 
travel for the summer months that will only exacerbate revenue 
shortages.
    You mentioned in your testimony the importance of Federal funding 
flexibility to ensure airports can allocate funds where they see fit. 
Have any of your members encountered challenges in spending these 
funds, and do you have any suggestions for additional flexibility that 
can be provided to airports as we look toward recovery?
    Answer. Thank you for the question, Senator. Our members are 
grateful that the CARES Act included $10 billion to help them through 
the immediate coronavirus crisis. We also appreciate that the bill 
included much-needed flexibility that allows airports to use Federal 
funds for operations, debt service and other lawful purposes. This 
flexibility is helping airports keep their workers employed and avoid 
defaulting on their bonds. The Airport Improvement Program, which 
airports rely on to fund infrastructure projects, does not include that 
same flexibility.
    Our members suggest that the flexibility in the CARES Act is 
working well and is helping airports cover some of their immediate 
needs. We realize that it is not easy for a Federal agency to quickly 
distribute $10 billion. But our members generally give the FAA high 
marks for working around the clock to help airports, for instituting an 
expedited application process and for getting Federal funds to airports 
as quickly as possible.
    I would note that should additional Federal funding for airports 
materialize, which we believe to be imperative given the depths of the 
crisis and the unprecedented challenges facing airports, we would 
recommend that Congress include the same flexibility provided by the 
CARES Act. Specifically, the inclusion of language providing for the 
use of funds for ``any purpose for which airport revenues may lawfully 
be used.''

    Question 2. You also mentioned the importance of the Essential Air 
Service (EAS) program, which provides a critical service to three 
airports in South Dakota. The Department of Transportation recently 
released a notice providing temporary flexibility for the EAS program. 
Do your members feel this order provided airlines serving these 
communities with the flexibility needed to maintain a minimum level of 
service?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for your longstanding support for 
airports in South Dakota and for programs that help small communities 
have access to our national airspace system. As you mentioned, the 
Department of Transportation has taken steps to help carriers that 
participate in the Essential Air Service program. For instance, DOT is 
authorizing subsidy payments for certain non-completed flights, and the 
agency is not forcing EAS carriers to comply with certain requirements. 
Considering the unprecedented and dramatic drop in passenger levels due 
to the coronavirus, these actions and additional flexibility for EAS 
carriers seem reasonable and appropriate.
    That said, we believe Congress should take additional steps to 
protect the EAS program and to ensure small communities continue to 
receive commercial air service. Congress can start by increasing 
funding for the EAS and Small Community Air Service Development 
programs and by making modifications to both programs.
    As you know, commercial airlines have reduced or eliminated service 
to a long list of small communities in recent weeks. We expect that it 
will be challenging for many small communities to regain commercial air 
service in the aftermath of the current crisis. That could be even more 
difficult if the airlines contract in size as many expect. Increasing 
funding for EAS and the Small Community Air Service Development 
programs would provide smaller communities with a much-needed boost and 
help preserve commercial air service.
    In addition to increased funding, we are encouraging Congress to 
reexamine the eligibility requirements for communities to participate 
in the EAS program, including the current subsidy caps and enplanement 
standards. EAS communities should not be unfairly penalized because 
passenger demand has declined due to the coronavirus.
    We also urge Congress to expand eligibility for the Small Community 
Air Service Development Program and eliminate unnecessary restrictions. 
With increased funding more than 40 communities or consortia of 
communities and more than four per state should be allowed to 
participate in this underfunded program. We also recommend that 
Congress eliminate an unnecessary restriction that prevents communities 
from receiving additional grants to support the same air service 
project.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
                              Todd Hauptli
    Question 1. I am concerned with the need for airport managers to be 
able to utilize these funds for the preferred purpose at the local 
level. While the funds allocated by DOT are intended to cover 
continuing operations and replace the vital revenue lost from the sharp 
decline in airport traffic caused by COVID-19, this financial support 
may also be used for airport capital expenditures. Have any of your 
member airports experienced difficulty in working with the FAA to 
allocate funds in a manner preferred at the local level?
    Answer. Our members are grateful that the CARES Act included $10 
billion to help them through the immediate coronavirus crisis. Airports 
also appreciate the flexibility in the bill that allows airports to use 
Federal funds for operations, debt service, infrastructure and other 
lawful purposes. This flexibility is helping airports to keep workers 
employed, avoid defaulting on their bonds, and move forward with their 
capital projects.
    Our members suggest that the flexibility in the CARES Act is 
working well and is helping airports cover some of their immediate 
needs. We realize that it is not easy for a Federal agency to quickly 
distribute $10 billion. But our members generally give the FAA high 
marks for working around the clock to help airports, for instituting an 
expedited application process and for getting Federal funds to airports 
as quickly as possible.
    As you mentioned, airports are allowed to use CARES Act grants for 
capital projects, too. But those projects include additional 
requirements and a separate application process. According to the 
agency, a development or construction project must be consistent with 
prior Federal obligations, meet safety and security standards and 
comply with ``other specific requirements for new airport development 
under the CARES Act.''
    We recognize and appreciate the FAA's distinction between the use 
of CARES Act funding for capital projects, which have a different set 
of requirements to meet under the law, and noncapital expenses. We do 
not, however, believe that it is wise or necessary to unduly burden 
airports interested in utilizing CARES Act funding for capital 
projects, as is clearly allowable under the law.

    Question 2. A number of airlines are now requiring passengers to 
wear masks and facial coverings. Of course, before passengers check-in 
and board the aircraft, they must pass through the terminal, most 
likely placing themselves within six feet of other people. To help 
contain the spread of COVID-19, do you believe airports should play a 
role in health-related screening and testing, including the provision 
of masks at terminal entry points?
    Answer. AAAE and our members believe that airports, airlines, our 
Federal partners, and other stakeholders need to work closely together 
to protect the health and safety of passengers and our employees. It is 
critical that we have clear and consistent Federal guidelines and 
standards, especially on the matter of health-related screenings and 
testing and facial coverings. Passengers should know what to expect 
when they arrive at the airport regardless of which airport or airline 
they happen to use. They should also receive consistent treatment and 
protection throughout their travel experience.
    In regard to masks, AAAE has repeatedly recommended that all 
passengers and employees in the airport environment wear appropriate 
facial coverings. Many U.S. carriers are also requiring passengers and 
customer-facing employees to wear facial coverings. However, since 
there is no Federal policy on facial coverings, airports are 
understandably following state and local guidelines. If there is a 
local facial covering mandate, airports, in many cases, are providing 
masks to those passengers who may need them.
    AAAE anticipates that these efforts will expand shortly because the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency is beginning to distribute 
approximately 87 million cloth facial coverings to all Part 139 
commercial service airports. These facial coverings will be made 
available primarily for the traveling public, but airports may also 
distribute them to their workers, tenants, and other partners at the 
airport.
    If the Federal Government determines that health screenings or 
other testing is necessary before a person can travel, AAAE believes 
this should be a Federal Government responsibility that should be 
closely coordinated with local health officials and airport operators. 
Airports simply do not have the medical expertise to conduct health 
screenings of passengers. Additionally, the FAA continues to maintain 
that the use of airport employees for public health screenings is 
generally not considered a proper use of airport revenue.
    For any future health screenings that are required, airports will 
work closely with the appropriate Federal agencies and other aviation 
partners to determine where to conduct any necessary medical 
evaluations. Each airport configuration is unique, so the best location 
for health screenings may vary from airport to airport. It will be 
critical to evaluate locations so that these procedures do not create 
unnecessary bottlenecks or other unintended consequences.

    Question 3. I think we all agree that a strong airline industry is 
critical to our economic recovery. The amount of passengers screened by 
the TSA is down by about 94 percent. It's clear that in order to 
increase confidence in air travel, we'll need to implement robust 
health testing and screening protocols at our Nation's airports until a 
vaccine becomes available. I'd like to get the panel's thoughts on 
possible testing and screening options, including the feasibility of 
temperature testing at TSA checkpoints, and whether you believe TSA is 
the appropriate entity to carry out these activities?
    Answer. I completely agree with your assessment about the need to 
increase confidence in air travel. AAAE believes that the Federal 
Government including the Centers for Disease Control should set Federal 
standards and determine the necessity, effectiveness, and timeline for 
any protective safeguards for passengers, including the use of health 
questionnaires, health screenings or temperature checks. This Federal 
framework should also include any protocols that may be necessary to 
ensure that health screenings are consistently applied throughout the 
aviation system.
    While a general consensus has emerged on the use of facial 
coverings by passengers and workers throughout the aviation system, the 
issue of temperature checking is more complex. In addition to the 
threshold question as to whether or not they provide a public health 
benefit, there are numerous complex operational and policy questions to 
understand. Where would the tests be conducted? By whom? Who would 
determine whether or not an individual is fit to travel?
    It is our understanding that an interagency effort with 
participation from a broad section of U.S. government entities, 
including the CDC, DHS, TSA, DOT, FAA, and others, is underway to look 
at these and other issues regarding temperature checks, contact 
tracing, and other initiatives, and we look forward to reviewing their 
recommendations.

    Question 4. What is the U.S. airline industry doing, or could be 
doing, to build the confidence of the travelling public by sharing the 
preexisting and new measures in place to protect the health of 
passengers, such as the use of HEPA filters in air filtration systems?
    Answer. I know others on this panel will be able to answer your 
specific question about what the airlines are doing to build confidence 
in the traveling public and protect the health of passengers. But I can 
tell you what steps airports are taking to build confidence and to 
ensure that our facilities are safe for passengers and airport 
employees alike. Airport operators have undertaken numerous efforts 
since the onset of this national emergency to mitigate the transmission 
of the COVID-19 virus. Our members are working diligently to create and 
maintain a clean, safe, and secure environment.
    Airports are thoroughly cleaning, disinfecting and sanitizing their 
facilities to a higher public health standard, including all high-touch 
surfaces like toilets, faucets, sinks, tables, doorknobs, light 
switches, countertops, and handles; all TSA checkpoints; baggage areas; 
and other common use locations. Airports are using EPA-approved 
disinfectants or alternative disinfection methods, such as ultrasonic 
waves, high intensity UV radiation, and foggers. Airports are training 
workers on new cleaning guidelines and are providing cleaning staff 
with protective equipment to avoid contacting or spreading the virus.
    Airports are also promoting physical distancing. They have 
installed physical distancing markers and are making regular 
announcements about the need for additional spacing. Airports, along 
with other partners, have installed plexiglass barriers to protect 
passengers and workers. And finally, airports are providing personal 
protective equipment and facial coverings to airport employees and 
passengers. These enhanced efforts are designed to better protect 
passengers, employees and Federal partners who operate at airports from 
contracting or spreading the COVID-19 virus.
    As I mentioned during the hearing, airports are urging Congress to 
provide Federal funding for increased operational and infrastructure 
development costs associated with responding to COVID-19. For instance, 
additional funding would help implement physical distancing and 
touchless travel; enhance cleaning and sanitization; upgrade heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning system upgrades, and make other 
necessary investments to protect passengers and employees.
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to 
                              Todd Hauptli
    Question 1. Airport concessionaires play a vital role in the 
airport and aviation ecosystem. Most concessionaires' revenues are now 
down by 90 percent, and many have closed their locations. Are you 
working closely with restaurants and retail stores to ensure their 
employees will have a safe and reliable transition back to their place 
of work?
    Answer. You are absolutely correct that concessionaires play a key 
role in the airport ecosystem. We value the close relationship that 
airports have with concessionaires, car rental companies, fixed-based 
operators and other airport partners. We realize that they--like 
airports and airlines--are suffering due to the dramatic drop in 
passenger levels and revenue. Even with funding in the CARES Act, 
airports have limited resources and little incoming revenue because of 
the dramatic drop in passengers during the coronavirus crisis. Despite 
a long list of needs, airports are working closely with their partners 
as they try to recover from the current the crisis and deal with huge 
financial losses the entire airport ecosystem is facing. Many airports 
have identified ways to assist concessionaires and other businesses 
operating at their facilities. Because every airport and every 
airport's financial situation is unique, those discussions are taking 
place on an airport-by-airport basis. We expect that it will take 
airports four to five years to fully recover. As I mentioned in my 
testimony, we are urging Congress to provide airports with additional 
resources to help them with their operating costs and debt service 
payments at a time when revenues are still way below where they were 
last year. We are also urging Congress to provide assistance for 
concessionaires and other airport partners that have been significantly 
impacted by the crisis.

    Question 2. A number of airlines are now requiring passengers to 
wear masks and facial coverings. To help contain the spread of the 
Coronavirus, do you believe airports should require masks and/or screen 
the temperature of airline passengers at terminal entry points?
    Answer. To help prevent the spread of coronavirus, AAAE believes 
that all passengers and employees in the airport environment should 
wear appropriate face coverings. Since there is no nationwide policy on 
the use of facial coverings, airports are following state and local 
guidelines. If there is a local facial covering mandate, many airports 
are providing masks to those passengers who may not have one.
    AAAE anticipates that more passengers will be encouraged to wear 
facial coverings because the Federal Emergency Management Agency is 
beginning to distribute approximately 87 million cloth facial coverings 
to all Part 139 commercial service airports. These facial coverings 
will be made available primarily for the traveling public, but airports 
may also distribute them for their workers, tenants, and other partners 
at the airport.
    In regard to health screening or temperature checks of airline 
passengers, AAAE believes that the Federal Government including the CDC 
should determine the necessity, effectiveness, and timeline for any 
protective safeguards for passengers to travel. This Federal framework 
should ensure that any protocols that may be necessary for health 
screenings are consistently applied throughout the aviation system.
    If the Federal Government determines that health screening of 
airline passengers is necessary, those screenings should be conducted 
by public health officials who have medical expertise. Airport 
personnel do not have this expertise to conduct health screenings, 
particularly for those travelers who may require additional scrutiny.
    I appreciate your suggestion about screening passengers at the 
terminal entry points and believe that should be considered by the 
appropriate Federal agencies, working closely with airports and other 
aviation partners, as future health screenings are contemplated. Since 
each airport configuration is unique, it will be critical to evaluate 
where best to accommodate these efforts so that these procedures do not 
to create bottlenecks or other unintended consequences.

    Question 3. Do you feel your communication with the CDC has been 
pristine and dependable? If not, what troubles are you still 
encountering?
    Answer. Our association typically does not communicate directly 
with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, some of our 
airport members have CDC quarantine facilities at their locations, and 
they have been working regularly with the agency as travelers from 
certain countries have been funneled to these locations for further 
evaluation. In general, these airport members have strong working 
relationships with CDC and their local health departments.

    Question 4. Is there a contact you can e-mail or call at CDC and 
receive a reply immediately?
    Answer. It is our understanding that CDC has a contact form for 
coronavirus-related inquiries. We're told that airports generally 
receive responses from the agency quickly. Airports that have CDC 
located in their facilities are able to call or e-mail their local CDC 
officials, and generally they receive prompt replies. In addition, CDC 
guidance has been helpful to airports as they develop emergency 
response plans, internal health protocols, and recovery plans in 
response to the ongoing pandemic.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                              Todd Hauptli
    Question 1. As you noted in your testimony, throughput at TSA 
checkpoints have seen a significant reduction. General aviation and 
corporate business aircraft have slowed resulting in lower fuel sales. 
After reaching out to a number of airports in my state, their biggest 
concern is their long term sustainability. For example, as of May 5th, 
Yeager Airport in Charleston, WV had a total of 66 customer throughput 
which is a 91.8 percent decrease from the same time last year. Our 
airports in West Virginia are a vital source of economic activity in 
our state, how can Congress sustain this vital infrastructure?
    Answer. That is great question, Senator. Airports in West Virginia 
and throughout the country share the same concerns. We are encouraged 
by the recent uptick in throughput at TSA checkpoints. But progress is 
exceptionally slow, and we expect the road to recovery will be long, 
especially for smaller communities around the country. Based on our 
experiences after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the Great Recession 
in 2008 and 2009, many expect that it will take airports four or five 
years to fully recover from the crisis.
    Our members are grateful that the CARES Act included $10 billion to 
help airports pay for operations, keep workers employed and ensure that 
they don't default on their bonds. The funding in the bill provided a 
lifeline to help airports survive the immediate crisis. But there are 
other steps that Congress can take to help airports meet the challenges 
during the recovery and in the longer term.
    First, we urge Congress to continue to invest in airports and 
ensure they have the resources they need to respond to COVID-19, repair 
aging infrastructure, and build new facilities to help us prepare for 
the new normal. As I mentioned in my testimony, we are urging Congress 
to provide airports--both commercial service and general aviation 
facilities--with additional resources to help them cover their 
operating costs and other expenses and keep critical projects on-track 
at a time when revenues are still well below where they were last year.
    As you know, commercial airlines have reduced or eliminated service 
to a long list of small communities in recent weeks. We expect that it 
will be challenging for many small communities to regain commercial air 
service in the aftermath of the current crisis. That could be even more 
difficult if the airlines contract in size as many expect. Increasing 
funding for EAS and the Small Community Air Service Development 
programs would provide smaller communities with a much-needed boost and 
help preserve commercial air service.
    As you point out, airports play a key role in economic activity at 
the state and local level. Investing in airports and air service 
programs now will help put people back to work, stimulate the economy 
and pay dividends down the road.

    Question 2. In response to the pandemic, Congress was able to 
provide much needed support to the aviation industry and its workers. 
The CARES Act provided up to $46 billion available for Federal loans 
and loan guarantees to the aviation sector. In West Virginia, DOT has 
so far awarded more than $9.3 million from the FAA to help fund 
continued operations and make up for lost revenue for airports across 
my state. As we move forward, what would be the primary recommendation 
for Congress in future COVID support?
    Answer. As I mentioned in a response to a previous question, our 
members are grateful that the CARES Act included $10 billion to help 
airports pay for operations, keep workers employed and ensure that they 
don't default on their bonds. The funding in the bill provided a 
lifeline to help airports survive the immediate crisis. We are 
encouraged by the recent uptick in throughput at TSA checkpoints. 
However, airports expect to face tremendous financial losses in the 
months and years ahead.
    Our primary recommendation is that Congress provide airports with 
additional resources to help them manage the coronavirus crisis in the 
longer term. We expect that it will take airports four to five years to 
fully recover from the current downturn in aviation activity. In light 
of the dramatic decline in aviation activity and the reduction in 
revenue we expect commercial airports will need an additional $13 
billion and that general aviation airports will need between $1 billion 
and $2 billion.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to 
                              Todd Hauptli
    Question 1. I was proud to support the CARES Act to provide $10 
billion for our Nation's airports. In my home state of Indiana, more 
than $96 million was awarded to 65 different Hoosier airports. This 
funding will help Hoosier airports remain operational and maintain 
employees as we continue to navigate the coronavirus pandemic. With 
that said, my understanding is that some airports received 
significantly less funding than other very similar airports. In 
Indiana, the South Bend International Airport received roughly 50 
percent less funding than the other two non-hub airports were awarded. 
I understand that multiple variables were taken into account and I 
don't intend to assign any blame--but what can we do to ensure that any 
future relief does not result in such funding discrepancies for similar 
airports?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question and for supporting the 
CARES Act. We deeply appreciate your help. I am aware of the issue you 
have raised regarding the distribution of CARES Act funding and 
appreciate the concerns that you and others have expressed. As we look 
forward to future relief and recovery efforts for airports, care should 
be taken to ensure that similar funding discrepancies do not occur. I 
am confident that the experiences with the CARES Act and the lessons 
learned will help ensure that is the case.
    I would note that the FAA has attempted to address the issue you 
identified by capping the initial grant amount an airport is allowed to 
receive to four times its annual operating expenses. That action may 
limit the amount of CARES Act funding that some airports ultimately 
receive. Any additional funding that is recouped from that adjustment 
could be redistributed--perhaps in the same geographic area--to help 
address the concerns that have been raised.

    Question 2. In the near term, a return to any semblance of normalcy 
in the travel industry is likely going to require health testing and 
screening protocols at our Nation's airports until a vaccine becomes 
available. Who is the appropriate entity to carry out these protocols 
and how do you envision that process in practice--walk me through what 
the ``new normal'' experience will be for someone who is flying in the 
next few months?
    Answer. Thank you for the question. In regard to the first part of 
the question, AAAE believes that the Federal Government including the 
CDC should determine the necessity, effectiveness, and timeline for any 
of protective safeguards for passengers to travel, including the use of 
health questionnaires, health screenings or temperature checks. Also, 
this Federal framework should include any protocols that may be 
necessary for health screenings to be consistently applied throughout 
the aviation system.
    If the Federal Government determines that health screenings or 
other testing is necessary before a person can travel, these tests 
should be conducted by public health officials who have medical 
expertise. Neither airport nor TSA personnel have this expertise, 
particularly for those travelers that may require additional scrutiny 
and could be told that they are not fit to travel that day.
    Aside from health testing and screening protocols, passengers' 
travel experiences will depend on the state and local health guidance 
applicable to the airport. However, there are many new changes that 
passengers should generally expect to encounter in the airport 
environment as they begin to travel again in the ``new normal.'' For 
instance, passengers and airport employees interacting with the 
traveling public will be wearing facial coverings.
    Passengers can expect that they will be asked to follow social 
distancing guidelines as they check their bags, are screened by TSA, or 
wait to board an aircraft. Ground markers, visual cues, and vocal 
announcements throughout airport terminals will also remind the public 
to follow such guidelines. Passengers will see increased cleaning and 
sanitization efforts across the terminal, and most interactions with 
concessionaire staff will be separated by a plexiglass barrier. 
Airports, working with their airline and tenant partners, are also 
planning to make the travel experience as ``contactless'' for 
passengers as possible in the near future.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Rick Scott to 
                              Todd Hauptli
    Question 1. What additional measures do your members think should 
be taken by the Federal Government to ensure the safety of passengers?
    Answer. Thank you for the question, Senator. As I mentioned in the 
hearing, AAAE and our members believe that airports, airlines, our 
Federal partners, and other stakeholders need to work closely together 
to protect the health and safety of passengers and our employees. 
However, it is critical that we have clear and consistent Federal 
guidelines and standards, especially on the matter of health-related 
screenings and testing and facial coverings. Passengers should know 
what to expect when they arrive at the airport regardless of which 
airport or airline they happen to use. Passengers should also receive 
consistent treatment and protection throughout their travel experience. 
Unfortunately, we do not have those Federal guidelines today.
    In addition, AAAE believes that the Federal Government including 
the CDC should determine the necessity, effectiveness, and timeline for 
any protective safeguards for passengers to travel, including the use 
of health questionnaires, health screenings or temperature checks. We 
believe this Federal framework should include any protocols that may be 
necessary for health screenings to be consistently applied throughout 
the aviation system.
    If the Federal Government determines that health screenings or 
other testing is necessary before a person can travel, these tests 
should be conducted by public health officials who have medical 
expertise. Neither airport nor TSA personnel have this expertise, 
particularly for those travelers that may require additional scrutiny 
and could be told that they are not fit to travel that day.
    We believe that Congress and the administration should provide 
airports with the additional resources. As a result of COVID-19, 
airports will need additional assistance for increased cleaning and 
sanitization, potential facility modifications, the deployment of 
touchless technologies, and to meet other emerging requirements that 
will help keep passengers and airport workers safe.
    We believe there is a real opportunity with Federal resources and 
clear and consistent Federal guidance to not only improve security but 
also advance and accelerate the deployment of technology to support the 
new customer experience post pandemic. This includes moving toward a 
touchless travel experience with improved and stand-off detection 
technology; biometric identity verification at check-in, bag drop 
locations and security checkpoints; and digital identification and 
payment methods. Airports, along with their tenants and Federal 
partners, are also looking to explore the use of automation and 
robotics to enhance the cleaning and sanitization of their facilities.

    Question 2. I have heard from airports in my state that the formula 
used to distribute the funding set aside for airports in the CARES Act 
was not distributed properly based on the formula used by the FAA, 
which has adversely impacted some airports that needed it most. Have 
other airports around the country expressed similar concerns, and has 
the AAAE addressed these concerns with the FAA?
    Answer. Thank you for the question, Senator. I am aware of the 
issue you have raised regarding the distribution of CARES Act funding 
and appreciate the concerns that you and others have expressed. As we 
look forward to future relief and recovery efforts for airports, care 
should be taken to ensure that similar funding discrepancies do not 
occur. I am confident that the experiences with the CARES Act and the 
lessons learned will help ensure that is the case.
    We have communicated the concerns raised by airports to the FAA, 
and I would note that the agency has attempted to address the issue by 
capping the initial grant amount an airport is allowed to receive to 
four times its annual operating expenses. That action may limit the 
amount of CARES Act funding that some airports ultimately receive. Any 
additional funding that is recouped from that adjustment could be 
redistributed--perhaps in the same geographic area--to help address the 
concerns that have been raised.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
                           Dr. Hilary Godwin
    Question 1. I think we all agree that a strong airline industry is 
critical to our economic recovery. The amount of passengers screened by 
the TSA is down by about 94 percent. It's clear that in order to 
increase confidence in air travel, we'll need to implement robust 
health testing and screening protocols at our Nation's airports until a 
vaccine becomes available. I'd like to get the panel's thoughts on 
possible testing and screening options, including the feasibility of 
temperature testing at TSA checkpoints, and whether you believe TSA is 
the appropriate entity to carry out these activities?
    Answer. With the appropriate guidance/protocols and training in 
place, I do believe that this work could be carried out by TSA. Having 
TSA implement the screening seems entirely consistent with the TSA's 
mission. An additional advantage of having the TSA perform this 
screening is that there would be a higher level of standardization 
across the county than if the screening is performed by individual 
airports.

    Question 2. What is the U.S. airline industry doing, or could be 
doing, to build the confidence of the travelling public by sharing the 
preexisting and new measures in place to protect the health of 
passengers, such as the use of HEPA filters in air filtration systems?
    Answer. Several of the major airlines are already doing a great job 
of making public the measures that they have in place to protect the 
health of passengers. An important role for the Federal government is 
to put in place guidelines that are applied across the country, so that 
travelers can expect a safe experience throughout their trip. In 
addition to ensuring that all commercial passenger aircraft have air 
filtration systems with HEPA filters, airlines can improve the 
confidence and safety of the traveling public by partnering with 
airports to screen individuals for symptoms, requiring employees and 
travelers to wear face coverings, maintaining social distancing to the 
greatest extent possible, frequently disinfecting high touch surfaces, 
making hand sanitizer readily available on flights, and thoroughly 
disinfecting planes between flights. It is also absolutely essential 
that airlines partner with government agencies to maintain flight 
manifests with up-to-date contact information for all passengers and 
ensure that this information is readily accessible to local health 
departments, in the event that this information is needed for contact 
tracing.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 
                           Dr. Hilary Godwin
    Question. In response to the pandemic, Congress was able to provide 
much needed support to the aviation industry and its workers. The CARES 
Act provided up to $46 billion available for Federal loans and loan 
guarantees to the aviation sector. In West Virginia, DOT has so far 
awarded more than $9.3 million from the FAA to help fund continued 
operations and make up for lost revenue for airports across my state. 
As we move forward, what would be the primary recommendation for 
Congress in future COVID support?
    Answer. In addition to providing financial relief directly to the 
aviation sector, Congress should provide the resources needed to 
develop and maintain a secure national database of flight manifest and 
traveler contact information.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                           Dr. Hilary Godwin
    At Wednesday's hearing, we discussed my serious concerns about 
Frontier Airlines' proposal to charge passengers more for safer seats 
on flights during the pandemic--and Frontier has since confirmed it 
will not charge that fee after all. You testified that we should have 
Federal guidance on passenger safety to protect travelers.

    Question. Can you elaborate on why you believe that Federal 
guidance is needed to ensure passenger safety during this public health 
crisis, and what are the key issues that should be addressed by any 
such guidance?
    Answer. Federal guidance is needed so that travelers can expect a 
safe environment throughout their trip, regardless of which airline 
they are flying and what airports they are traveling through. Federal 
guidelines are critical because air travel is currently an inherently 
high risk activity, and it will remain high risk as long as COVID-19 is 
circulating at significant levels nationally and globally. Commercial 
travel is inherently high risk because it involves transporting large 
numbers of people over large distances and there is a large potential 
for prolonged (> 10 mins) close (< 6 ft) contact between multiple 
individuals. Federal guidelines should focus on reducing the number of 
people that individual travelers and airport/airline employees come 
into prolonged close contact with during their trip/day (e.g., using 
social distancing interventions in airports and on planes) and 
requiring employees and travelers to wear face coverings while in 
airports and on planes. Federal guidance should also delineate air 
quality and cleaning standards for airports and planes. The Federal 
government also needs to play a critical role in mandating, funding, 
and facilitating a national system for maintaining flight manifests 
with up-to-date contact information for all commercial flights during 
the pandemic so that local health departments across the country have 
access to this information for contact tracing.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon Tom Udall to 
                           Dr. Hilary Godwin
    Generally, if a state or the Federal government is giving liability 
protections, there is a strong safety standard that industry needs to 
meet to benefit from that kind of protection. Otherwise it simply gives 
business a huge incentive to take unreasonable risks in pursuit of 
profits--like reducing the number of flights to pack passengers in the 
fewer remaining planes as one example.
    Dr. Godwin, most commercial airlines have announced requirements 
for passengers to wear masks, but the system is still a patchwork and 
social distancing is almost impossible on an airplane.

    Question 1. As a public health expert, can you briefly describe the 
most effective tools all airlines should be implementing to help 
protect passengers and employees from COVID-19?
    Answer. The most effective tools for airlines are similar to those 
for other settings:

   When possible, limit the number of people that air travelers 
        and employees come into prolonged (>10 ft) close (< 6 ft) 
        contact with.

   In situations where it is not possible to avoid having 
        people be in prolonged, close contact with others, ensure that 
        all people are wearing face coverings, both in airports and on 
        planes.

   Regularly clean surfaces that a lot of people come into 
        contact with; airlines should also thoroughly clean planes 
        between trips.

   Screen people entering airports and planes for symptoms. One 
        relatively simple methodology for screening to ask individuals 
        to attest that they do not have symptoms prior to entering 
        airports and/or prior to boarding flights.

    Every public health expert I have heard from keeps hammering the 
importance of widespread accessible diagnostic testing being in place 
before the U.S. is ready to safely reopen the economy, which everyone 
is eager to do. Air travel is not being restricted by the government, 
but people are not going to come back in large numbers unless they feel 
safe doing it.

    Question 2. Dr. Godwin, don't you agree that defeating this 
pandemic with testing, tracing and isolation is the only sustainable 
solution--if we ``open up'' and people are getting sick in larger and 
larger numbers, who is going to want to get on a plane? Is it your 
opinion that there is enough testing being done at a national level to 
keep essential workers, including airline employees, safe?
    Answer. Testing, tracing, and isolation are critical to our ability 
to controlling the COVID-19 pandemic both in the United States and 
worldwide. At this time (6/22/20), most jurisdictions in the United 
States are not conducting enough testing for us to be confident that we 
can identify the majority of infected individuals in our country. It is 
particularly problematic that we cannot identify all of the individuals 
that are infected with COVID who are asymptomatic, because many of 
these individuals may not even realize that they are sick and hence may 
be less inclined to take the necessary precautions to control spread of 
the disease. The approaches that I described in my testimony and my 
previous responses will not remove all of the risks to travelers and 
airport/airline employees, but they can lower the risk of COVID-19 
transmission in airports and on airplanes.

    Question 3. Are there special testing procedures that might be 
useful specifically for airline employees, who are exposed to so many 
people from so many different areas?
    Answer. I am not aware of any special testing procedures that might 
be useful specifically for airline employees. Before adopting a point 
of care test for COVID-19, airlines should be sure to check to make 
sure that the test they are considering does not produce a high 
percentage of false negative results. Airlines should also be aware 
that all tests provide information about a moment in time: an 
individual can show up negative on a COVID-19 test and become ill with 
COVID-19 the next day. As a result, any testing protocol airlines 
implement for their employees would need to include regular/repeated 
testing.

                                  [all]