have you considered the increase did currencies? >> yes. [laughter] absolutely. but just like to talk about the prepaid cards we as the united states government are looking at those crypto currencies. so any sorts of funding whether isil or they're criminal organization to see how they are funding with any avenues whether cash career as well as the crypto currencies that allow for a great avenue to remember

with little or no oversight some of the support anybody can give some of with respect to their prepaid card that is another avenue as well. it is definite - - difficult to attract you can load money you don't have to physically do with it can be e mail or call or contact someone in another country to provide them with some numbers and very easily you can pass money with no effort whatsoever. >> saudi arabia for those related to isis are engaged conversation then provided

the people in the region with those numbers. tremendous amounts of value investing through the financial system. >> a quick question. you just touched on the idea of charitable donations. to receive funds being transferred through charitable donations with isis? is that big or small on that line? >> whenever we a talk about charities i hate to use our broad brush but what we need

to look at this hundreds of thousands of legitimate charities but much like any other organization and it allows people to find not just terrorist activity but obviously we are cautious because we don't want to paint a broad car -- broad brush. . ..

>> provide fewer, more quality.

>> that is a great topic. i saw an amazing presentation the other day. my goal is not to have fewer stars the more quality whether that means 800 but higher-quality that is a great goal to have. more than less intelligence and this information out there it does not give us the greater picture the having less that are more directed. my goal is not to have less. i would like more. the goal is really necessarily higher-quality what to look out for and i commend western union for how proactive they are. >> yes.

>> good afternoon thank afternoon, thank you for the presentation, agent kane with homeland security presentation. one question. following up. with trying to counter the financing of isis with al qaeda it was a different structure. what do you think is touchable. >> i don't have a specific answer for you. the money they have within their holdings. so i don't necessarily have a distinct number for you.

it becomes that whole of government and partnership approach to using every tool we have in the toolbox whether it be through the department of defense authority to tackle oil and other things sanctions as well but i think much like whether we're talking about organized crime for the money is when one that my search the see that and go outside that is a avenue with which we can tackle it. >> thank you very much. an estimation about abortion that the sources of financing.

>> i don't have a specific number to give you but i can tell you obviously as it has been, as we touched on the demand in the back talked about it now just becomes one avenue transfer the money versus a lot of others. what we are having is the traditional but the interaction of electronic quality essentially. [inaudible conversations] >> let them know.

>> prepaid, in a nutshell it is one where you go to your cvs and buy a card visa card, amazon and there is value on that card. anywhere in the world. that card has value on it. it. you can give someone outside of the world the phone car -- phone call or email that number e-mail that number and they can use it as cash anywhere in the world. you go to cvs and there are 30 different types of prepaid cards including ones that are not tied to a particular store. without the money moving, and informal value system old, plays an important role

but it is there to be abused. and it involves trust between the two people on different sides of the world but has been used for good purposes and other purposes. there is a lot of new and old. a lot of talk about crowdsourcing another variation of the term crowdfunding, the financial action task force report cited a concern. isil has manipulated networks encouraged donations and conducted a marketing campaign in a manner consistent with industry standards established by major crowdfunding companies. most people read that and here vulnerability. i i am former fbi and former treasury intelligence. i here opportunity. in what way do something like that presents an opportunity? >> crowdsourcing, the online campaign basically much like

utilized by the charitable organizations or any other organization that you might see doing a marketing campaign in order to raise funds for organizations, isil have used social media. don't want to travel or are not in a position to or a position to join the fight. you are to do what you can to help the organization. by doing so they have fleshed out this massmarketing campaign through which they are asking folks to fund them through social media sites. i agree with you much like they are similar to other social media campaigns and communication spreading propaganda it gives us an opportunity to identify and target other individuals.

>> excellent. >> yes, sir. >> mike riley. the question about the private sector partnerships. i understand the primary motive committee to have communication often takes a fair amount of time to compile and get to. when you are dealing with matters of financial crime and fraud the urgency might be less so. can you comment on your relationship to the banks with urgent financial matters? >> banks are -- the world is flat, a lot of information out there. banks, i can talk about western union and our bank partnerships that are proactive and what they do. in the cases of an attack

the banks are proactive in examining what is in their holdings and quickly pushing out. our relationships obviously we need to file subpoenas or other information but a very good relationship with our partners to understand the urgency and they are able to prioritize and get this information as quickly as they feasibly can. i have absolutely no complaints with comes to an urgent matter and the ways and times in which we get the information which is part of this campaign why we are doing this outreach in order to allow them to understand the current and emerging terrorist picture is so that they understand the sense of urgency. >> a follow-up in front. >> thank you.

i comment on that that if i may. it is important to.out the same threats that the u.s. treasury through our tf pp program in dc, within one hour and 40 minutes provided 60 leads to the french authorities will the hostages were still held and that is a matter of public record, a record public program, and it is no evidence that we spent together -- so much facilitated. >> some of the more more see the complex. i complex. i wonder if there is a

parallel that we can draw. within our efforts a one-size-fits-all approach across the country, for example, the three pilot projects that we have across the country a very different. the office of boston because there are different types of activities in these areas, areas, even though so much is happening in line. it knows no borders. and the term a lot of it is happening online. i wonder, online. i wonder do we see different types of activities, different types of groups being more prominent being more prominent sure -- several

other. a one-way fbi stand up and provide information and every session that i have been at i have taken away and learned. so i'll just want to clarify that.and the fact that we do this outreach as much line is we who teach. so i think that's a good leeway into your much like what we talked about is no one picture.

tv, a to finance it's necessary, one model and we get caught in a trap. so the uniqueness of radicalization that -- and look at all of the options. a particular community doing it one way details sometimes people.

>> has refocused don't even -- talking about cigna advantage of our focus elsewhere to consolidate its position. i wonder if there's a concern in this area that as we are so supremely focused on isil that this could be an opportunity more traditional under the radar and take advantage of the opportunity for finance to their benefit. >> that's a great question and something you know from being in the bureau before having worked terrorism before that. through the present. i can tell you that we have constantly made sure that because we're looking at the threat in front of us that we are not the surly looking at the threat to the right of us.

said deputy director of the year. -- if aligned the potential to act and to combine the prioritization will will the amount that we will simulate somebody -- [inaudible conversations] potential for other groups sued for somebody with a light but it will have for a but slightly with a little milk in what.

>> do we put groups that are considered terrorist groups were the united states and may be raising funds and certainly historically have raised funds but do not traditionally target us. so for a moment from the very cutting edge -- >> was the status on their activities? >> obviously we continue to look at all of our groups. good slap you in the 2nd see which many do -- >> obviously in particular were talking about hezbollah in the last three years the tax.

so it's still a real threat to us and us citizens overseas. [applause] >> taking the

>> his work overseas, and

they were. three carriers are undermining the competition and threatening american jobs. >> the opposite side, the effort commits misguided sense of you write you and

the like on that will -- >> thank you for inviting the few lists -- [inaudible conversations]

>> in fact today we released an econometric analysis showing that these carriers are not actually adding travel. stifling travel.

they become partners in a way that is quite detrimental to us jobs. what we are asking our country to do is to invoke the consultation of the open agreements at least the nations. we are firm believers in open skies. consumers, consumers a boon to our employees, a boon to the us airlines but in this case of a hundred and 14 to are being heavily abused and we're spending a considerable amount of time and money to uncover the degree of subsidization dumping airlines. subsidized by foreign governments.

the foreign government policy to go traffic. and this is an important issue that is causing current harm. the harm is accelerating. we have seen with the gulf carriers have done to the carriers in europe. we have seen what they have done to singapore. we know how this movie ends. it does not end well for american consumers. >> it does not end well for the professional men and women of our airlines. >> parker. that follow the merger and you have been ceo at us airways and america west. now you are seeing these gulf carriers adding new

routes routes, and now you want the us government to take an unusual step of freezing new routes. it does not sound like what a a competitor would do. why are you taking this strange step? >> it is not strange at all but exactly what is called for. the request the request is simply to have consultations. without that the request, too many talks we would like to see a freeze in the fine but that has not happened. we should note that since we have laid out our case those three carriers have increased the capacity by 25 percent. so they are clearly recommitting to win the race against the clock. the reality is we are not being extremely competitive. well i recognize and above.

[inaudible conversations]

>> previously ran northwest airlines. go all the way back to 1987 in the industry when you began continental. you have cited the figure $42 billion in subsidies. how do you back up the figure when they're are public documents that anyone can see that will show that figure command that assuming that these subsidies are happening down the road you will have to show that they are actually harming you and the industry. will you be able to show arm? >> 1st on the evidence we started the process a couple of years ago because just by definition and a 380 daily from milan to jfk

intuition tells you he did not need to see a flight profitability system to tell you that they cannot work. and we kept reading that the carriers were saying that there were now government subsidies to any of these carriers but over the timeframe of these bilateral neck to that bilateral relationships, 24 nonstops 24 daily nonstops. and it was and it was just counterintuitive because those countries had populations size of north dakota. so normally you so normally you would have that kind of traffic between two points a just would not support. so we began a process to try to figure out what was going on and found the financial statements, found them in places like malta and singapore but we spread out around the world and it was

kind of interesting. those countries are required airlines to file financial statements. oddly enough in the us we do not require that. other countries do certified financial statements the show subsidies that fully disclose. so the so the work that we did was not only that, but we also did research across all the financial documents we could find around the world airport financing financing by government command we were able to build a strong case. to put it in a legal framework we proved subsidy beyond a reasonable doubt. you cannot refute the evidence. it is overwhelming. the us carriers essentially

american and delta have been put in the market. a very big country that has a huge trade relationship with the us particularly for it huge agricultural base. in essence we do not have any aviation trade. we have exited the market completely because essentially we of subsidize government strategies come into the marketplace to basically shift the traffic off of us and take us out of the indian market. you think about it us flight carriers out to be in the indian market. but it but it is not sustainable. $41 billion worth of subsidy

it is difficult if not impossible to compete. that is immediate. i get analysis. a long-haul widebody triple seven in the us command we count the professional pilots and flight attendants and dispatchers and technicians and ground operations personnel it drives about 900 really 900 really good -- actually on a gross basis almost 1000 jobs per flight. we put a triple seven or a 74 or and a 350 or a 787 on a daily nonstop across the ocean it drives almost a thousand jobs for each one of these carriers. those jobs are not here. the airlines you see here today collectively employ about 300,000 people.

the budgets are well over $12 billion per year and investment in airplanes and infrastructure command we create huge positive trade surplus for our country. our aviation policy the state of aviation policy in this country is we will act vigorously through all our appropriate means to defend our rights and airlines to ensure that competition is fair and the playing field is level by eliminating marketplace distortions such as government subsidy in the case. it is time to get understanding through consultation as to what the appropriate remedies are to create a level playing field. >> i have a lot of questions. i will combine some. what reaction have you had from the obama administration to your complaint.

why would they want to poke their finger in the eyes of key allies in the middle east at a time like this? and the other one came up at the camp david meeting that president obama held. if not what is the agenda? >> let me answer one of those five or six questions. >> the long-standing practice of the united states government with respect to trade disputes to bifurcate the trade dispute for matters of national security and defense. it's a large reason for trade dispute. the amount of subsidies your are dwarfed by more than a factor of two. that was a dispute with very clear allies. members of nato command yet our government.

>> they understand the difference between trade dispute in we had visited with the department of commerce and transportation the white house ustr the department of state command we have gotten serious interest from serious people that a serious issue that they're clearly are a lot of issues involved. our government has asked us in addition to the white paper and the considerable documentation be provided in january they asked us additional questions which we responded to and filed

with them a stack of paper about that high in response. they have very good information. we expect them to act upon it. the concern we have candidly is we need them to act on it with urgency because as they mentioned the carriers are taking advantage of this timeframe that 25 percent more than they have as of january 28 which is a serious issue because the harm his current happening, and accelerating. we also know as i mentioned earlier, this accelerates to the.where it can threaten the very existence. it has in europe. this is a serious issue that our government is taking seriously. >> should this have been on the agenda yesterday and president obama's meeting with the goal state leaders? >> i i do not know the content of those discussions. however no way of knowing. my understanding from the press is those are matters

relating to defense. as such, i would not expect these to be discussed because they are sensitive. >> very practically, these are the sorts of issues that should be handled in the normal course separate and apart from those kinds of defense meetings. by the way, we also support open skies the state department to work to the issues in the normal

channels is in the if you dig in leaving. [inaudible conversations] not part of this. the fact that it is not an issue. you what you are will --

>> let me try that one. so it doesn't concern them. here is the reality. the experience. will happen here if her government allows this to continue only do the. >> reporter: that has the material potential impact

which is why our employees are so concerned. the moment that happens the three of us are so concerned while sometimes i think everyone pretty much understands if we find international flights from philadelphia to europe, they are full of people fly nonstop. they are flying from all over the united states. the entire commercial us aviation system is materially different. it is not right. that is what we will happen. that is why the three of us are so concerned. concerned. they either don't understand or don't care about us

commercial aviation. >> am sorry. part of what we're saying is meant to harm the business. this is simply about commercial aviation and passenger carriers. so you may have something but they clearly do not understand the impact. >> what i was going to say sorry to answer a and draft you, with the exception of cargo carriers, they understand our issues. they however have a set of traffic lights they rely on through the middle east which are different than our set of traffic rights. this is an issue for passenger carriers. cargo carriers our issue can bleed over to some retaliation to their rights. we are -- so they have no

concern but appreciate the damage that is occurring here but their concern his retaliation. >> boeing sells airplanes to you and to the gulf and as far as i can tell they are staying on the sidelines in this. is that where they should stay because it is a no-win situation or do they need to see the concerns that you see in getting involved? >> well, boeing has been very straightforward in its neutrality on this issue. that is appropriate. [inaudible conversations]

they stay neutral. [inaudible conversations] force the policy. and if you go look at the file ways that were done by boeing against airbus on the subsidies you can take the words boeing and substitute american united in delta and the issue is exactly the same command our position with respect to subsidies is identical so there is -- the position that boeing and that wto subsidy case. the largest subsidy case which has been proven by documents when compared to

any wto case. from that standpoint as we say we have the worst case which is identical to the boeing case and the wto. research the quotes and the statements made. >> i have several questions that are just for you. that is where sitting in the middle seat. a special seat. >> i wrote all over it. [laughter] >> likes to combine questions. i will combine some for you. one of the questions is along the lines of this, america as part of the oneworld alliance. a key partner. british airways partner in support of the middle eastern carriers positioned.

qatar is a member of the oneworld alliance and apparently you supported their entry into the alliance couple of years ago. and maybe i just will leave it at that. >> it certainly makes for a peculiar get together awkward when oneworld gets together in one room. how how do you figure all of this out? it does not seem to make sense the way that i just laid it out. >> let me try to explain. the alliance because it is important. customers that want to get the parts of the world that america does not serve such as the middle east. relationships that allow them. that is what i think is the right thing to do for american airlines customers. that does not mean that we

should sit and watch subsidized travel to not enforce the policy with the country's. to us this is much less about individual airlines and about other policy. in the policy is the us government working with the uae and qatar to enforce that policy. as it relates to bring -- british airways they have a different view at the different network dynamic than most of us do. great airline great partner, british airways very well run and managed. the reality is there global hub does not face the same issues the rest of us do because it is not possible to have subsidized capacity and enormous conscience.

the issue on the other front. they are completely different. >> traditionally this has been a fight led by delta. both the old american and us airlines are mostly on the sidelines. why have they taken such a strong part in the campaign at this time? >> the data. >> i like -- i have been in this business a long time. when i saw the amount of flying my intuition was to say we have seen this before. airlines come and go and do economic things. they guilty of -- they go away eventually.

they will be gone because you cannot find that much capacity in the middle east and expect to be profitable. then we saw indeed they were playing by unfair rules. if you allow that to happen the rules become completely different. so once we saw the data we were all in. up until that time we were skeptical because we had see more proof and frankly just assumed overtime fortunately the work was done, we saw the data. >> this questionnaire says given that your three airlines have two head-to-head daily competitive overlaps, is this not really about protecting passenger flows and connecting opportunities for your european alliance partners? and what is the us

government national interest in demanding that the government protect your european partners by forcing passengers to connect in frankfurt, munich paris amsterdam command london? >> let me start, this is not protectionism. this is about enforcing trade policy. this is about what our nation stands for in the united states, which is fair competition free of distortion, particularly subsidized distortion. this distortion is off the scale. orders of magnitude subsidization far beyond anything that i have ever seen in my career. this is a significant issue to us to our employees, to the us airline industry does it affect our foreign partners? of course but we compete on a global scale. we fly united alone over

500 flights a day to 365 destinations on six continents. we fly either directly or through alliance a competition with carriers every single day. you take the entire network and there are only three destinations not served by a member of star alliance. this is a competitive situation and we are more than happy to and each of us american delta, united we compete globally and are ready and able to complete globally. you cannot compete against a number of the state. and it has never been the trade policy of the united states of america says we have escaped mercantilism to accept subsidized groups

because of long-term damage to jobs in the economic health of the united states. >> out with a study today saying that the university of 70 billion in subsidies 70 billion since 2,000 including bankruptcy and the pension. and so i want to get your response to that. also other questions. [inaudible conversations] >> have to hold us back. wait a minute. i want to take that one right now. i we will turn it to the audience. i would like the airline employees in this room who lost their pensions in bankruptcy or had their pension frozen please stand up. now, i would like them to tell these people about whether chapter 11 has subsidies?

[inaudible conversations] it does not. it did not have subsidies. there there were no government subsidies and it was the employees and creditors in a legal process that went through a reorganization. it is just simply not a subsidy under wt the law or us law. >> it is not a subsidy because it is not a subsidy. it is just nonsense. there is no government support that provides support to those carriers when they could not meet their obligations. the commitments creditors employees found that they were not -- airlines could not meet there commitments and ended up with pensions lost, jobs lost not being paid back all sorts of horrible things.

that is what bankruptcy is. if this is their defense fantastic because we disagree. let's sit down and talk about it. we would like to argue about what bankruptcy really means and help them understand versus the subsidy. that that would be a great conversation to have end is all we want to do. if the argument is it is okay to be subsidized because you guys file bankruptcy come on. >> two of the three carriers in their financial statements that we were able to uncover growing concern. what that means is they are saying this is not a growing concern. this entity does not have sufficient cash flow profitability to survive and

therefore needs to be liquidated. the government stepped in and shovel then more subsidy to keep them afloat. so it is absurd not only from a wto perspective to argue that bankruptcy -- people pay for those employees, creditors shareholders a devastating thing. two of those three carriers but for massive government subsidies 17 billion per year almost $17 billion. but for those subsidies the carriers would be liquidated and would not exist today. >> but you have received government subsidy over the years whether guarantee loans or atc to some degree

subsidizing business. >> paid for every penny. [inaudible conversations] >> general taxpayer dollars. >> we can go. >> that is not correct. >> you are not saying you don't get any government subsidy. we do not receive subsidy. the taxes we have had. we do not receive subsidies from the united states part of the airline deregulation act. we do not receive subsidies. >> tax cuts, loan guarantees you would not call those subsidies. >> if you look at our tax rate on financials we are a

full taxpayer the highest corporate tax rate plus we pay some of the highest taxes for fuel passenger facility charges segment fees tsa fees patient fees cbt fees. there is i believe sharon is here the expert 17 taxes that we pay a ticket. [inaudible] >> overall. >> overall. >> we will do one last question on this issue and then move to general airline issues. anything you want to say you should say on this question. do you think that the government will do something at the end of the day. the "washington post" was out with an article earlier this week.

they were hesitant you know made it sound like the government would not take action. do you expect the government to take action? if not will you shut this down and move along? is there another way to win? could you see something on export import or some other area of benefit that would stem from your arguments on this matter? >> i will start and let these gentlemen join in. i believe that it should take action and has taken action. it is enforced consistently. there are major trade agreements in front of congress today. it is important that this administration take action on a significant trade dispute a clear violation of the underlying trade agreement between the us and the uae and qatar and we are confident that they will take action. should they not take action for some reason there are

other avenues that we will need to pursue. .. >>

>> and they can start and end their career there. but not because u.s. government simply ignore the fact we cannot let that happen. [applause] >> we have been at it over two years and we will not stop. it will just keep going. we have huge support in congress may be 260 members

but we've will continue no the future of an industry and it is our to do what is it is a the best interests of the aged -- aviation industry why hasn't that fuel cost been passed on to customers? >> but talking about pricing the fact that we are together is an oddity it is only because we're so close on this issue.

>> this is hard on all of us [laughter] >> that is proof positive how serious this issue is. the thought is is is being seen by consumers throughout the world it is down your over your much of that is due to new capacity and added fuel prices remain high but it is incorrect to disconnect the drop of fuel just to say it is capacity but that would die have happened for the fact that fuel has fallen.

>> says u.s. base a pilot shortage? >> i believe it does. because you have several factors at work. because of the after 9/11 we had a decade where the industry essentially declined in size and those events were devastating to the industry there is a period of time with no hiring a and it shrunk a fair amount because you have fuel prices from where we started at $20 a barrel then in 2005 it was 60 then 2007 or 2008 it was 150.

in the financial bill that -- well down and now we have demographics catching up there is a huge wave of retirement at the same time now lot of investment goes into fleet and as a result there is a significant demand. in the case of delta we will hire about 1,000 pilots this year. >> it is not the issue of the mainland carrier they are a good job as we treat them well and it is a solidly profitable industry and people recognize they

can have a a terrific career but it affects the regional characters because of the pay structure which is historically has spent in that is why you see carriers over time like united dial down in dial-up the mainline is better for our customers as well but with the regional jets are some but for the project so there is no problem whatsoever. >> there have been conversations private

privatizing air traffic control to have their run by a nonprofit to look favorable loan this idea but could never get through congress? and then you'll see members worried about the staffing so will this group ever give up control? >> the issue is not the minimum or the leadership there doing a very good job given the resources and governance constraints.

but the start and stop budgeting they cannot borrow long-term for investments that have a great deal of difficulty -- difficulty because of the budgeting problems and the massive micromanagement in congress that is a problem because what the nation needs and deserves is a modern modern air traffic control system just like in canada which does a superb job and it is safer and the most technologically advanced in a the world there progressing at a clip of which ensuring currently to support a reformation of the nation's air traffic control system right now faa is in a

conflict of interest deregulates for safety in that operates proven be much better if it was split where s.a. a was a regulator in the air traffic control was a separate system is it is a natural monopoly so and has tremendous amount of regulation but not for profit like in canada's is successful that is what we should give the great deal of consideration to. but we do know the current system does not work well at all. when i start a business we would schedule a flight from here to newark for an hour now is an hour and half because of their rules.

think of the ground-based radar technology compared to today. most of you have better guidance on your honda than we do. [laughter] so we need transformation. there are considerable risks without question in transition issues but just because it is difficult and complex many other nations have done this in this great nation could rise to this. >> there has been tremendous gains in safety of when something would have been to make adjustments over the

years. they have a horrible situation with the crash in germany with the pilots bringing it down. has that reveal the safety crack or is that so far flung that the industry needs to take so with the pilot training qualification that they require incredible experience to be the atp holder and in postmen 11 and

i believe the europeans are adopting. i lois the final recommendations have come now but we should wait and see of the ntsb you will it -- always wanted to run its course of the recommendation >> middle let anything just be such an anomaly. we think our business is different enough so to study it so to make sure we do

what we possibly can. with error just say it is such an anomaly but we can cover the bases. >> before we get to the final question i just want to mention in the national press club this leading organization for journalist. for more information go to the web site and to learn about the non-profit visit the web site. one week from today we will have the all -- author of the prairie home companion will address the press club band on july 8 we have the cushion of the washington

end capitol's n.m. with the right to present each of our three guests. [laughter] [applause] >> these are the extremely valuable artifacts i am sure it will be treasured. >> recall slightly above-average. [laughter] so we have the tradition to end of the lighter side and to mention how we have three

in every donor of that will happen again. [laughter] but all have the opportunity to save what yours is better than the guys sitting next to you. [laughter] >> how much time do you have? >> i will jump out first. [laughter] >> actually i think post consolidation common industry is so much better than it has ever been and candidly is far out ahead of perception. delta and american united offer today have a better product they have offered in their history, better customer service, better

technology, facilities, fleet common networks, and better customer convenience common schedule utility then we have never had. the reason we compete together so well and so fervently is because we are now in a position that we may that we have never been able to make. not because you were stupid the poll were. now we make sufficient time to invest in our businesses and fleet and the technology. we try and a good airline the top for different things but we all offer the increasingly better product

that is why it is so important to us we're not giving up on this issue because it will happen and we will tell the next-generation that is so damaging to the state and as if to give us the opportunity to address this very important crown. thank you. [applause]

>> that was very diplomatic of the. [laughter] but this is really where we compete we compete for that premium customers we are proud of what we are doing. redo have the luxury product >> but just looking at his socks for god's sake. [laughter] [applause] >> we had american our professional carriers. but i do want to say that how big dent deal it is but somehow to be turned on to

the media with ceo verses deal with this is not what it is about with public policy they are doing what we will into to fly where they can and do the best they can with what they are given. the three of us are not fighting them but petitioning our government because the other two countries are not playing fair. it has nothing to do with people or airlines but trade policy. >> mr. anderson to want to defend your socks? [laughter] >> no but i feel i should defend his.

[laughter] >> i will yield. >> please give a round of applause. [applause] the. >> also to the staff include data earned journalism institute in the view i'd like a copy of today's program go to the web site. we are richard. -- adjourned. [inaudible conversations]