Airline executives make it a point to stress that business decisions such as add-on fees are made with the passenger's benefit in mind. If you ever had any doubt whether such fees would last, the smiles of some executives at an aviation conference in March seemed to give the answer.

Fees are a windfall and the airlines probably wouldn't mind seeing more. The FAA Aviation Forecast Conference in March confirmed that, despite the best predictions and analyses, no one really knows what the industry will look like in the years to come. The conference brought together industry players from the Administrator of the U.S. Federal

Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary, Ray LaHood

Aviation Administration, Randolph Babbitt, the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, to the heads of various airlines, travel associations and businesses tied to commercial aviation. When it was all said and done, the consensus was clear: governments need to move forward with air traffic control and navigation upgrades; airlines need to adapt quickly to technology and continue to find new ways to increase revenue; and somebody has to pay for all of these ideas. The devil, as they say, is in the details. How does an industry suffering from one of the worst declines in revenue and passengers in its history take the necessary steps to ensure its viability without alienating an already frustrated traveling public?

The airlines have been on a seemingly endless search for additional revenue as part of their survival strategy. Since raising fares is tantamount to cursing in public these days, any rate hike that is not matched by other airlines typically stands alone to whither on the proverbial vine. So they do the next best thing – they add fees.

Scott Kirby, President, US Airways

At the summit, airline leaders seemed pleased at the prospect of making more gains in the ancillary fee market. US Airways said it had taken in US$500 million in ancillary fees in 2009. "Through a-la-carte pricing we raised a lot of capital," said Scott Kirby, President of US Airways." Incidentally, a-la-carte was the preferred term over nickel-and-diming. When asked if airlines risked alienating passengers, Kirby replied: "They want low fares," adding that fares today are lower, on average, than in 1980 when adjusted for inflation.

Another topic that was prominently featured was the outsourcing of airline maintenance work. Unions and safety advocates question the worker qualification standards, certification of work performed and the accountability to government safety agencies of foreign maintenance shops. Tom Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union urged: "We need to revisit some form of regulation, though certainly not re-regulation of the airlines." Bryan Bedford, President and CEO of Republic Airways faced the criticism by stating: "Outsourcing drives the necessary efficiencies that cannot be obtained otherwise." While some in the industry call for frequent audits of such facilities, others warn of the ramifications of over-regulating a practice that they say has not degraded the quality and safety of commercial aircraft. Robert Wilson, President of Business & General Aviation for Honeywell Aerospace exclaimed: "It's unfair to paint [foreign maintenance facilities] with a broad brush because more companies than just airlines practice this [outsourcing]." "We have to consider bi-lateral aviation agreements, reciprocity, taxes, and trade wars," he added. IAPA has written about outsourcing maintenance in an article titled: "Who's fixing your airplanes?"

What about tarmac delays and the ageing air traffic control system? There was little disagreement here. The U.S is imposing a 3-hour tarmac delay limit on domestic flights. At that time passengers must be offered the choice of leaving the aircraft unless the captain has an imminent take-off window or deems it unsafe to de-plane passengers, or air traffic control can allow the plane to depart within 30 minutes of the 3-hour threshold. IAPA has publicly stated its support for most of the upcoming rules, though the Association doubts that 3 hours is a tried and true limit, given the varying airport sizes, facilities, operational circumstances and passenger needs. Scott Kirby of US Airways warned about the upcoming regulations that could cost airlines US$25,000 per passenger. "Unequivocally, it's going to be harmful to customers. You [will] wind up canceling a flight in almost all situations." In fact, many airlines lived up to that warning recently by canceling flights after reaching 3-hour weather delays at New York area airports. Was it a shot across the bow to "prove" that this will turn out worse for customers, or merely a practice run to get it right before it costs $25,000 a head? IAPA has urged the Department of Transportation to implement guidelines that would mitigate passenger inconvenience during such delays. Airlines need to establish – and publish – their procedures for handling long ground delays and for treating customers with respect and dignity in the process. What could help airlines avoid these long tarmac delays in the first place?

Everybody was in agreement at the conference that the air traffic control system in the United States needs an upgrade. Badly. Southwest Airlines is one carrier that has installed next-generation avionics in its aircraft cockpits to take advantage of upcoming navigational upgrades. The improvements will allow for closer spacing of aircraft, more direct routes, and approaches designed to save time and fuel. The problem is that the people on the ground haven't caught up yet. What's slowing things down? Money. Who will pay for this? While airlines are screaming on one side that they don't want more regulation and government intervention in its business practices (such as reviewing the legality of a recent announcement by one airline that it will charge for carry-on bags); the industry is also calling for the government to foot the bill for the upgrade of the air traffic control system.

James May, President, ATA

James May, president of the Air Transport Association which looks after the interests of airlines in North America, gave his thoughts on NextGen technology. "What excites me the most is the potential. The question is when is it going to be the priority of the government? We're committing twice as much money to high-speed rail ... and I think that's a crime," he exclaimed. For their part, and with few exceptions, airlines seem to be slow to act on equipping their aircraft with new technology as if waiting for a mandate to move forward. "I'm leaning to the point of mandatory equipage to demonstrate the business case for the use of NextGen," said May. Southwest Airlines has paid for the upgrades to their aircraft hoping that it will be given priority in the skies once the support systems are in place. Government, it's your move. The latest reauthorization bill for the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration allocates funds for NextGen technology. Will things finally begin to move forward?

There were plenty of handshakes over things like the need for better technology, better training and better cooperation among all stakeholders – airlines, airports, government agencies. But those same hands were quick to point fingers at regulations, restrictions and slow government action as the reasons the airlines are not performing better these days. One thing is clear. Fixing an industry that has rarely ever been profitable can't be done in a snap. It will take commitment, cooperation and common sense. And a whole lot of money.