diversion to highways will have the unintended consequences in transportation debt. we rely on many cities to get our conclusion, starting back in the 1990's. more recently, in 2003, 2005, several of the cities are from. you'd scientific journal articles. several are independent of faa. in the aggregate, they didn't give us an exact percentage. but we do know that a certain percentage were deferred to the highways. there is such a large disparity between safety and air travel and safety on the highways. this is a very important consideration for us and for regulators. aviation is much safer. it is highly regulated. it is highly controlled. aviation accidents are very rare. for example, if we look back over the last 32 years, there were three accidents where the fatality of a child would have

been prevented if the child had been in a child restraint system. the long-term fatality rate in aviation has decreased dramatically since 1994. the faa does everything it can to encourage and promote the use of child restraint doses. when the rules for child restraint was originally written years ago, it was not appropriate to require a restaurant because there were not effective restraints for children under the age of 2. at the time, the regulations -- under the age of 2 at the time the regulations were originally written. but now they have some that are approved to be used to be safe in aircraft. in 1992, they're required carriers to allow the use of a child restraint device on an

airplane. we conducted a study at the faa federal medical unit. in 1998, the a they did publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to receive public comment on requiring child restraint of aircraft. but, at that time, we did not require any military changes. in order to encourage innovation in the use of child restraint to provide parents more options, we have done additional rulemaking to allow operators and passengers to use new innovative types of child restraints approved for use on aircraft. one such example was mentioned. by any standard that over 70,000 of those have been distributed. that was because the faa did the

rulemaking that allow them to be used on airplanes. parents and guardians of small children have a lot of child restraint options now. in commercial aviation and general aviation, we have the typical ford and after approved child restraints. but the ones that i just talked about that are approved under faa process these as well. you reach out to general aviation and commercial aviation, carriers and operators, with guidance and tools they need to facilitate the use of child restraint on aircraft. our guidance helps our carriers develop crewmember policies and procedures, crewmember education, address specialized tissues. we discussed the use of chuggers trend for children with disabilities, education about new types of child restraints.

we address many of the fit and placement issues that were raised in the presentation. we give airlines the best information that they need to develop emergency procedures to be used when their children on board in an aircraft. the faa continues with its education and outreach. we developed a very large, on a national scale, national media campaign. there were a lot of partners and child safety brochures and print and television and radio service announcements. we join with a lot of partners to get the word out, that child restraint is the safest place for your child on an aircraft. we updated the campaign in 2004. we designed a new faa website dedicated to informing passengers about the use of child restraint on aircraft. we currently average 6700 hits a month on that website. we're getting the word out.

we developed brochures and partnered with babies are us. but the education and outreach continues and it does so in a way that is from me to this new generation of parents. we do outreach to travel web site, trouble blogs, -- travel blogs and travel bloggers. we get hit on our website every month. 67,000 -- 6700 was the average last year. we also place an instructional video that shows parents the effective way to use a child restraint on aircraft. we reach out with social media. dot secretary ray load encourage parents to use child restraint lahood encouraged

parents to use child restraint. it is the safest way for your child to fly on an aircraft and we reached an audience of 114,000 appeared -- 114,000. we enable the use of new and innovative types of child restraint the regulations. we do everything we can to educate our operators in the use of child restraint. we educate parents. we reach out to other stakeholders to join us in these efforts. and we provide more options by encouraging innovation, research, and new design for child restraints. although the faa does not require a child restraint for children under 2 on aircraft, we do everything we can to enable and educate, reach out, and inform to encourage the use of child restraint on aircraft. that is the safest way for a

child to fly. thank you. >> thank you. our next presenter is this petition a friend, the president of the association of flight attention attendance -- association of flight attendants. please begin your presentation. >> thank you. thank you for this invitation to speak on behalf of our 42,000 flight attendant members. one of the goals of the association of flight attendants members is to ensure safe air travel for our members and the flying public. flight attendants are responsible for the safety and security of all occupants of the cabin on commercial airplanes. perk -- for our youngest passengers, we continue to believe that there is only one safe way to fly. that is the reason for our

steadfast support that proper use of approved child restraint systems be required for passengers under the age of 2 during takeoff, landing, and turbulence. on the aircraft, flight attendants are required to secure all items in the cabin, galley, and lavatories. from carry-on baxter coffee pat's. -- coffeepots. -- from carry on bags to coffeepots. unsecured child has a lucite nominally suffer serious injury, but may also injured others -- unsecured child as a loose item may not only suffer serious injury, but may also injured others. -- also injure others.

united airlines flight 232 on route from denver to chicago on july 19, 1989 experienced a loss of hydraulic pressure. at the time of that accident, the crash landing brace position that united airlines had for lap children was to have parents place their small child on the floor at their feet and hold them there while the parent assumed the protective predisposition. one child on flight 232 died of asphyxia secondary to smoke inhalation. five years later, on july 2, 1994, another child died on u.s. airways flight 1016. investigative reports described the difficulties faced by the parents and their inability to hold onto their children. these two accidents should be reason enough to require the use of crf for all small children

traveling on commercial aircraft. it has been said that a small member of children die in aircraft accidents. i would submit, if it is your child, one is too many. in preparation for this forum, we ask our members to find out what is happening in the cabin regarding black children and the use of child restraint systems. just over 600 flight attendants finished this survey. we are more than willing to share the survey data. one consistent response from our members is that, if a crs was not approved or had a hard back, it was not allowed. everyone agreed with that. however, with respect to all

other questions regarding carrier policies, procedures, and training related to lap children and crs, survey responses were confused and contradictory. this confusion is apparent from an analysis of responses representing all airlines included in the survey. as seen in the data. also apparent in the survey was the frustration among the more than half survey respondents who feel they are either not allowed to question parents about a child's age or not encouraged by their employer to ask the age of the child, even when the flight attendant suspects that the lapp child is above 24 months of age. this frustration was apparent in both tone and the quantity of flight attendant responses to this question. multiple attendance describe situations where the lapp child seemed larger than average for

child seemed larger than a 2-year-old. specific guidance from our guidance has members confused and frustrated over the obviously inconsistent application of the federal aviation occupant safety regulation. one member who responded to our survey summed it up quite nicely -- "some children, some lap children are as big as my 4- year-old. it is tricky because i have to tell my passengers that they cannot hold their laptop computer on your lap. however, a weekly 20-pound human is allowed. this inconsistent application of safety standards occurs because federal regulations do not require parents to show proof of or airlines to otherwise verify a lap child's age.

by default, each airline may choose how and even whether to enforce the age to limit for black children -- for lap children. people who would otherwise fly would use cards. since highway trouble is inherently less safe, there would give such a shift that would result in additional lives on the nation's highways. as asa has said in the past, this is a flawed and unproven argument. in fact, they commissioned an independent review of this contention in 1995. our review identified four key shortcomings in the faa assumptions. we are happy to share that report with the ntsb. but to summarize, the faa analysis lacked key data to determine sensitivity.

it used an industry demand curb that unrealistically shows a complex situation. it fell to take into account the price competition generated by low-fare -- it failed to take into account the price competition generated by low- fare sales. and it also failed to account for -- it is not a cost-effective safety improvement that turns on assumption on cross-demand elasticity. the travelling public has a slightly increased awareness regarding the need to protect infants and small children. we were therefore in disappointed when the ntsb removed the recommendation to the faa to require infants and

toddlers under age 2 to be safely restrained on takeoff, landing, and in turbulence from their most wanted list of aviation safety improvements. that said, we were pleased to see the recent ntsb recommendations to the faa to amend the regulations to require each person who is less than two years of age to be restrained in a separate seat position by an appropriate child restraint system during takeoff, landing, and turbulence. we wish to thank the ntsb for sponsoring today's public forum. an event like this and subsequent education campaigns are useful for increasing public awareness of the hazards of allowing children under the age of 2 to be held on the lap. the unfortunate, the decision to continue allowing children under the age of 2 to be held on a gives parents the false impression that this

practice is safe. with no change in regulations, no matter what indication the public receives, this impression will be impossible to eradicate. united flight 232, one level safety is still not accorded to our most precious passengers, children traveling on laps. to achieve a level of safety for our smallest travelers, we must develop a strong regulation and couple it with adequate monitoring and enforcement. thank you for your attention to these comments and for taking the time to hear the concerns expressed by our member flight attendants. >> i would like to thank the panel for the excellent presentation. let's turn the first round of questions to jeff markets. >> i would like to start with ice.dewey'

what i gather from your presentations is that there are two sets of standards. there is the tsa when there's something that is not an faa standard -- there is a toso and there is something that is not an faa standard. how do i find within the store? >> the child restraints available for purchase at this time are ones that are both fmbss 213 approved, which is the automotive approved ones set up by the highway travel safety administration. but there is also an inversion test to ensure that the child in that kind of restraint would be restrained in the event of turbulence in addition to the normal cacrash testing that they do for that standard.

aside from -- if the jobless trend passes for that, it also gets a sticker that says approved for use on aircraft. it is in red letters on the side of the restraint system. many of these restraint systems also are approved for use on aircraft. the tso is a technical standard order put out by the faa that references a sae standards for chalmers resistance. that standard was developed specifically to qualify systems for use only on aircraft, not in automobiles. it is essentially a standard that provides a very high level of safety and ensures that the system would work exactly as designed in fit and operate

well in a typical airplane passenger seat. once it passes that standard, then the tso can be granted for it. eventually, either the airline operators are the general public can buy a these tso-approved devices and bring them on board. >> thank you. it looks like the seats you showed on your testing is the kind of siege to a fine on the airliner. there's a segment of the aviation community where the siege might be different. are you aware of any testing that is done in the compel bellay -- done on the compatibility? >> our research efforts were

focused on the transport category of seats. that was the segment of the market that had the most children flying. we wanted to focus our resources in that direction. in general, some of the conclusions we came to would still be applicable. for instance, the effect of the forward facing child restraint, that would be the same regardless of what type of aircraft that seat had that kind of seat anchor had. the lap belt are usually manually titans. it has to be that way. is the only way it will work with turbulence. the child restraint should

interact with the bell system in the same way in general aviation -- with the belt system in the same way in general aviation. the shoulder belt this potential is something that could get in the way rather than assisting you in holding the child restraint in the aircraft. many general aviation aircraft, the shoulder belt can be removed, detached from the lap belt. that would actually be the thing to do if you're trying to put in a child restraint into a small aircraft. >> thank you. >> you mentioned that the faa has information campaigns on child restraints. have you done any for the general use of aviation aircraft? >> the faa is engaged in education and outreach towards

all operating parts. general aviation, under part 91, as well as commercial aviation, so many of the guidance documents that i referenced in my presentation, the advisory circulars, the audience for those are all operators, all air operators and air carriers, that would include general aviation. specifically to general aviation, the faa has engaged in outreach in the form of a safety brochure that does contain specific information about how to address that unique configuration that they were talking about to appropriately use child restraint in general aircraft. to date, approximately 10,000 contain that safety brochure as well as other information pertinent to general aviation. there have been distributed to aircraft operators and owners. >> --

>> the prohibition against boaster seats and lap-held devices, the language in the regulations that apply to general and commercial aviation is verbatim. there is a prohibition against those restraints under all operating parts, 91, 121, 125, and 135, which is the gamut of operations you would see out there. >> s.a. and dot has a hot line. do you have -- faa and dot has a hot line. you have a lot of complaints on the helpline related to child restraints? >> i went to our faa safety hotline. i asked them what did they could provide. they were able to look back five years and provided me with data from all the calls that they have received reigniting -- regarding child restraint on aircraft. there were about 35 calls over

the last five years. i went through a transcript in the notes from each one of those calls. the most interesting thing that i found was that the number one reason that people called the faa safety hotline about the use of child restraint is to complain because they are not able to use their faa approved child restraint on foreign carriers. that was interesting to me. the other majority of the calls were seeking general information and also to speak to the point about flight attendant confusion. there were quite a few clause that reflected the need for the faa -- a few calls the reflected the need for the faa to provide better flight attendant education. they are the fault line. for example, when a new and innovative type of restraint that we talked about earlier became approved for use on aircraft, in 2006 and 2007, we

received several calls from people who had their approved restraint and were not able to use it to get -- able to use a because the flight attendant was not sure if i could be used on aircraft. we responded with outreach and education. it was gratifying to see, when i look at the data from 2009 and early 2010, those calls went down to zero. obviously, the word got out. >> ms. friend, you indicated in your presentation that there was confusion among the cfa members about child restraint. you have any suggestions for solutions -- among the a f a members about child restraint. have you any suggestions or solutions? >> there have been inconsistent training at the operator level. my recommendation would be that

the faa do an audit about a kind of training is actually being done. they seem to have a lot of guidance for that training. but i do not believe that it is being implemented. >> thank you. >> mr. marcus. >> you're talking about the video that was recently produced showing how to install a child restraint in an aircraft street -- aircraft seat. the mentioned it said it does not have the latch attachments. are you aware of any developments from seat manufacturers who may be installing a laugh system in an airline seat to? >> there is quite a bit of research going on in that regard. i know the general aviation manufacturers have looked at what it would take to install

those types of latch attachments in their seats. our colleagues down at the civil aviation authority in australia have been doing a lot of research, looking at what it would take to add those devices for transport category seats. so far, the data has been very promising. by adding the latch attachments to the seats, the child restraint worked very well. they coupled with the seat well and performed very well and were easy to install. it is something that i think certainly should be researched further. it is a promising solution so that parents would be able to of put the child restraint in the seat the same way whether they are in a car or coming on board an airplane. >> is there any talk to other in the latch systems that have been

investigated in aircraft seats? >> they have only been looking at the two lower anchorages. there's no place to attach a top tether. >> ms. claussen, does the faa have approval for inside usage shown in the video? >> the devices that are prohibited for use that i just listed, those are devices and child restraints that are prohibited for use during surface movement, takeoff, and landing. therefore, in flight, there is

no prohibition. there's no regulatory prohibition against the use of those types of devices in flight. >> cannon airline established policy for that? >> yes, absolutely -- >> can an airline establish policy for that? >> yes, absolutely. there's not a regulation that would prohibit an airline from doing that. there is an airline that has done that because that is something that would work for them. it would not put to the attendant in the position of having children to remove children from unapproved devices before landing. >> our flight attendants allowed to install devices for parents? >> they are allowed to.

but the problem comes with whether or not -- if they are not a parent themselves and do not have experience, they have had sufficient training to properly installed it. >> thank you. >> i have one quick question. at what age is it safe for me to put my child in a lap belt in a commercial aviation flight decks >> -- aviation flight? >> there is the potential for injury in a lap-belt the child -- lap-belted child. there's not is the precise age that we specified. ahl least have the upper torso restraint -- a child needs to have upper torso restraint to minimize the whipping for

defect. our recommendation is that children, just like the safety administration recommends, under 4 years old should be in a proper-sized trout restraint. >> thank you. this completes our questioning. >> thank you very much. member winner will -- member weener will continue.

newn the late 1980's, a wave certifying seats for use in aircraft became effective. essentially, seats had to be dynamically tested in much the way we do tests with cars to show their safety. airplane seats had to undergo a series of dynamic test to ensure that they would both remain structurally attached to the airplane and also prevent injuries to occupants of those seats. the level of safety for aircraft seats raised significantly with out rule changes. in the transport seats, one reason for head injuries to

have the seat back to bend forward at a controlled -- at the rate of controlled energy. the seat that will move over fairly easily. sometimes it could be folded completely over quite readily. with the seat back does, when the occupant behind strikes it, it pushes over at a controlled rate. this reduces the head acceleration and the potential for a head injury. as far as interaction with the lap-belt child grows, the seat back that is upright when they strike it, the adult and the child will still strike the seat back, but the seat that is not designed to necessarily mitigate that impact. it is designed to mitigate the impact of the adult size occupant -- the adult-sized

occupant appeared but it is not designed to do anything -- the adult-sized occupant. but it is not designed to do anything for the lap-old child. -- lap-held child. >> showed the requirements optimize the worthiness for the adults, but did not do anything for the kids? following some discussion on the sioux city united to 32 accident, the ntsb from that accident made a recommendation to the faa to conduct research to determine the accuracy -- the adequacy of child restraints for children too large and provide recommendations. could you describe what they have done to follow that

recommendation? >> our research has merely focused on child restraint systems and the automotive child restraint systems themselves. it was limited to the ones that have internal harness systems. restraining a child that is too large to use one of the systems in an automobile, you usually have the vehicle built that comes and apply to provide the full restraint. in the transport category, aircraft, of course, we do not normally have shoulder belts. there has really been nothing we can -- we have not investigated any thing as far as the shoulder straps. [alarm sounds]

>> i'm sorry. let's wait for the alarm to finish. it is not an emergency. i do not need to evacuate their room. some people look like they might be fire officials in the audience. i know that they were concerned. usually, that is either a car alarm or a door has been breached, a security door has been breached. it should turn off and just a couple of minutes. mr. deweese, if you'd like to go ahead, we have some c-span cameras here. it would be fine if you started

from the top of your response. >> if we looked at restraint for a larger child, i want to clarify a previous answer i made. at about wages it said to occupy just a lap belt? what it boils down to is, while wages something that we use a lot, it is really more about size and weight. the child restraint systems are usually marked with the appropriate weight on the side. that way parent knows what size it can be appropriately used for. that is more of a guideline than the age. now as far as restraining larger children, again, our research focus has been on the child

restraint systems that accommodate the approximately 40 lbs. and the low-sized child, child restraint systems that have an internal harness. the jogger strength systems, although there are two with harnesses for larger children, if those passed the requirements in to 13 for aviation use, it would be allowed on aircraft. -- requirements in two hundred 13 -- requirements in 213 for aviation use, it would be allowed on aircraft. in transport aircraft, the delta not available. there is not a whole lot that week -- the belts are not available. there is not a whole lot that we can do. >> thank you.

you described to the faa's educational campaign with regard to child restraint systems and talked about the website for that purpose, getting 6700 it's a month. how you dress or evaluate the effectiveness of this kind of campaign? >> it is very difficult to evaluate why people make certain travel decisions. what we have done is look at how we got the word out, the hits on the website, the tweets and retweets, the amount of materials distributed. that is how we measure how we're getting the word out. >> you mentioned in your remarks that the diversion argument says that there are not

very many children to be saved, so to speak, in commercial transport. on the other hand, general aviation is almost neglected in the sense that we talk about aviation fatalities and there are more fatalities in general aviation then transport aviation. you mentioned that there were 10,000 dvd's related to child safety sent out. but there are 600,000 general aviation pilots. so that is one dvd per 60 pilots. is there any campaign that is targeted at the g8 pilots? >> -- in the ga pilots? >> the statistics that the faa uses, we use 1%.

for example, in 2009, there were 631 million domestic claimants in commercial aviation. 1% would approximately b six children under the age of 2. that is our target audience -- that would be approximately six children under the age of 2. that is our target audience. with fatalities in general aviation, the statistics are higher than in commercial aviation. but when you look at general aviation, fully half of the aircraft's are single-pilot operations when we look at the accident statistics. we are not aware of the exponentially high numbers of lap-held children. to be more specific to your

point in your question, we had engaged in an outreach and education. our guidance and our publications are not -- they are all-inclusive. we reach out to all types of operators and we do have one specific brochure geared specifically to general aviation. that is the extent of our educational outreach at this point. >> being un air pilot and a grandfather, carrying a child in an airplane, i appreciate the focus. i would like to address a question to ms. friend. you mentioned that only 14% of the flight attendants surveyed

had airlines that encouraged asking the child's age. what is provided for the flight attendants? >> obviously, our overriding concern is their vulnerability during turbulence and during their most likely time of an aircraft jackson, during takeoff and landing. but just for trammell travel, it is a very -- but just for general travel, it is a very uncomfortable situation for the parent and the child. children today are accustomed from infancy to writing in

chowders train systems in an automobile. for them to have the ability on the aircraft, it is very comfortable and a natural environment for them and for their parents. when they are tempted to be restrained in flight by sitting on the parent's lap, there is a lot of resistance to that. there is concern not just for expected turbulence, but the clearing of turbulence that the child is really at risk all the time when they're sitting in a parent's lap because the parent will simply not be sitting there with a tight grip on the child for the entire flight. the child would not tolerate it. >> in a sense, we have done a pretty good job at training children to expect to be restrained. >> i believe we have, yes. >> some of the investigations

over the years have identified accidents where children were over two years old. sen is there any way that the faa has to enforce the rule for children 2 years and under? >> we looked at enforcements that were a results of part 21 and part 135, covering commercial aviation. over the last 15 years, there were 25 enforcements in that database over 15 years. unfortunate, the data that we have is very limited to get an overview of what we've done in the past. information is expunged after several years and you cannot look at the circumstances of

each case. what i did do was queried our aviation inspectors. they would typically -- what were the facts and circumstances of those. there is evidence of six or seven enforcements that were initiated. what is interesting is that a small number -- because the airline was disregarding the age of the child. the larger number of the enforcements were coupled with passenger interference chargers. it was a -- interference charges. it was a flight attendant specifically directing the parent to put the child back

into the child restraint for landing. and the parents did not comply for some reason. that was the result of the query. relative to the faa post position on enforcing any regulation that we promulgate, our position is that we take all of our regulations very seriously. if we are aware of a violation of a regulation, we will investigate. >> thank you. to wrap this panel up, a challenge for mr. deweese -- how do you summarize the dangers to lap children? >> as you saw in the videos, the potential for a child trapped between the seat in front and the adults, they could be crushed. if they are ejected entirely,

the opportunities for injury are numerous. essentially, what all this science is doing is pointing out the obvious. for a child or an adult, it is it to be restrained in the event of a crash than knocked -- than not. >> thank you. >> how many kids are we talking about? just give us a sense of how many kids are flying on laps with major carriers 121, regional 135, forget the general aviation, a day, an annual basis -- how many kids are talking about here? >> the statistics that the faa uses is 1% of domestic flights for children under 2 who have the potential to be a lap held.

in 2009, there were 631 domestic claimants. >> we have some questions about that figure. can you repeat it again? ofwe're talking about 1% domestic and claimants -- domestic enplanements. there were 631 in 2009. so there were approximately 6 million. >> statistic play, from the it isnes themselves, i possible to know how many are

killed under the age of 2. preparing for this form, people in my office told me that, on almost any airline that they have gone to the website to purchase tickets, there is no option for purchasing a ticket for a child restraint system to use for a child under 2. they have to lie and say they are buying a ticket for a child over to. so the airline statistics would show that as an over 2 child and not under. so we don't have to wait to know what the real number is. >> what percent of that 1% is restrained verses unrestrained? >> i'm afraid that i do not have that information. >> has that ever been collected? >> not that i know of. >> i noted you said that it is

not age, but size and weight that makes the difference. was any scientific basis for the age as the cut off? >> it started out in the beginning as an age selected because there were no child restraint systems back when it was selected. >> i think your answer is no, there is no scientific basis. >> correct. >> i know, in the beginning of aviation, i know that, when this exemption was put forward, there were not a child restraint systems. when aviation started, there were no restraint at all.

now we have restraint for all of the individuals on an aircraft. can you explain to me the different types of restraints for individuals on the airplane, like career restraints, passenger restraints, flight attendant restraints? are they all 2-point restraints, the lack of delta? >> the progression in terms of the number of restraints and the amount to restraints of 44 passengers and that they are familiar -- restraints for passengers that they're familiar with our lap restraint. policy systems and systems in general aviation -- pilot systems and systems and general aviation have a lap belt and crossed straps. general aviation aircraft have a

single diagonal-type shoulder strap that operates very much like in a car. all of these restraint systems afford a of different level of restraint as far as how well they protect you. >> we have even seen some in general aviation. i have seen them in some bulkhead rose with air bags- held-type restaurants as well. >> yes. the inflatable restraint systems. the most common installations right now are engine or aviation aircraft. most come standard with its inflatable restraint systems on board. >> i think the point of this is that there is a lot of this technology, a lot of effort, and

a lot of investment in restrained use. there are varying levels of restraint and they are getting better and i think that the five-point restraint that the pilots use with the shoulder straps and the crossed straps, that is actually what a child seat very much looks like. the more points of protection that you have, the better likelihood that you will be restrained. i think it just seems to me that we're leaving behind the most loanable of all of our passengers when we make all of these advances and improvements in restraints and continue to exempt them. i will leave that there. on the issue of diversion, i have not really heard the issue used in other arguments about

aviation diversion. can you recall the diversion argument used, besides child seats? >> no. that is an excellent point. there are many variables in aviation, price variables, some of variables that you are talking about. but the reason that the faa has not really apply to the diversion argument for a thoughtful consideration for the outcomes of those other variables is that, typically when there is a variable in aviation, it affects the broad population. it affects all passengers. as an airline raises or lowers the price war as a chartered changes something, it will affect passengers in the aggregate. the unique difference that sort of separate us child restraint issue from all the other ones -- separates the child restraint issue from all the other ones

is that it is a target population that will feel the full impact of that sensitivity. so we get back to price matters, economic sensitivity matters. in the case of a family, a statistical family of 3.2, if they are required to purchase another seat for their child to use a restraint, it will increase the cost of their travel. about 45%. unlike other variables in aviation where cost is passed on to a family, this is one that is felt by just such a small targeted population so it becomes more acute. that is why we focused on it. >> it is interesting that we're using price as the only variable. i noted interest over this thanksgiving holiday where there was quite a fuehrer from people -- quite a furor over the

security measures. many passengers are switching to automobiles and not airplanes. are we not putting more people at risk and there, too? do we not use the diversion argument for those additional diversions? >> the faa certainly agrees with you. anyone who diverts from air travel to the highways will experience an increased level of risk. statistically, it is a more dangerous way to travel. relative to what we focused on in developing our child restraint arguments, we focused on those. i'm not prepared to speak to the

other analyses that you're talking about. although, i certainly recognize and respect that this is very complex, very complicated. it is unfortunate reality. it is challenging. it is challenging as a safety regulator. but we have focused on child restraint diversion issue, not the other issues that you have raised recently. >> ok. is there any way to try to address the cost issue? let's say we have 50% of parents voluntary purchasing tickets. does that make the universal cost go down? >> unfortunately, the faa does not have the statutory authority to go into those areas in terms of cost, pricing, coordinating with airlines on those issues. that is not an approach that we have taken. we have taken -- we have done a lot of initiatives to encourage the use of child restraint on

aircraft. but that is not one avenue that we are not able to go down because of our authority. >> one last question for you. if you could recommend one thing to us -- we have talked about the culture shift in automobile deals that has taken place over a generation where we were not boleyn, most of us come in child seats. but now all our children are. all 50 states and the district of columbia have mandatory requirements for children to be buckled in under the age of four inappropriate devices. what do we need to do so that my grandchildren will have one pundit -- will have 100% restraint used in aviation? whether the one thing or two things that you think is the most important to shift that? >> what you are doing today, education, outreach, informing parents so that parents can make

informed and smart choices. >> do you think education is enough? >> yes, i do. >> i think it would be good if we could continue to work on ways to make installing child seats in aircraft simpler and make sure there are effective when they are installed. that way, we would hopefully remove some of the tradition parents might have about how big hassle this will be if i bring it on board. if we can seem -- if we can make that easier, at our encouragement will work better if they know that the child >> the exemption for children under two should be eliminated.

after 20 years of this effort, i do not have much faith that this will happen. i will say that what is really important now is to make it easier for parents to actually utilize the systems if they want to and do that through better training of the cabin crew. a simple thing like if the parent goes to a website to buy a ticket, and give them the option of buying a seat in using a child restraint for a child under the age of two. >> thank you very much. thank you for your excellent presentations. they were very informative. we hope it will get the word out to parents to do a better job. we would like to see this change in a generation. we are going to take a break.

we will be back. >> we will now resume our panel on child aviation safety. for our next session, we will hear the perspective from the airlines angers street -- from the airline industry. >> our next presenter is the executive vice president and chief operating officer of the air transport association. he is responsible for all aspects of ata operation with a focus on technical safety,

security, economic and legal policy issues impacting the airline industry. please begin your presentation. >> there we go. sorry about that. we will try again. i greatly appreciate the opportunity to be here to speak on behalf of the ata member of carriers. this is an issue that is particularly important to me. it is something i have been personally involved in since my first tenure there when i was a much younger lawyer in the '80s and early-'90s. i thought it might be useful to get to some history of all of this. the current air regulations we are talking about dates back much further than this. 1953 -- and fans were excluded

from the seat belt requirement. if you go back, you'll find it seems to go back to the days of sailing ships. it applies to all modes of transportation. it was sort of ingrained in the culture. it is still there and is something we are all working with today. if things went forward, obviously as you have observed, madam chairman, child seats were a rarity when we were younger. they became more prevalent. they came to dominate. everybody now uses a child safety seat in their car. the same thing is moving in that direction with aircraft. over time the standards have been adjusted. the ata petitioned the faa in 1990 to eliminate the child- safety exemption. that petition and drove the risk

analysis the fda did. we have no reason to disagree with the government. we said we just wanted to make sure we were doing the right thing. we believe that responding to government regulation is the right way to go. we encourage the use of these devices. this is the way the government has chosen to handle the issue. we are deregulated party. we will proceed on that basis. one of the things we have dessert -- at one of the things we have observed, back in the mid-nineties when we withdrew the petition, there was a lot of confusion out there as to the appropriate devices and whether some were less safe in aircraft than they were in automobiles. there was little information in terms of confirmation.

the government has to work out their side of the equation. that remains the case today. we are very pleased to see that the public acceptance of child safety seats in cars as the wrong. the market has expanded. manufacturers are coming up with new and innovative designs all the time that are intended to please the parents that are looking for different products. right now we are at a point where if we had speculated in the mid-'80s where we would be in 2010, nobody would have guessed that we had come as far as we have. it is important to understand how these devices have come to be readily identified as appropriate for use aboard aircraft. the earlier panel did not share

the labeling, but if you take a look, you'll see that it is very difficult to miss this label. it clearly indicates that the seat is appropriate for use aboard an aircraft as well as for an automobile. the majority of seats manufactured today are marked appropriately. that is what consumers are buying. we expect that trend to continue. we know that the seats work. they had been certified. they are an effective set of devices. they are far better than where we were a decade or so ago. it is important for parents to understand all of this. all of us are engaged in efforts to get that information out there. the market is responding for children who are, perhaps, largely -- larger than the safety seats at this point.

it is interesting to note that it is also prominently marked. in this case, it is marked that it is not appropriate for use in a motor vehicle. the market is responding. we are finding new products. we're finding different ways to accommodate what parents are looking for in the marketplace. it is equally important, we think, that parents be educated about the kind of devices that are not appropriate for use on an aircraft. i refer back to the earlier panel. i do not think there is a reason to go back do this in detail. we have a number of points we make to our members and we suggest they make to their customers. a bit of planning can go a long way when it comes to using a child restraint device aboard an aircraft. make sure the devices label. the labels are clear.

i think the public believes they are clear. there is always room for more education. we are in a different place than we were five years ago. it is important to make sure the crs is appropriate to the size and weight of your child. it is important to check with the airline's web site. information is well will to customers -- of a from -- information is available to all customers. if your device is not appropriate, it will be -- you'll be reseeded. we advise people to make sure the label is legible. the seas can be used by two, three, or four children. the label may have worn off. we encourage people to get information from the manufacturer.

the bottom line is that securing children in child safety seats aboard an aircraft is a smart way to keep kids safe. it is the right thing to do. i do not think we could find anybody would disagree with this at that point. we will continue to make progress. we are happy to continue to work with the faa. we have had some discussions recently about convening a form ourselves involving the seat manufacturers and some of the device manufacturers to make sure they are communicating as closely as possible. on that i will stop and be happy to answer questions later. >> thank you. our next presenter is the vice president of education and operations for the air safety institute, which is a division

of the aircraft and pilots association. please begin your presentation. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to address you today for the general aviation profession. i represent the air safety institute which is a nonprofit association. we provide safety information and promote safety in general aviation. we work very closely with the aircraft and pilots association. i will be addressing what they do with their membership of 410,000 members. the air safety institute provide safety education to all pilots. it is not limited to aopa members. forequarter one of 2011 we are doing research for a publication that will be available on our web site and by print on demand. we will address various systems

including shoulder harnesses, aircraft seat belts, and child restraint systems. we are looking into addressing child safety restraint options such as how to choose what is correct for your child's age and size and for the aircraft to fly. also, backseat verses front seat -- our database indicates that the back seat increases your chances of safety. other issues with front seat versus back seat in general aviation, beyond the survivability, it is distracted to -- it is distracting to have a child in the front seat. a full range of motion is an issue.

i would not want my children in the front seat. we have an accident data base of a general aviation accidents involving aircraft. this dates back to 1983. it includes 1983 to the present. a review of the narratives -- the accident near it is in the database showed seven accidents where a child seat, child restraint, was at a key word in the narrative. a problem we run into is the age of the passenger and whether night -- and whether or not a child safety seat was used are not in the database. we have seen accidents, for

example, in which the only survivor was a child in a safety seat. we have seen an accident in which it was an older aircraft that did not have shoulder harnesses and was not retrofitted for shoulder harnesses. the pilot did not install booster seats. the children were fatally injured. that is what we will provide in our education for pilots. aopa has a membership base of 410,000 aircraft owners and pilots. the pilot information center is staffed by pilots who answer questions on a variety of aviation topics. on the subject of flying with children, we receive questions about once per week. the questions generally involve what is allowed, and whether or not it differs from regulations

for the airlines. we refer them to the far and also provide on-line articles and a subject report on flying with family. that's the report is a compilation of articles, websites, and regulations that would be of interest for a pack -- for a pilot traveling with their family. it includes information about seat belt use and studies that have shown that parents cannot wherea child on their lap as aircraft restraints are generally rated to 10 gs. a pair may survive wall and understand child may not. we have all my articles to give more information about

legalities and also problems with installing child seats and how to address that. we have four rooms that are available to our membership to communicate with each other that are monitored by the pilot information center. we can see from the numbers what kind of problems and concerns they have with this type of issue. some of the problems we have seen our 4-point harnasses. older aircraft not and outfitted for shoulder harnesses or retrofitted for shoulder harnesses and would not properly accommodate a booster seat. also, the lack of a latched anchor. it takes a little more time and maneuvering to install a car seat in an aircraft. what we have heard from our

membership is that children do better in the back with a booster seat. they are more comfortable because they are in their own car seat. they are restrained and are less of a distraction and less of a detriment for safety. thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you. our last aviation presenter is the cabin safety manager at virgin-atlantic airways. she will update us on a virgin- elected experiences with providing child restraint systems for passengers who purchased a seat for their children. please begin your presentation and welcome back. >> good morning, chairman.

first i would like to thank the national transportation safety board for convening this forum and allowing the to provide an update on my 1999 presentation on child restraint policy. we are the first commercial airline to offer a child seat. so as not to repeat my previous presentation which is still available on our website, i will give a brief review of the u.k. and a huge job restraint reservations since 1984 -- a brief review of the u.k. and the e.u. restraint regulations since 1984. this provides research on our operational experience with child safety.

i am sorry about that. this slide in the next one provides a brief chronology on how the regulation evolved in the u.k. and europe. between 1984 and 1992 child restraint regulations required the use of a loop-belt for a child just two years old. in 1991, the age limit for use of car-type seats changed. it changed to between 0-2 years, to 6 months to less than 3 years.

the care chair is the child restraint seats that virgin originally commissioned. we introduced the care-chair in march, 1992, and have put them 330's. 747's and a they are replaced by our current and fat child seat. they offer options to ensure that all infants and children are secured with a child restraint devices. children over three-years old can't use the harness. each person on a u.k. registered aircraft must be secured in and accepted or approved device.

as the uk and e.u. regulations dealt with children cease, burgeon-atlantic issued a new seat that was commissioned in 2006. it was designed and manufactured by experts. it could be positioned both ford depending on the age of the child. we continue to help treat child seats -- we continue to have the frree child seats. we require that an infant in a

child's seat be required -- be reserved at the time of booking. the fares are 50% to 75% of the adult fare depending on the ferrotype war rout. -- depending on the fare-type or route. if the infant child see is not bought, it can still be offered check'in. the car seat will be tagged and carried as a baggage at no additional cost. the crew can use their own

discretion to offer the child seat without charge. in engineering, the procedures have been implemented to ensure that the infant and child seats remained air worthy and hygienic. they are deep claimed every eight weeks unless it is sold on a particular flight. further engineering procedures require that if virgin-it lactate changes the seats, -- this also helps to ensure that we can retain the ability for the cabin crew to fit the infancy wherever needed.

-- fit the infant seat wherever needed. our data indicates that infant child sees are most frequently blot on our two flights to florida and the double-sector flight to and from london and hong kong. i need you to consider whether this is because it makes the cell see a more comfortable experience for -- it makes the car seat more comfortable. we carry almost 6 million

passengers each year. 1% were infants. over the same time, the number of and that child seats has a varied with a large increase in 2009 following the 2008 introduction of the new infant child seat. this trend continues into 2010. to ensure we comply with the u.k. regulation that everyone must be secured, we also provide lip-bill and the burnett body support for travel chair for disabled children.

finally, our experiences with dealing with restraining children, our cabin crews having those problems during turbulence when parents refuse to see the need to secure their infants, especially if they are asleep. to further ensure the safety of these infants, all of our a340- 600s are fitted with infant cradle's which are certified for use during turbulence. this reduces the number of confrontational situations between cannon crew and parents. our new aircraft will also have this fited. thank you ladies and gentlemen for listening. i will be available for answer ing your questions during the discussion. >> all like to begin are

questioning with mr. marcus. >> are you aware of any programs of your member airlines to encourage the use of child restraints in the sense that parents who want to book a flight -- the airlines will find out that i have a two year old. well they suggest that i've booked a seat for the child? >> a number of our carriers make a recommendation to their customers that if they buy it -- that they book a flight for children under two. others make the information available to parents without making that recommendation. in terms of identifying people carrying children under two, i am not aware of anyone who reaches out to them and says, we can do this for you or we can do

that. people are generally aware and i think they are becoming more aware all the time that booking a seat and bringing a child restraint devices is inappropriate way to go. it is more comfortable for the child and the parents. it is something all the airlines would think was a good idea. they have all taken slightly different approaches on a passing those ideas. >> are you aware of any statistics on how many children under two-years old use child restraints? >> i am not aware of anyone he retains that data. the flight manifest recourse that data, but that data is not cap on a long-term basis. no one i know of is tracking the

number specifically. >> if i am a parent and i am going to fly with a lap belt child, does he need a boarding pass? >> it varies from carrier to carrier. the advanced passenger review system -- every passenger has to be identified and the date of birth has to be indicated. that information is collected by the government. it is out there. how it is used by the gsa i cannot tell you -- how it is used by the tsa i cannot tell you. date of birth is required at this stage for full identification. >> thank you.

you mentioned at the accident database that you have. do you have any cases that you know of where a child restraint was used and showed good performance? >> i am aware of one in which the only survivor was a small child in an approved, properly installed child restraint. i am also aware of one in canada in which 80 the a-year old child was the only survivor in a child's seat that was properly installed. >> you mentioned you have a public information service to provide assistance to members and non-members who have questions about child restraints.

do you have any information on how frequently you are contacted with questions about child restraints? >> about one per week. that does increase around the holidays at we might expect. it is a pretty regularly occurring question, about once a week. >> you mentioned there were a lot of questions about the interface of the harness with the child restraint. are there any other issues that seem to be a problem for pilots with children? >> one of the most popular questions is what is required. what are the regulations? we provide what they must do with children under two, but also recommendations that are provided to our articles online about g-forces.

>> i am curious. does a virgin-atlantic use the availability of the child restraint system as a marketing tool? >> not really. there is a section on children on the website. it is included in there, but there is no marketing strategy, unfortunately. we are waiting until we get as old as the car industry and advertise safety the way cars are sold. >> so, the parents who ought to purchase the seat and used the device basically found out about

it by using the website? how did they know this is available? andf they call to book that there is an infant on a reservation, the agent will ask if they want to book a child seat and explained that that would require an additional fare. some ticket up and some do not. -- some pick it up and some do not. >> a passenger who may have traveled to the u.k. on a u.s. carrier and brought their child restraint with them, if they were to fly on virgin daschle atlantic, with baby at -- virgin-atlantic, would they be able to use their child restraint? >> no.

we would package it up and let them carry it as free baggage. we would replace it with our own seat. >> you mentioned that it would be appropriate or why is at the time of booking a flight to ensure that the child seat would fit in the plane that they are going to be traveling on. what number what i call or who would i contact to determine if my seat will fit? do i just provide the information on the seat itself? >> if you recall the general reservation number for the carrier you are booking online and explain that you are planning to travel with a child and the kind of device you are using. they will be able to tell you what seats are available. >> they tell me what measurement pc would be? -- what measurement of the seat

would be? >> i do not know that they would be able to give you the specific measurements, but they are aware of what cities or appropriate with use of standard child restraint devices. >> they could probably give me information on that we're facing an four facing, but they would not know if my seat with specifically fit in the seat that i booked. >> our experience is the vast majority of pcs do fit of the vast majority of seats on an aircraft. if that is not the case, the passenger is relocated. >> i think you had mentioned that there was some difficulties fastening child restraint systems in general aviation aircraft. i was not quite sure if i heard you correctly, but i thought you

mentioned that child restraint systems were not compatible with 4-point restraint systems. we had a similar question. what i had heard was that you could restraint the child restraint system if you had a4- point restraint by tightening the lap belt and letting the shoulder harness ride along. it would essentially be using the lap portion of the belt only. does that sound reasonable to you? >> the 4-point in this is something we have heard about. i cannot speak from personal experience. i can see how installing with just the lap belt would work with some infant carriers. i am not sure it would work with a booster seat. it goes back to what kind of

seat are using, what kind of aircraft, and what is the configuration. >> there are some restraint systems that are significantly different than what parents have encountered in the automotive debarment. it is confusing. thank you. >> have you had any flights where you have had more children who wanted to use the seat then you have seats available? >> it is very rare. reservations manage the number of seats that are reserved knowing the numbers that we carry. it has happened a couple of times. unfortunately it was -- fortunately we could steal from one aircraft to the other. it is very rare.

>> madam chairman, we have completed our questioning. >> thank you very much. return the questions to the board. >> thank you, madam chairman. i suspect it would be accurate to say that airline travel is a highly price sensitive. economists think that if we change the price of $3 that revenue will increase or decrease by x dollars. it is a highly elastic demand. is that true? >> it is true, but it is an affordable way to travel at this point. to is we are selling today -- and -- it is quite an affordable way of traveling. >> if airlines started charging

for children under two to have a passenger seats, would that do to the total revenue picture? >> it would depend on the price of their seats. let me lay it out for you. what was the load factor for the air carriers over the last 12 months? >> 85% to 87%. >> that is a good load factor. it also means that 13% to 15% of seats on average are not occupied. >> that is also correct. >> therefore, they are available seats. once that airplane parts, the value of that seat is $0. if you could charge for their seats, you could increase your revenue.

roughly around 6 million children under two the travel in a year. let's say the price for an adult is $350, but the airline said for $100 if you are traveling with a child under two, we will charge you one other dollars for that seat. potentially, it is a $600 million revenue stream for the airlines. does this argument makes sense to you? >> it makes sense on one level. it is also safe to say that those seats are not on every airplane that is out there. the reason we have gotten to the 85% load factor is because of sophisticated pricing models that the carriers used to maximize the revenues they are taking in. if the carrier felt they could benefit from selling seats at a

discounted price, they certainly would do that. that is what they do today. the fact is, where we are right now is about as reasonable a way to approach affordable pricing sees as you are going to find. different carriers may take a different approach, but in general, it has to be a carrier by carrier decision. there cannot be discussions between carriers about how they approach any pricing system. >> i understand. ata represents how many passenger carriers? >> none 5% to 96%. -- 95% to 96%. >> the ata encourages parents to first of all flight.

we know is the safest way to travel. you encourage your carriers -- your carriers encourage passengers to properly restrain their children. i know from sitting on this board -- and you said you want them to comply with the regulations. we note that with the regulations, we want people to go above and beyond that regulatory floor. i want to give you an example. i realize there are potential anti-trust concerns. we cannot have airlines collude on prices. after an accident going into columbia, the ata member carriers voluntarily said they would equip their aircraft with a warning systems. they made that decision before regulation came.

that regulation did not go into effect until 2005. without getting into collusion, what is there to prevent the air carriers from saying, "we are going to make this decision. the regulatory floor is too low. we want our member carriers to offer the safest method for our passengers whether it is an 18- month-old child or a granma. >> certainly the carriers to do that. the fact is that the government regulations in place permit a parent to carry a child in their lap if they choose to. i think a number of carriers would prefer to see that child in a seat, prefer to sell the seed to the parent, but the reality is that is what the regulations permit at this point. it is unlikely you'll see the carriers unilaterally supplant

the government decision making and substitute their own. i think the carriers are always looking for ways to be as aggressive on improving safety as they possibly can be. that is why we rely on data analysis and looking at the projections of data to determine how fast to improve safety performance. it isn't -- it is an emotional issue, quite frankly. >> it seems paradoxical to say that the air carriers want to transport passengers in the safest fashion and yet, your carriers are relying on the faa to set the minimum floor. >> we are regulated industry. the faa says the standards. we train to the standards. that is the regulated environment in which we exist. >> if you do not exceed the standards of the faa?

>> all of the operations of the carriers are designed to comply with the requirements of the federal government when it comes to administering safety. the fact is, there are parents out there who would say to you that the federal government allows me to hold a child under two in my lap. that is what the government decided was an appropriate standard. i do not think you'll see carriers taking it upon themselves. we suggested to the government that that would be a good decision to make. they concluded that was not the way to go. that is up to the government to decide. t >> >> the federal requirements or an absolute floor. we know that parents turn to the law for guidance. here is a case where the

government has made the case that if you are going to fly, we are not going to require it because we're worried about the diversion. people are not going to start to drive from here to los angeles. they are going to fly where they are not going to travel. the ata could, if they wanted to, they could say they are going to voluntarily raised -- >> i do not know that is true. the airlines i do not think can collude upon themselves. that is effectively what they would be doing. i think your question is on one that i am sure we would have lawyers looking at. >> i am sure the were the antitrust implications there. i would hope the organization that represents the passenger carriers in this country would

have the attitude that we are not just going to comply with the minimum regulatory requirements, we want to exceed those. >> i think our safety record stands for itself. >> i will go to someone else. i have noted over the years that the air safety institute has done it many, many safety products, including many obvious. i have learned from those educational models myself. in 1993, the ntsb issued a safety recommendation to inform its membership of the dangers associated with using a seat belt design for one occupied to restrain to the zero persons and

the benefit of using child restraint benefits on aircraft. that was a recommendation. this morning i looked and saw response was.'s most of the thai people reply to us and say they are going to do it or they cannot do it. i was surprised to see in this particular situation the aota never responded to our recommendation. can you explain how an organization that typically has a great safety products when not even respond to the national transportation safety board on a recommendation like this? >> i am not aware of that and i cannot respond, but i can say from the safety standpoint that currently we are doing some outreach and doing some research so we can educate pilots about that.

unfortunately i do not have the information from 1993. >> could you check on that a reply to the ntsb? >> i would be happy to. >> thank you. virgin-atlantic, do they operate any flights at all within the u.k. or are they strictly you take off and go to another country? >> it is strictly -- all, international. >> if you do not have much of a diversion argument. people are not going to drive from london to johannesburg. >> no. [laughter] >> okay. this is such a great service that you have made available. to make sure i have it right,

you charge for the extra seat. >> yes, we do. >> it sounds like a good way to do it to me. what is the relationship between version-atlantic and birds in-america? -- virgin-atlantic and virgin- america? >> i am not sure i can answer that. virgin is a franchise. >> there cannot be x% of foreign ownership. if this concept is so good for virgin-atlantic, i wonder why virgin-america cannot do the

same? >> i can get the answer. >> what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. i would think it is that great of a concept then all virgin affiliate carriers should be doing that. madam chairman, i have no further questions. >> i have a couple of questions for the panelists. given the comments about what was available on the internet, but all it would be worth it to do some checking myself. i have three children, but my children are 5, 8, and gen. it is been a while since i had a lap-held child. parents look to the airlines to tell them what is acceptable.

i have to confess that i do travel with a lap-held child. i came to the board and one of the very first activities that i had to participate in was the 2004 decision in response to the diversion argument. it made a complete believer out of me. i tell all my friends or anyone to ask me what the right way to channel is. i think it is so important. parents have to have the expectations. education is not enough. education is not going to reach everyone. there has to be requirements, walls, were specific standards to help them make the right decisions. i looked at the website of major carriers to do business in the u.s. one says there is an option not -- there is an option for adults, seniors, and children

two-11. there is nothing for a child under two. you do not have the ability to track an option to get a ticket. if you want to get them a seat on the airplane with you, you have to say they are at least two or older. another carrier did not have a section initially to say if it was a child or not, but it did have a link to and fat and child travel guidelines and restrictions. even though i think we have heard that all carriers encourage people to transport their children properly restrained, the first website did not have anything like that and the second website, the guidance about infant and children information talks about child fares and ticketing. it talks about you can trouble with your child less than two

years old. it does not recommend the safest way to travel with them. in a section for tips for traveling with children it says to allow yourself or extra time for bathroom breaks and things like that. it does not tell you the best way to transport them. then i went to the version- america website to see what they ca websitergin-amerixc to see what they have. i was surprised because you actually do better than your slide show advertises, which is not usually the case. there was a fare from london to new york. the adult fare was $649 and the child's fare was $136 -- the fare for the infant. that was better than 50%.

i could absolutely see why i would make that choice to buy that seat for my child. that is a huge incentive for me to go ahead and purchase that seat for them at that reduced fare. when people get on airplanes ,virgin-atlantic does provide a seat, but we do it -- but what do we provide additional equipment such as seat belt extenders'? to anyone who feels like they can answer the question? we are talking for passengers who might be a heavy and the seat belt does not fit them properly. >> they are required by the faa. >> the faa requires the seat belt extender. >> it does require that

passengers over two-years old be restrained by an appropriate restraint device. if a passenger cannot be accommodated within a regular seat belt they have to be accommodated. >> on the last panel we were asking them at what point is a child able to sit in a lap-only belt. the information we got backdoor -- we got back is that the 2- year-old is not large enough to sit in a lap-only belts. do we provide anything for them to make sure they have the appropriate seat fit and they are restrained properly? >> the faa requires that if a child under two is not traveling in an appropriate restraint device, you put them in a seat belt. it is not an age issue, it is a size issue that determines the effectiveness of those devices. there is a lot of information

out there that may be appropriate for further analysis by the government to take a look at all of these things. but that is the reality at this point. >> children over two have to be restrained, but what i think i am hearing your site is there is no corollary requirement as with the seat belt extender for the airline to require anything to make the seat belt fit for a two to four year-old. >> we strongly encourage passengers to travel with the restraint devices they use in their automobiles. as a result of the activity going on over the last 15 years, they are virtually interchangeable. the parents are more comfortable with them. the children are more comfortable with them.

the vast majority of people use them. the federal government has seen that the exemption for children under two is appropriate to leave in place. we accommodate that. there are a number of carriers that recommend that parents provide them. if you look at different websites, i am sure you will find different terminology to get the information out there. it is completely impossible. as for the issue of children being under two, i expected that is an anomaly that has come about because of the exemption. there is certainly no reason a parent cannot purchase eight seat for a child under two. that is something we can raise with our carriers and make sure they are aware of that. it is not intended to preclude a

parent to buy a seat for a child under two-years old. class why not have information that would come up that certifies the faa guidance recommends the safest way to transport your child -- >> it is an interesting idea. i am sure you can appreciate the programming that went into just collecting the information. it was a formidable undertaking. adapting the website to somehow use that information is something that people will be looking at, but i expect it will be some time before people have the ability to do that. >> children do not have identification cards. it is a conundrum to put all this information in. the value is supposed to be for

security, but they do not have the government issued identification card. it might be good if we can do something with this data that is being entered. he said he did not think it was appropriate for airlines to collude on pricing, but there are some carriers that provide discounts for certain classes of passengers, white seniors. why would you offer a discount if you are talking about the elasticity and load factors? why offer discounts for seniors and not for a lap belt child? is it a different calculation? >> carriers make their decisions based on their own analysis of the market and what they think will sell tickets. i don't think they distinguish between one group of passengers. they're looking at the universe

of people who are traveling and trying to price their product in a way that encourages the most people to buy that product. what i said specifically, if the question was why don't carriers get together and effectively eliminate the under 2 exemption, i think that would probably be illegal. that unfortunately, except for southwest, they also decided to charge for baggage. as soon as one or two did it, they all did it. that was something that happen fairly quickly, and in the market, were they all quickly moved to that position. >> that is correct. >> can you explain why we have to pay to check our baggage, but if we are trying to maximize, they almost universally check booster seats and child safety seats for free. isn't that a perverse incentive

to discourage people from using them? they make it cheaper to check their seat. >> we do not get into how airlines decide to price their products, including issues like charging for baggage or not charging for certain items. >> all right. any other questions? any questions from the staff panel? >> none from here. >> thank you all very much for your participation. i know that you probably felt like you drew the short straw on the team, so hopefully they will take you out for lunch or something before you go back. >> we appreciate being here. >> we very much thank you for your participation. we know it is a difficult position to be in personally. obviously, our interest is to push a little bit to change the

paradigm, and i think hopefully through some of this discussion today there may be some changes that could be made, just through education and carriers being aware of some of the issues that may be of concern to the flying public. >> we appreciate it and we will be bringing messages back to all of the carriers. >> thank you very much for your pet suspicion on this panel. we will adjourn. -- think you very much for your participation on this panel. we will adjourn now. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> in a few moments, president obama on new goals to expand

trade. and about 15 minutes, more about trade issues from the head of boeing. after that, a briefing on u.s.- europe security cooperation. and later, we will rear of the national transportation safety board form on the best way to keep children safe when they are flying. on washington journal" tomorrow, more on the trade panel with china. the rutgers university professor david greenberg will look at recent presidents at the midterm point, and we will discuss the european debt situation with bruce stokes. this is live it every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the new orleans judge is only the eighth federal judge in history to be convicted and removed from the federal bench by the u.s. senate.

watch the entire process, including the impeachment and final vote on the c-span video library. a search, watch, and share, anytime, washington, your way. >> before meeting with his export council yesterday, president obama announced new goals for doubling exports over five years. he also told reporters that failure to pass an agreement with republicans on tax cuts would limit job growth. this is about 10 minutes. >> welcome. everybody have a seat. good morning, everybody. thank you for coming together to

help us figure out how we will sell stuff around the world. i want to thank the members of congress who are here and i want to thank jim and ursula as the chair and buys shares and all the other members here today for your extraordinary work. everyone in this room is committed to promoting a strong and growing economy, one that is creating jobs, fostering a thriving middle-class and extending opportunity. as we meet here, there is an important debate on capitol hill that will the permanent -- that will determine in part if the economy will move forward or backward. the bipartisan framework will not only protect working americans from seeing a major tax increase on january 1, but provide businesses incentives to invest, grow, and higher. every economist that i have talked to or that read this

acknowledges that this agreement will boost economic growth in the coming years and has the potential to create millions of jobs. the event -- the average american family will start 2011 knowing that there will be more money to pay their bills each month, more money to pay for tuition, more money to raise their children. but, if this framework fails, the reverse is true. americans will see it in smaller paychecks that will have the effect of fewer jobs. as we meet here today to talk about one important facet of our economic strategy for the future, i urge members of congress to move forward on this essential priority. the top priority of my administration since i took office has been to get the american people back on their

feet and back on the jobs in the aftermath of the most devastating recession in our lifetime. that is job one. as i said in greater detail on monday, we also have to ask ourselves how do we position our economy to be strong, growing, and competitive in the long run. one strategy will help us do both to create good jobs and pay well today and create new markets for jobs tomorrow. that is to increase our exports to the rest of the world. that is why my state of the union address stated a goal for america. we will grow our goods and services over five years. i reach launched this council because, as business leaders, labor, members of congress, and members of my administration, i value your advice in terms of how we achieve that goal. but we all agree that we have to set our economy on growth. we have to do what we have always been known for doing, making great products and selling them around the world.

the world once products made in america. we have workers ready to make them. exporting is good for our economy. the more our companies export, the more they produce. the more they produce, the more workers a higher. every $1 billion that we increase in exports supports more than 5000 jobs. companies that export often pay better wages. at a time when jobs are in short supply, growing our export market is an imperative. growing our exports to the will create the jobs of tomorrow 95% of the world customers and the fastest-growing markets are beyond our borders. if you want to find new growth rings for our economy, we have to compete aggressively for those customers. other nations are competing

aggressively. as long as i am president of the united states, we will fight for every job, every industry, every market, everywhere. and we intend to win. that is why i set this goal. we are on track to meet it. exports are up nearly 18% so far over last year. today, i would like to offer an update on some of the steps that we have taken to get their and steps we're taking based on this council recommendation to keep making progress. earlier this year, i launched the national export initiative, to marshal the fruit -- the full resources of the federal government behind america's businesses, large and small, in order to best help them sell their goods, services, and ideas to the rest of the world. one of the things i pledged to do as part of this initiative was to move forward on new trade agreements with some of our key partners. i promised to do it in a way to

secure a level playing field for our companies and a fair shake for workers without compromising our most cherished values. that is why i am so pleased that the united states and south korea reached agreement on a landmark trade deal last week. we expect this deal with terrorists and reductions alone to boost american goods by two $11 billion. in all told, this agreement, including the agreement of the korean services market, will support 11,000 american jobs. i hope to finalize the agreement when i -- i hoped to finalize this agreement what troubled korea last month. it was not yet good enough for our workers or our economy. as much as i believe that looking out for american workers required competing in the global marketplace, i also believe that, as we compete in the global marketplace, we have to look out for american workers. so let's take the time to get this right and we did. it is now a deal that is good for our workers, before our businesses, before our farmers, before our ranchers, good for

aerospace, good for electronics manufacturers. in particular, american car and truck manufacturers will have more access to korea's markets. it continues to ensure a level playing field for our automakers. it is also good for our friend and ally south korea. they will grow their economy, a gain greater access to our markets, and will also get american products that will be more affordable for korean households and businesses. that means more trusses for them and more jobs for us. it is good for american leadership. as i have insisted all along, the deal that we struck includes workers' rights and future trade agreements that i will pursue. it is an agreement xupported by members of congress on both sides of the aisle. i look forward to working with

congress and leaders of both parties to approve it. if there's one thing to agree on it is creating jobs and opportunity for the american people. another thing we said we would do is go to bat as a strong advocate for our businesses abroad. this is something that pledged to lead personally. on the same trip when we were working to get the korean deal done, i took the opportunity to sell our exports to one of the fastest-growing markets in the world. while lear, we reached several landmark deals, from bowing to ge engines to mining equipment, deals worth nearly $10 billion in exports and will support more than 50,000 american jobs. i also believe that strong economic partnerships can

create prosperity at home and advancement around the world. that is why we focused on deepening our economic cooperation with russia. from aerospace to agriculture, including restarting american poultry exports this year. i believe that russia belongs in the wto and we should support all efforts to make that happen. i think medvedev is doing important things to push russia afford on a whole host of issues. i told them that the united states would be a partner in that effort. welcoming pressure to the wto would be go for them and us and the global economy. finally, we have also been working to reform our export control system with high-tech companies like some of yours in mind. so that firms that make products with social security evocations can remain competitive and better protect our national security interest. when this council met in

september, some of you asked that we make it easier for businesses to participate in these reform efforts. today, i am pleased to announce that we're publishing a first set of guidelines for what products should be controlled in -- should be controlled in the future. about three-quarters of products previously subject to stricter budget to stricter controls will be subject to a more flexible is. many are expected to fall off the list altogether. we want input from businesses and our colleagues to complete this reform. we are also unveiling a new export web page. typically, all businesses that export have to go through a maze of different lists, different formats, different departments to make sure they

are not selling their products somewhere or to someone that they should not be. as important as that is, the process is repetitive and redundant and owners for small businesses without the means to navigate it all. so we are changing that. effective today, businesses can go to export.gov and find a list of attendees would export requirements. that is a lot of work that we have been doing to double our exports, to open up new markets and to level the playing field for american workers and businesses. it all has the overarching business of growing and strengthening the american economy. i'm very much looking forward to the discussion we will be having as you guys continue your work. i'm grateful for all of you being here. well many of us around this table may not agree year on every issue, what does bind us together is that we want to see our businesses grow, see our

workers get hired, our people to compete, and to stay on top in the 21st century. i am confident we can do that with your help. thank you very much and i think you will stand at this podium so i can sit down and listen a little bit. [laughter] [applause]

>> after their meeting, the cochairs of the president's export council responded to house democrats who opposed the president's deal with republicans on tax cuts. we also hear from commerce secretary gary lauck. >> there are reports now that the house will not take up the tax deal in its current form. we would like your reactions. >> i have not heard that. obviously, some of the reports indicate that more members here the provisions that the president was successful in getting into this agreement, beyond extending the bush era tax cuts. more members are supportive. they realize that this will actually help american companies grow and expand and hire more people. the reduction in the two percentage -- the two percentage point reduction in the payroll tax means substantially more money in the

pockets of americans, above and beyond the continuation of the tax cuts. if you look at the analysis by income levels, it is substantially more money that working-class americans will have in their pockets. >> if they did not take it up, would it be a setback? >> absolutely. this tax proposal will help continue the recovery. i think it is vital to continue the recovery. as we look at the capital expenditures, we will invest a lot more money. for retell cells to continue, i think this payroll tax rebate is something that will be very helpful to the consumer next year. i think it cou mld be or setback for do not approve it next year.

the expensing provision, even the temporary extension of the tax credits and the payroll exemption are just examples of the required progress that we need to solidify the economy and grow jobs. it gives us a little uncertainty of how the near term will look. i think it would be disappointing if it did not pass. >> various economists around the country are in pretty strong consensus that this agreement, with all the many measures in it, from the expensing provisions to the reduction in payroll taxes to the continuation of some of the tax credits for working families, whether it is for college tuition or so forth, will actually create millions of new jobs in the next year and the next year-and-a-half. that is very important at such a -- and such a critical party for the american people. >> next, the head of the president's export council,

boeing president and ceo james mcnerney. he spoke at the american enterprise institute for about 45 minutes about expanding trade and the lack of skilled labor in the work force. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for attending today's event. i am the president of a i -- of aei. this is featuring a distinguished panel and a keynote address by jim mcnerney, chairman and ceo of the boeing corporation. i grew up in seattle, washington. when i grew up in the 1970's,

seattle was a company town. it was a boeing town. boeing was responsible for its success and the growth of culture, many of the institutions that i enjoyed as a kid. i have a special attachment to it for that reason. while now boeing is headquartered in chicago, people in seattle still feel the way i do. i am particularly delighted to have gotten to know jim mcnerney over the past year and to have him here at aie. it is a great honor for us to hear his remarks. boeing is a $68 billion aerospace corporation. jim has been running boeing as ceo since 2005. he has a senate career as executive and a number of fortune 50 firms, including procter and gamble, general electric, and 3m. he has been recently appointed to the president's export council. this is a very important position that helped the united states craft policy around expanding exports in the united

states and identifying challenges around the world. he has a unique perspective, both as chief executive of one of america's most important companies and as serving the president united states in trade and export policy and such that we can figure out the policies that will move our country forward and protect our system of globalized free trade and democratic capitalism. i turn over the microphone to jim mcnerney. [applause] turn over the microphone to jim mcnerney. [applause] >> it is a pleasure to be here to kick off what i hope will be a continuing dialogue about how they business community, the

newly elected congress, and the obama administration can work together to keep our nation strong an increasingly competitive on a global scale. arthur, thank you for the invitation and again for the warm introduction. i appreciate it, and most importantly for your leadership at aie. from its beginnings in new york back in 1938, this organization has been a critically important voice for the value of free enterprise. you're helping carry that mantle into the 21st century. today's for monterey and the national export initiative is a prime example. -- prime example of the important role that aie plays in national issues. it is difficult to find a more timely and relevant public

policy body to spotlight. we also thank -- let me also thank the panelists, who we will hear from shirley. you really are part of the solution. so thank you very much for participating. to begin, there is little question that one of the messages from last month's election is that people all over america are deeply concerned about the economy, particularly the jobs situation and the financial uncertainty that they directly affect them. lots of people do not care whether the solutions or democratic or republican ideas. they just want leaders who will come together to find solutions that work. i believe there are many areas for common ground or at least should exist when it comes to an economic solution.

there's no question that hard work and careful consideration of a vast number of ideas from the spectrum are required. hopefully, the agreement reached monday on individual and corporate tax rates will serve as the first of more examples of that. my main theme this afternoon centers around u.s. competitiveness. what we need in this nation right now is economic growth and job creation. but sustaining that overtime forces us to think about the globals long term - competitiveness. competition will get much tougher because we are now operating in a true global marketplace. rising incomes and rising standards of living and education around the world have created billions of potential new customers for u.s. goods and services. i will come -- it is a welcome

opportunity for growth, to be sure. it has also given rise to aggressive new competitors seeking to further that -- to further their place in the world. it is not only for customers, but ideas, power, technology, and capital. in essence, winning at home, in terms of creating jobs and growing our economy, now means winning abroad on all those points. that raises the bar in many ways for u.s. companies and u.s. workers. ultimately, i believe that increasing competition is a good thing. i also believe that the innovation and productivity of american businesses and the american worker will continue to be the keys to our growth and our prosperity. but sustaining these historic competitive advantages in a

global market place under difficult economic circumstances compels us to take action to strengthen the system that supports them both. earlier this year, doubted the obama administration was missing some important opportunities for real progress along these lines. however, today, i would tell you that i believe the a demonstration has noticeably advance the discussion, particularly when it comes to the importance of strengthening the u.s. export engine. evidence of this shift can be found in president obama's reconstituting of the council -- the president's export council and his personal engagement in the work and on issues such as commercial diplomacy for business outreach. let me add as an aside that the

producers to create the kebabs our economies of esplanades, to feel that they're part of the solution is necessary rather than vestiges of the problem. words and deeds send important signals. more of the right ones are beginning to be sent. i know my peers and colleagues will react favorably to receiving those signals with even greater regularity in the days ahead. turning back to exports, as was mentioned, i do have the privilege of sharing the president's export council and the private and public sector members who comprise it. our purpose is to develop recommendations to expand export and drive job growth. we aim to directly support the president's goal to double exports in five years. this is an ambitious goal to be

sure. if we can clear the way for u.s. businesses to do what they naturally do best, which is to compete, i think it is achievable. u.s. exports totalled over 1.5 trillion last year, which is down to 1.7 million last year. about 10 million jews jobs are tied to them. manufacturing companies like boeing account for about one trillion of our annual exports and support millions of direct and many multiples of that in the case of indirect jobs across the economy. with the vast majority of world consumers living outside the united states, the magnitude of our export of opportunity is limited only by our failure to pursue it. as many of you know, this morning, we held the second

formal meeting of the afore mentioned export council where we reported on the progress of our initial recommendations from this past november, which i will come back to in a second. we also approved a second set of recommendations that we estimate can add well over an additional $100 billion more into our experexport outlook. we also addressed the inadequate detection and enforcement of intellectual copyrights of may u.s. manufacturers in foreign markets. a recent economic study estimated that piracy of music, movies, business software, video games, and the like cost our economy more than 370,000 jobs. overseas piracy is clearly a

major contributor to these job losses and must be curtailed by strong and sustained action. other recommendations for did this morning included reforming the corporate tax system, improving data collection and data sharing to accommodate adequately for the value of our u.s. services and actively support russia's ascension to the wto to help with what is now the world's 12th largest economy. we also have robust discussion about how we might gauge more small and medium-sized businesses in exporting. today, only 1% or close to 300,000 of those businesses export for a total of two of those nine -- busines

businesses export for the total in 2009. returning to the council's first meeting in september, we presented four recommendations that we estimated to be worth as much as $250 billion in positive export impact over the next two years. we're working hard on $350 billion framed by the 1.5 total export. above them, we are expanding free trade agreements. there has been a lot of progress since that meeting. promoting tourism to the u.s., a huge unaddressed opportunity that we make difficult with some of our immigration and visa requirements. and retraining iraq and

afghanistan war veterans. there's no question that a lot more work needs to be done and we need the help of groups like the aei to continue advancing these recommendations. to me, trade is a good example of a policy where there is no reason that business leaders and government leaders cannot join together for mutual benefit. opening up new trading markets for u.s. goods and services will make a big impact here in america. i am certain you already know this. i'm not sure that a lot of people understand that the fda normalize trade relations and allowed the u.s. to get into new markets while our partners

already have access to our markets. they also leveled the playing field for trade competitors who are from europe or other places who already have trade agreements in place. inaction only hurts us. we used to lead in this area. now we are catching up against people we compete with. for example, the united states had a manufactured goods surplus with this trade partners of 21 billion in 2008, 26 billion in 2009, and we are running a third surplus in 2010. our deficit is with non-fda countries. fda is part of the solution, not part of the problem. south korea is an example. u.s. officials estimate that our nation exports to korea will grow yearly by $11 billion. and thousands of u.s. jobs will

be created because of this agreement. it will eliminate a big competitive disadvantage for u.s. workers by removing the current tariff on 11% applied to u.s. exports. it will benefit many of our trade competitors with korea. the administration should be saluted for all the effort is putting into achieving this agreement. it is a significant accomplishment. again, i hope groups like this one will join with the business community in urging congress to ratify quickly. it is also important that we seize this moment, now that we have a template that represents the coming together of labor business -- labor, business, and government in panama and colombia. up-and-coming trade competitors

are aggressively seeking agreements for the benefit of their workers and their economies. as a result, the united states, who was once ahead in providing a competitive advantage to its workers, remains at risk of falling behind if we do not act. we simply cannot allow that to happen. another area we need to give top level ascension and one where progress is already being made is reform of our export control system and the technology release process at the department of defense. as we staring to the reality of a potentially declining dod budget, international defense sales will be increasingly important for sustaining jobs here at home. a good example of that trend is a proposed multi-billion dollar package to saudi arabia.

the administration recently notified congress of this package which will not only bolster the defense needs of a key ally in the region, but will also sustained more than 70,000 jobs. there will be even more jobs with u.s. contractors involved in the package. it is vital, as we move forward, that we have an export control system that is as effective -- that is totally effective, but efficient. the administration's reform efforts are aimed at achieving that goal. they are aimed at efforts that will protect biotechnologies and streamlining the overall outcome. a lot of credit goes to secretary gates for his leadership on the issue. he sees the important role that an effective and efficient system has on enabling inoperability with key allies and supporting coalition

efforts. in this regard, the recent ratification of the u.s.- australia agreement helps. much more remains to be done in this area, particularly in the dual-use area, which gets to areas on the commercial side. much more needs to be done on this area to accomplish the administration's objective of a single agency, a single i.t. system, and a single enforcement process. my point here is that, as we talk about this, this is an important operational and administration part of the public that will require continued attention. i lost my life here. i can still read it. i am good. [laughter] it said "'s." [laughter]

-- it said "pause." [laughter] this is not about turning inward and becoming a protectionist. it is about ensuring a level playing field for all competitors. it will not come as a surprise to many of you that i would highlight here the current case before the world trade organization regarding european government subsidies for the airbus. that is boeing's sole competitor in the commercial aircraft market. the wto issued a final ruling on the case that confirmed what we have maintained for very long time. without billions in illegal subsidies over the years, airbus would not have the product or market share it has today. and the u.s. aerospace industry lost billions of dollars in exports which accounts for tens of thousands of jobs as a result. specifically, the wto found that

airbus received about $20 billion in illegal subsidies, including $15 billion in new launch aid across every aircraft model in his suite. that includes the a 330 family, which is the basis in the u.s. air force competition. launch aid is funded by european governments and turns far below what is commercial barring. it includes success and independent repayment terms. outstanding debt has been forgiven. claims in a european countersuit alleging $23 billion of subsidies to boeing from the u.s. defense department and nasa

appear to have been largely dismissed in a confidential interim ruling. the most pernicious form of subsidy, the aforementioned launch aid, has money and been alleged. launch aid offers airbus a significant cost advantage that we have argued should be taken into account in the air force tanker competition. this time, however, they have refused to factor the subsidies into their evaluation process, which seems like a clear contradiction to the successful efforts of yet another arm of the u.s. government, the u.s. trade differs -- the u.s. trade representative, to level the playing field for u.s. workers. other nations will cite -- with

sites on the aerospace industry are watching with great interest. the final rulings in these cases will set a precedent that reaches far beyond boeing and airbus, beyond the u.s., and beyond that you. companies like ours can compete very effectively against any other company. but we should not have to compete against the the treasury's of other countries. another important element of our trade and export policy, one that has also been controversial among some in congress is the bank. xm is not controversial at all. first, it returned $135 million to u.s. treasury last year alone as it usually does. second, it helps u.s. companies increased sales and export by supporting customers who might not have the credit rating to borrow on the commercial market.

third, xm, like other credit agencies around the world delivered extraordinary support by not allowing a recent -- there is a credit crisis to spill over into a relatively healthy industries like aerospace, for example. in the case of the u.s., dxm bank supported real demand for aircraft. it helped ensure that commercial aviation could weather the storm, rather than be paralyzed by external circumstances. xm also had a number of other u.s. companies extend their reach in important fields, such as energy production and recycling. in fiscal year 2010, this help included $5 billion for small export financing, which is a record reflected in the priorities of the council and the administration. under chairman and president fred hotspur, they have made it

a priority for small and medium- sized enterprises, which employ about 50% of u.s. workers and only account for about 30% of u.s. exports. the continued out reached to small business, including encouraging their participation in exporting and providing tools to become successful exporters, they're sure to be successful even more. this is a program that works and helps the u.s. economy. xm the schedule for reauthorization next year. as part of that process, we need to work with new and returning members of congress to clearly articulate the substantial benefit xm brings to our country. again, i believe aei can play an

important role in that. with the upcoming congress and the tough budget choices they will face in mind, i want to highlight these notes. fundamental challenges to u.s.. first, a shrinking u.s. defense industrial base and, second, and even faster shrinking pool of u.s. workers who have skills in the problem-solving fields of science, technology, engineering, and math. the defense industrial base, historically, has been one of the united states greatest strategic assets. yet, for the first time in a century, there is no u.s. team actively working on a major new deal in the airplane development program. in addition, there is no active rotorcraft bellman program.

nor is there a new nasa spaceflight program. it is getting smaller rather than bigger. secretary gates is seeking about $100 billion in the acquisition process. at boeing, we have been supportive of the secretary's initiative. at the same time, we need to remember that the strong connection between our nation's economic power and its military power is key. the court to -- the core of the connection is a need for a strong and sustainable base. as a result of recent government reductions and program terminations, the u.s. defense and aerospace industry is in

real danger of atrophying our ability to do development work at a time when global competitors are making this a priority. i suspect some of you are shuddering right now because you might think you're hearing me advocate for a national industrial policy. even though many of our competitors aggressively pursue and operate such policies, that is not what i am suggesting. instead, i believe the u.s. has worked toward a coherent national defense -- national industrial strategy if we hope to remain competitive globally. i do not want to micromanage the process. the thinking that got us here, the idea that no national industrial strategy is best could leave us without critical capability.

we may need to protect our national interest and economic security. we do not need right lines, but we do need a framework to move forward. i am not suggesting that i know what all the elements of such a strategy would or should be. but we need to start talking about it. in fact, i suggest that a national industrial strategy should be an important element of aei defending defense initiatives. the defense budget cuts are being proposed less to bring a sense fiscal responsibility to federal funding, but more to create "nothing short of a reversal of america's six-decade long strategic posture." viewing potential cuts through the lens of a national industrial strategy, one that places a high priority on maintaining u.s. technological

leadership, would certainly help the questioning of motivation, even if it might result in the same cuts overall. at least there will be a consistent prizm through which to view every option and create the right debate. to my second pressing concern, one of our nation's biggest challenges is in its talent pipeline. while some countries, including india and china are funneling more and more of their best and brightest students into math and engineering programs, the number of students graduating -- the u.s. student spreading with math and engineering degrees has declined. everything you hear about the job shortage in the united states and do not get me wrong, unemployment is a very real problem, boeing and other technology based organizations are facing an impending skills

shortage. that is to say that we cannot find enough qualified engineers, scientists, and other technical workers to meet our needs. the problem is gone particularly acute for defense programs that require u.s. citizenship and security clearances. i can make an educated guess at one of the root causes of this apparent fading of interest, the perceived lack of a good future with the exciting things to work on. for many of the senate -- when many of us in this room was growing up, our generation was inspired by sending a man to the moon and exploring the universe. i hope that we, as a nation, will find another mission or missions to inspire and deploy our young people. the industrial base and workforce issues are clearly interlinked in my mind and threaten to spiral us into a vicious circle. if we allow our industrial base to fall into disrepair,

opportunities for good jobs will dwindle. there will not be many foreign military sales the there because we will have to close production lines. at the same time, to provide -- without a pipeline of employees, it will cause the u.s. industrial base to deteriorate further and put our global leadership at risk. there is no question that the issues and challenges that we face today can spur a meaningful job creation in the near term and sustain economic growth in the long term and is big and complex. the ideas i suggested are not the only answers by any means. but i hope to provide a place to begin the conversation and move this nation forward.

strong national leadership and collaboration of leaders in business, politics, education, and others, i know that we will find a way forward to continued growth and prosperity for all america. thank you very much for listening. i would be happy to take a couple questions at this time. [applause] >> we will take a few questions. we have a tight schedule. but we will entertain some questions. please wait for the microphone to come to you and then identify yourself and ask a brief question or comment. right there in the second row. >> there's one in the back, too. >> patrick will sen. -- patrick wilson. one thing you did not talk about is the research component,

a key part of the leadership that the u.s. government provides. from a boeing perspective, how do you see that as a priority? >> that should be part, in my mind, of the standard discussion. it is not just producing endemic products. i think it is about producing academic results that help build the industrial base. i think we need to be thoughtful about it. we need to decide that every r&d project is not the same. that should be part of the strategic discussion and part of the funding. i am aware that the funding has come down significantly. it is under pressure. but you do not excite people given the kind of work or get the quality of person that you want to be part of it unless somebody begins the work on the front end as well as the back

end. ok. i think there is one in the way back. >> thank you for your comments. what those the world market share between airbus and boeing share da? if the court had not ruled against europe, what would have been me market share after the ruling? >> can i answer that? >> sure. >> when the dust settles in this, the wto has made it through on both sides. in the next five years to 10 years, the appropriation for

that, boeing will have a sense of where we go from here beyond the wto. will there be a necessity to sit down with a budding new china and brazil? i assume we cannot go on going through wto legal cases in setting policy. if it is on our side, it is great. but it does -- but we need to take a comprehensive look at what is possible and what is not. >> market share is different by size of airplane, large commercial aircraft. we have higher market share in the larger planes. they have a slightly higher market share in the smaller planes. what will happen both with regard to now and down the road,

it will be a government-to- government solution. for the launch a portion of the judgment, there is some prescription in the wto rules, some remedies. but the government will decide, will negotiate and decide. given a strong hand, we hope they will force action. some of these practices will be stopped and remedies will be applied. but that is for our government to do. one of the things i felt was important was exactly your point. there will be chance over the next 20 years -- there will be new entrance of the next 20 years for different

sized airplanes. without this issue having been brought in front of the global industrial base, so to speak, i think we would have run the risk of significant misunderstanding if airbus practices had been allowed to continue. i think it would have been unclear. there would have been multiple suits of this nature. and there still might be. the clarity of of the ruling here will let everybody know what is in balance and what is out of bounds. -- what is inbounds and what is out of bounds.

yes. chris? >> chris walsh. you talked about the free-trade agreements. the benefit of the free trade agreements are completely obvious. but the administration has been reluctant to against these free trade agreements of the last two years. from this perspective, you have the sense the administration is willing to convert its rhetoric into active support, particularly in the congress where there's a quite a bit of skepticism? it will require some heavy lifting. could you comment on that? could you comment on that?