policy should aggressively promote fair global market competition. The U.S. government should work closely with industry and other governments to achieve multilateral rules that govern and reduce subsidies in this industry. The recently increased Export-Import Bank guarantee and loan activity should also be maintained.
The four previous strategic elements and their associated recommendations are important ingredients for a reenergized U.S. aviation industry with enduring global leadership. What continues to be missing is an institutional mechanism that is committed to the further development and refining of a U.S. aviation strategy, that can understand and include the views of all the necessary players, and that has the visibility and persuasive powers to champion implementation. There is no present government agency that has singular responsibility for the aviation infrastructure. There is no U.S. equivalent of MITI, nor should there be. In any event, it is the private sector that is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of any aviation strategy.
The committee explored several alternative mechanisms for developing a shared vision, such as organizational changes in government, utilization of an existing advisory panel, or tasking one or more industry associations, and found all of these approaches wanting. Accordingly, its final recommendation is the establishment of a National Aviation Advisory Committee (NAAC), composed of knowledgeable leaders from industry, academia, and elsewhere, reporting to the National Economic Council or an interagency group of senior officials. The committee believes that the stature of its membership coupled with its strategic reporting level would help ensure knowledgeable input from the private sector to government councils, as well as a higher likelihood of a coordinated approach for an industry where the United States needs to retain world leadership. The committee recognizes that such a recommendation might be viewed as self-serving for a particular industry, and is aware of problems and mixed effectiveness of similar high-level advisory committees for other sectors. Nevertheless, during this period of restructuring following the ending of the Cold War and with increasing frictions in high-technology competition between the United States, Japan, and Europe, the committee believes that maintaining U.S. leadership in the aviation industry requires a careful assessment and a focused strategy from both U.S. industry and government. This report outlines some of the specific tasks that need to be accomplished. The NAAC as outlined here could perform these tasks as well as address the overriding need for a shared U.S. strategic vision for a continually reenergized leadership position in aviation.