[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

A REVIEW OF FAA'S EFFORTS TO REDUCE
COSTS AND ENSURE SAFETY AND
EFFICIENCY THROUGH REALIGNMENT AND
FACILITY CONSOLIDATION

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

(112-88)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

MAY 31, 2012

__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-439 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia
GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BILLY LONG, Missouri HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania LAURA RICHARDSON, California
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
------ 7

Subcommittee on Aviation

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
SAM GRAVES, Missouri PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio BOB FILNER, California
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota, Vice TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
Chair MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BILLY LONG, Missouri STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida Columbia
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) (Ex Officio)
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv

TESTIMONY

Hon. J. David Grizzle, Chief Operating Officer, Air Traffic
Organization, Federal Aviation Administration.................. 13
Lou E. Dixon, Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing
and Evaluation, Office of the Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Transportation................................... 13
Paul M. Rinaldi, President, National Air Traffic Controllers
Association.................................................... 13

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, of North Carolina......................... 33
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas............................. 35

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Hon. J. David Grizzle............................................ 37
Lou E. Dixon..................................................... 45
Paul M. Rinaldi.................................................. 60

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the State of
North Carolina, request to submit the following into the
record:

North Carolina congressional delegation \1\ letter to
Hon. Ray LaHood, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation, expressing concerns about the FAA's
decision to move North Carolina from the Atlanta
Airports District Office (ADO) to the Memphis ADO, May
25, 2012; and Hon. LaHood's letter in reply addressing
the concerns, July 18, 2012............................ 6
Letter from Senator Kay R. Hagan to Hon. Ray LaHood,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
expressing concerns about the FAA's decision to move
North Carolina from the Atlanta Airports District
Office (ADO) to the Memphis ADO, May 14, 2012.......... 11
Lou E. Dixon, Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing
and Evaluation, Office of the Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Transportation, response to question from Hon.
John J. Duncan, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee............................................. 59

ADDITION TO THE RECORD

John W. Crichton, President and Chief Executive Officer, NAV
CANADA, letter to Hon. John L. Mica, Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and Hon. Thomas E. Petri,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation, June 1, 2012............... 72

----------
\1\ North Carolina congressional delegation signatories of the
letter are: Senator Richard Burr, Senator Kay R. Hagan, Rep.
Melvin L. Watt, Rep. Mike McIntyre, Rep. Howard Coble, Rep.
Brad Miller, Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, Rep. Larry Kissell, Rep.
Walter B. Jones, Rep. Sue Wilkins Myrick, and Rep. G.K.
Butterfield.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.008

A REVIEW OF FAA'S EFFORTS TO REDUCE
COSTS AND ENSURE SAFETY AND
EFFICIENCY THROUGH REALIGNMENT AND
FACILITY CONSOLIDATION

----------

THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas Petri
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Petri. The hearing will come to order.
And as has been noted by the familiar voice of Jimmy
Miller, this is his last official hearing after many, many
years, 36 years on the Hill as Air Force liaison and with the
Science Committee and then with this committee, and he has got
a unique arrangement. His salary is paid by both parties, so he
can call them the way he sees them and work for all of us. I
think there is no one here who doesn't have a story or two
about Jimmy Miller, and he has stories about all of us and
about a lot of other people who have served in the military and
in leadership positions in American politics over the last 50
years.
And one story I think I can tell now, which he told me and
I think it is true, Jimmy has traveled to 170 countries, and he
has traveled with congressional delegations and military
leaders. He has had three audiences with the Pope and numerous
meetings at the Vatican. Well, the Pope has a Jimmy Miller,
John Paul did anyway, someone who would help organize things
and so on and so forth, so the two of them became very close
friends. And when some American Congressman or Senator or other
group of people from--especially from Washington, wanted a
private audience with the Pope, and they didn't really no who
this was or if it was worthwhile or not, the guy would call up
Jimmy Miller, and he would decide if a person got a papal
audience.
So it pays to stay on Jimmy's good side, especially if you
want to be right with the Church.
Anyway, Jimmy, thank you very much for all you have done
for me and for other members of our committee and for the
working relationships that you had with the staff and with the
people who make the Hill what it is.
And best of wishes for a very happy grandfatherly
retirement for many, many years.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield.
Mr. Petri. Yes.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I can tell you that that is absolutely a true story about
the Pope's right-hand person; Jimmy had a personal contact and
a relationship, and I know firsthand because I called on Jimmy
personally one time to do something for me with the Vatican.
And he was able to do it in an orderly way and made me and my
wife extremely happy.
I have traveled extensively with Jimmy Miller over the
years, and I can tell you that no one knows as many people, not
only on Capitol Hill but around the world, than Jimmy Miller
does. He has done a wonderful job. He is a great service to
Members. He always puts Members first, and he is the go-to guy.
I think that anyone, members of this committee today or in the
past several years since he has been with the T and I
committee, any of the witnesses who were summoned or
volunteered to testify, they would always check in with Jimmy
Miller to find out what was going on to get advice. And we are
going to miss him, his service, but I suspect, in fact, on
another committee of which I serve, I have already talked to
them about trying to recruit Jimmy Miller as a contract
employee so that we don't let him get entirely away from us.
So, Jimmy, we appreciate all that you have done for us over
the years. We hope that you do not go too far and that we
continue to see you and continue to be able to call on you. You
have been a great friend, and I look forward to continuing our
friendship for many years after you leave the payroll
permanently, but we might get you back here part time. Thank
you.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Coble would like to say a few words.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You and the distinguished ranking member have pretty well
said it.
Jimmy, as we say in the rural South, you done good. Best
wishes to you and Godspeed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
The subcommittee today will hear testimony on the Federal
Aviation Administration's effort to plan for and carry out
much-needed facility realignments and consolidations. I welcome
the witnesses and look forward to their testimony.
Five years ago, the subcommittee held a hearing on FAA
facility conditions, and it certainly was a memorable one. At
that hearing, the FAA witnesses testified that a key element of
its transformation to NextGen air traffic control modernization
is consolidation of its facilities. The FAA witness also noted
that without consolidation, the FAA is tied to maintaining
outdated facilities with outdated technology based on outdated
1960s radar boundaries.
As we all know, NextGen touches every aspect of the
agency's mission and currently costs roughly a billion dollars
per year. It is also a job creator and vitally important to
allow the United States to compete in the global marketplace.
At the hearing 5 years ago, the Department of
Transportation inspector general pointed out that a major
factor in both capital and operating costs for NextGen is the
degree to which the agency eliminates or consolidates FAA
facilities.
Congress agrees with the need for FAA to address its aging,
rundown and obsolete facilities while furthering NextGen and
making smart investments. In fact, in the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act signed by the President on February 14, Congress
included Section 804, which requires the FAA to develop a
national facilities realignment and consolidation report within
120 days of that enactment. In accordance with Section 804, the
FAA must work with labor and industry to develop a plan to
transition to NextGen and to reduce capital operating
maintenance and administrative costs of the FAA without
adversely affecting safety. The report is to be submitted to
Congress, and if Congress does not pass a joints resolution of
disapproval, then the FAA must follow the recommendations
included in the report, kind of a mini base closing
arrangement.
It has been pointed out to me that the FAA's facility
consolidation and realignment effort has actually been in the
works for decades now. Over the years, this effort has resulted
in some successes, but overall, very little progress has been
achieved in terms of addressing the needs of NextGen, the FAA's
aging facilities, some of which are well past their useful life
and the poor working conditions endured by many FAA employees.
This hearing is intended to focus attention on this critically
important program and effort.
Every one is in agreement that the FAA must plan for the
future by consolidating, realigning and closing many of the
over 400 terminal facilities for which it is responsible. This
not only makes sense from a budget perspective but also is an
absolute necessity for NextGen. To this end, I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses on the status of the FAA's facility
consolidation and realignment plans.
Specifically, the subcommittee is looking for a clear
description of the FAA's implementation timeline and cost
estimates, how the FAA is working with labor groups and
industry stakeholders and, finally, the agreed-upon metrics for
determining progress. Today's hearing is an opportunity for the
FAA to refocus its efforts, seek the support of Congress, labor
groups and other stakeholders and take full advantage of the
opportunity provided by Section 804 in the FAA Reauthorization
Act.
Before we turn to the witnesses for their statements, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material
for the record of this hearing.
Mr. Costello. Without objection.
Mr. Petri. Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize Mr. Costello for his opening statement.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
And Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing
today. As you know, in July of 2007, I chaired an Aviation
Subcommittee hearing to examine worker conditions at aging FAA
facilities. At that hearing, the FAA testified that large-scale
facility consolidation would be a key element of its plan to
replace old facilities and transition to NextGen. Further, the
FAA stated that consolidation would improve safety and
efficiency and lower infrastructure costs by making new
technologies available for controllers.
Nevertheless, much of what we have heard 5 years ago is
still true today. Many FAA facilities are outdated and
deteriorating. The average age for an enroute center is 49
years while the average age of the terminal facility is 28
years. As both the chairman and ranking member of this
subcommittee, I have supported legislation requiring the FAA to
develop a plan for large-scale facility consolidation and
realignment. I am pleased that the recently enacted FAA
reauthorization bill requires the FAA to submit a facility
consolidation plan to Congress.
I look forward to hearing from Mr. Grizzle about the status
of this plan.
Additionally, I would continue to urge the FAA management
to include the input of its workforce in developing
consolidation plans as the law requires.
Large-scale consolidations will require the movement of
thousands of employees and their families. In many instances,
the FAA's management will need to negotiate potentially
contentious issues with the FAA's unions. FAA leadership should
proactively engage the agency's workforce, build consensus and
head off potential pitfalls and delays. Moreover, while
consolidation can reduce long-term costs, they are expensive to
undertake in the near term. On any large-scale capital project,
the FAA must carefully analyze whether the benefits outweigh
the costs to the taxpayers.
In the past, the inspector general has identified
consolidation efforts where FAA management made flawed
assumptions about cost and benefits because the FAA did not
effectively include the input of its workforce. I firmly
believe that when the FAA management engages its workforce, it
produces a better work product and a stronger business case for
its actions.
Mr. Chairman, last year, I warned that if we authorized the
capital funding levels that were too low in the FAA bill, we
could hamstring facility consolidation efforts. In fact, the
FAA estimates that its required capital expenditures, including
the cost of consolidation, will greatly exceed the funding that
Congress provided in the FAA bill for the next few years. The
IG will testify today that tight funding limits in the FAA
reauthorization bill have already delayed the approval of
construction for the first phase of the FAA's Northeast
consolidation plan.
Looking forward, if the funding levels in our recently
enacted FAA bill are not adequate, then Congress must provide
additional funding for the FAA through the appropriation
process.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses
today and look forward to asking some questions about how the
process is going.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Coble, do you have any opening remarks?
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Mr. Costello for having
called this hearing.
And I want to express our gratitude to our guests from the
Federal Aviation Administration and the National Air Traffic
Controllers for their appearance today.
We appreciate your testimony and dialogue.
I will not try to employ too much of the subcommittee's
time this morning Mr. Chairman, and I have got two other
meetings I am going to have to attend, so I will probably be in
and out.
But I do want to comment on a problem that is confronting
North Carolina's aviation community. The FAA has recently
elected to geobalance North Carolina out of the Atlanta Airport
District Office over to the Memphis Airport District Office. My
North Carolina colleagues and I, Democrats and Republicans
alike, from this and other bodies, strongly oppose the FAA
decision. The utmost respect is due the FAA and its staff.
They, after all, make our skies safer, more accessible and are
responsible for maintaining one of our modern transportation's
greatest achievements.
On the other hand, this ADO dog, in my opinion, just don't
hunt. It takes an already proven system and changes it for
reasons our offices have been unable to determine. In fact,
this authorization strongly contradicts an Office of Management
and Budget directive which instructs agencies, and I am
paraphrasing, to spend at least 30 percent less on travel
expenses now than in fiscal year 2010 and through fiscal year
2016.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there are no
representations from the FAA here today who are directly
affiliated with the GAO balancing decision, but I ask unanimous
consent to submit a letter into the record from the North
Carolina congressional delegation that has been sent to the FAA
in opposition to its decision.
[The letter follows. The letter in reply from the Secretary
of Transportation is also included:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.012

Mr. Coble. I would also ask unanimous consent, Mr.
Chairman, to submit a list of questions to the FAA
representatives here today and would hope that the chairman and
ranking member would give consideration to conducting a hearing
on this problem some time later during the summer.
I ask unanimous consent to submit a statement on this
matter, Mr. Chairman, from my fellow North Carolinians, Senator
Hagan and Representative Butterfield.
[Please refer to the hearing section entitled, ``Prepared
Statements Submitted by Members of Congress'' for the statement
of Representative G.K. Butterfield. The letter from Senator Kay
R. Hagan follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4439.014

Mr. Coble. And I thank the chairman and yield back.
Mr. Petri. Without objection, your submissions will be made
a part of the record.
And as you know, we have had a roundtable discussion with a
number of the concerned airport officials from North Carolina,
and if a hearing later in the year seems advisable, we will
work with you on that.
Mr. Coble. I thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Any other opening statements?
If not, we will turn to the distinguished panel, consisting
of David Grizzle, chief operating officer of the Air Traffic
Organization at the FAA; Ms. Lou Dixon, principal assistant
inspector general for auditing and evaluation, Office of the
Inspector General at the Department of Transportation; and Paul
Rinaldi, president, National Air Traffic Controllers
Association.
Thank you all for being here. We thank you for the effort
that you and your associates have put into the prepared
statements that you submitted and invite each of you to do your
best to summarize them in approximately 5 minutes, beginning
with Mr. Grizzle.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE J. DAVID GRIZZLE, CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION; LOU E. DIXON, PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT INSPECTOR
GENERAL FOR AUDITING AND EVALUATION, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND PAUL M.
RINALDI, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
ASSOCIATION

Mr. Grizzle. Thank you, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member
Costello, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
me to testify before you regarding the consolidation and
realignment of the Federal Aviation Administration's
facilities. The FAA's ability to meet the future needs of the
aviation system, including the full implementation of NextGen
technologies, fundamentally relies on the agency's ability to
optimize our facilities and workforce to serve the needs of
those who use the National Airspace System.
I want to say at the outset that we at the FAA view Section
804 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 as an
invaluable opportunity to obtain congressional support to move
forward with the transformation of our air traffic control
facilities infrastructure.
The provision directs the FAA with input from labor and
industry to develop consensus recommendations on a realignment
and consolidation of FAA services and facilities and to report
to Congress on those recommendations.
The process is collaborative in nature and will require FAA
to consider insights from several sources.
While Section 804 applies to the facility consolidation and
realignment plans for the entire FAA, the Inspector General's
Office has a draft audit evaluating the air traffic
organization's efforts in this area. Because of the scope of
the ATO, its efforts make up a great majority of the agency's
overall plans. The ATO's facility work will form the foundation
for proceeding with the implementation of NextGen technologies
while--very importantly--maintaining the safety and reliability
of the infrastructure upon which we must rely until NextGen
technologies come on line.
We agree with the IG's assertion in the draft audit that
FAA has not sufficiently developed the metrics necessary to
evaluate the merits of various consolidation and realignment
alternatives. We are working hard to determine the appropriate
criteria for making FAA's decisions moving forward.
The criteria we used previously focused primarily on the
capital cost of bricks and mortar, which was relatively simple
to apply but failed to address critical operating costs and
issues. Contract obligations and their impact on consolidations
or realignment proposals, the location specific differences and
other operating costs make these larger decisions more complex.
As we work toward developing our criteria and analytic
tools, we will continue to seek the best information available
to us.
As noted in the IG audit, as recently as 2008, FAA was
making short-term decisions about how to invest its fiscal
resources on facilities based on the immediate need to sustain
the operations in the NAS. As the facilities aged and required
more and more maintenance, it became evidence that short-term
facility-specific investments, by themselves, were not a long-
term cost-effective method of maintaining our critical
infrastructure and could not adequately support the
implementation of NextGen.
The U.S. airspace is the most complex in the world. It
accommodates not only 22 million commercial operations a year
but also a robust general aviation community as well as
military operations. This mix represents an extraordinary range
of aircraft types, capabilities and missions. For several
years, we have recognized the need for a more holistic approach
to address the combination of aging infrastructure and
advancing technologies, technologies which no longer require
that controllers be located near the airspace they are
controlling in order to safely separate aircraft.
Because we can combine controller groups and their
airspace, we can reduce the number of boundary handoffs and
thus the possibility of human error.
Working with our unions over the past 2 years, we have
developed a strategy to address different areas of airspace
over the contiguous 48 States. The strategy adopts a segmented
approach, prioritizing on the basis of need and optimizing
opportunity for the airspace and facilities in question.
Our initial focus is on the New York area. Problems that
develop in this airspace have consequences all across the
country. How the consolidation or realignment is accomplished
in this important area is something that is receiving our
utmost attention and we expect to include a number of proposals
affecting this airspace in the plan that we submit to Congress.
The proposal will include consideration of the existing
facilities, their condition, their location, the anticipated
needs of the region, whether and where new facilities should be
constructed and how FAA employees would be affected.
While the FAA's segmented plan extends out for several
decades, the plan submitted to Congress pursuant to the
legislation will only cover the time period into the future for
which we have reasonably reliable visibility.
In conclusion, I want to thank the committee for inviting
me to testify today and for affording the FAA to chance to take
advantage of the opportunity offered by Section 804. We look
forward to working with Congress, the IG, NATCA, and the
industry to achieve the best possible outcome for this ongoing
process.
This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Ms. Dixon.
Ms. Dixon. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee.
Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning on FAA's
air traffic facility realignment and consolidation efforts, a
key initiative for NextGen.
My testimony today is based on work we are currently doing
at the request of this subcommittee. It will focus on FAA's
plan for large-scale realignments and consolidations, key
challenges for executing the plan, and actions the agency needs
to take in the near term.
FAA's realignment and consolidation plan was formalized
last November and calls for consolidating enroute centers and
TRACONs into large, integrated facilities over the next two
decades. The plan would divide the National Airspace System
into six geographic segments that include four to five
facilities each.
Work would begin on a new segment every other year with all
segments to be completed by 2034. TRACONs and enroute centers
would be combined into one of two types of facilities--each of
which could house over 1,200 employees--based on operational
requirements, airspace responsibility, and geographic location.
FAA plans to start with a new integrated facility in the New
York-New Jersey-Philadelphia area.
In our opinion, FAA's plan represents significant progress
since our 2008 review when the agency was primarily focused on
sustaining the existing infrastructure. However, FAA is in the
early stages of planning and has delayed a final decision on
exactly where to build the first facility until next May. The
decision also involves determining complex operational,
logistical, and workforce aspects of the consolidation. FAA's
plans for future projects could change based on experiences
with the first locations.
Successfully implementing FAA's consolidation and
realignment plan and mitigating future risk will require the
agency to address a number of challenges. First, FAA must align
previously approved construction projects with its plan. While
the agency has suspended all but one of its terminal
realignment and consolidation projects, it is moving ahead with
plans to maintain or replace some of its older facilities. This
work could overlap with projects included in its consolidation
plan.
Second, FAA must make key decisions related to automation
platforms and equipment, airspace redesign, and other technical
factors. The agency's modernization plans are based on the
current facility set up, not consolidated or integrated
facilities.
FAA is just beginning to define the technical requirements
for an integrated facility, a determination that will impact
the agency's future modernization plans and budgets, such as
those for ERAM.
However, FAA has not made changes to its capital investment
plan, and the full extent of the changes needed will not be
known until FAA finalizes its consolidation plan.
Third, FAA must finalize project cost estimates and funding
sources to construct, staff, and maintain the first integrated
facility, a critical element of a long-term effort of this
magnitude.
When the overall plan was approved last November, FAA
estimated that it needed $2.3 billion to construct and equip
the first four integrated facilities. Given current budget
constraints, FAA is considering all sorts of financing sources,
such as public-private partnerships.
Finally, FAA must address workforce and community issues.
Large-scale realignments and consolidations will require
relocation of thousands of employees and their families. The
agency will have to negotiate pay, training, moving expenses,
and other issues with its unions. FAA is working closely with
its bargaining units to gain consensus on these issues. But
formal negotiations have not yet begun.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me point out that some of
FAA's past facility consolidations did not produce the expected
cost savings and operational benefits. As the current
consolidation plan continues to evolve, we believe that metrics
to track efficiencies and cost savings will be critical.
Measuring the success of early sites will be key to determining
whether the agency needs to modify its plans and expectations
for future efforts.
By next May, we see four issues that FAA must address in
its initial decisions: the location of the first integrated
facility, the final cost estimates for that site, the metrics
for measuring the success of the first locations, and the
impact that FAA's large-scale plan will have on its other
modernization efforts.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to address any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Rinaldi.
Mr. Rinaldi. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Costello, distinguished members of the committee, aviation
subcommittee, on behalf of more than 18,000 air traffic
controllers and aviation professionals represented by NATCA, I
would like to thank you for inviting me to testify before you
on this important issue.
Ranking Member Costello, I am very grateful to testify
before you one more time. To say that you will be missed after
this year is a complete understatement. I can't thank you
enough for your passion and your pride in doing the right thing
for the National Airspace System, ensuring the safety and
efficiency of the system, and I wish you the best in your post-
Congress life.
NACTA's position on realignments is pretty clear: We
support realignments, but only as part of a comprehensive plan
with a clear objective and quantifiable efficiency gains and a
sound business case evaluating each proposal.
The reason to realign FAA facilities would be to enhance
operational services, provide continued or improved aviation
safety to the National Airspace System, support and facilitate
the modernization of the National Airspace System, address and
mitigate concerns raised by stakeholders, and for it to be cost
effective.
Realignment is not an issue that is new to me. As a
controller back in 1990, I was one of the lead project managers
on a building called the Potomac Consolidated TRACON project.
Back then, we looked at taking the approach controls from
Washington Dulles, Washington National, Baltimore, Richmond and
Andrews and putting it into one building. The agency had a
business plan. It had a sound case. They brought in all the
stakeholders involved, and it made sense.
So we, as the union, worked together collaboratively with
the agency to build a Potomac Consolidated TRACON project,
which today is a huge success in my opinion. The process was
not perfect, but at least the stakeholders were involved.
Let me be clear: NATCA supports facility realignments, but
only as part of a comprehensive plan with a clear objective and
a sound business case. To date, unlike the Potomac project,
many of the FAA's projects have failed to reach that level of
scrutiny.
Realignment is not the fiscal panacea that some believe it
might be. In many cases, consolidating radar facilities costs
the agency more money, not less. The IG in their own testimony
has said that we have not, in the 1990s, have not reached the
operational cost and efficiencies, because when you sever
TRACONs from the tower, you increase personnel, and not taken
into account is the increased telecommunications cost that goes
with it.
We should not assume that if we are going to realign
facilities that the NAS is going to have less infrastructure.
It actually is going to have more, because we are increasing
the number of facilities. But there still may be very good
reasons to do that.
The past decade is filled with consolidations done
incorrectly: Memphis; Orlando; Beaumont, Texas; and Pueblo,
Colorado. In Orlando and Memphis, they severed the tower from
the TRACON, not increasing operational efficiencies at all but
increasing personnel costs. Orlando itself increased by 11
people.
In 2009, we established a collaborative joint work group
under Administrator Randy Babbitt, and we looked at now the
agency was moving forward with projects of consolidation.
Ultimately, the group collaboratively studied the planned
realignments and recommended to move forward on three. We
wanted to stop two because they actually were using flawed
business cases. If we are working together in collaboration, we
can just look at what has to be done and move forward in the
right way for the taxpayers; for the American public and for
the flying public.
We applaud FAA Reauthorization Section 804 that requires to
have stakeholder involvement.
The recommendation that NATCA would make is that we sit
together; we work on developing a plan in a holistic way for
the National Airspace System, that is good for the taxpayer,
that is safe, efficient, and gives us the ability to modernize
the system. I look forward to answering your questions, and I
thank you for your time.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Thank you all for your testimony.
I do have a couple of questions.
Mr. Grizzle, could you tell the committee if the agency has
adequate authority to transfer funds if, for example, there is
a consolidation leading to more efficient use of personnel, do
you have the authority to carry over the operating cost savings
from the closure of one facility to assist in the transition
costs for a new facility, or also the authority to retain
proceeds from the sale of facilities that are closed down to
help offset the costs of constructing new facilities? Is there
adequate authority, or is this a problem?
Mr. Grizzle. Because the transition from an old facility to
a new facility occurs over several years, we would be able in
the ordinary budgeting process to be able to effectuate the
transfer of operating costs.
The transfer of capital investment would depend on what the
actual ownership is of the facility that is being closed versus
the facility that is being owned.
Mr. Petri. I understand that you are fairly far along on
plans for a consolidation or reorganization in the New York
region, which is a crucial kind of congestion point in the
national system at this point.
Could you discuss at all how you are working on that with
various private industries, stakeholders and union and other
concerned parties? Local governments as well.
Mr. Grizzle. Yes. Thank you. As Ms. Dixon and Mr. Rinaldi
have mentioned, we have developed a long-term segmented
facility consolidation plan that would ultimately result in
substantial facility consolidation in the 48 contiguous States.
The first segment that we are devoting detailed attention
to is what we call segment 1, which includes the New York area.
We have been working with NATCA for a couple of years in two
components of that plan, part of it is airspace redesign, and
then closely related to that is design of a facility.
We are at the point now where we have a well developed
concept of the facility, but we are now at the stage where we
must begin to move to site-specific decisions. We have to
decide where the site will be located, and that will require
significant employee and management input as well as input from
local communities, Members of Congress and other industry
stakeholders. We are just now at the process of having our
concept sufficiently definitive that we can begin that
additional, those additional steps of outreach.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
I want to compliment both you and NATCA for your efforts to
communicate and work through this process, which can be
unsettling for employees and individual situations, and in that
connection, in my own area, I am familiar with a number of
organizations, large companies that have gone through massive
changes in the way they were operating internally in order to
be more competitive and efficient. And while years ago, those
changes might have been resisted across the board by organized
labor, more recently United Auto Workers, for example, and
others have supported those efforts because they realize to
maintain high-paying jobs, they are going to have to increase
productivity, and but nonetheless there has been a tension
between the national union and locals in some cases.
Could you discuss how you are working that through, Mr.
Rinaldi, or if that is an issue? I am sure it is to some extent
a fact.
Mr. Rinaldi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that is an excellent
question.
If you go to any facility across the country and you say,
well, we are going to consolidate you on such-and-such date and
you are going to move across State boundaries, across the
State, across the town, obviously, change is a concern for
everybody and resistance sets in.
But if you actually go with a comprehensive plan and say
this is the game plan, we are going to start phasing you in. We
are going to build the building at this location. Here are the
schools. Here are the job opportunities for your spouses, and
here is the median cost of housing. If you have a comprehensive
plan that you actually bring to the employees, I think change
is not that resistant, and they will have the ability to plan
their future as opposed to the uncertainty. And I think that is
where we have to be better with a comprehensive plan to bring
to the employees at the local level so that we do have that
buy-in.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To follow up on your comment, Mr. Rinaldi, what you are
saying is for a smooth transition, what you have to have is a
plan that was not developed by just the FAA, it needs to be
developed by the controllers, by the stakeholders and everyone
involved from day 1, is that correct?
Mr. Rinaldi. That would be correct, yes.
Mr. Costello. Let me ask you, Ms. Dixon, in the 2010
analysis of the Boise consolidation, the IG made
recommendations afterwards that the FAA should, in fact, make
certain that they have direct communication input with the
employees, controllers and others.
Tell me what you uncovered in the Boise consolidation that
made the IG make these recommendations?
Ms. Dixon. Thank you.
Congressman Costello, we found that there was a lack of
communication. There was also a lack of transparency. The FAA
had developed multiple plans over the course of a few years and
did not continually communicate the changes that they made to
those plans to the local officials, the local workforce, or to,
I think, some of the national workforce members.
In 2005, they had decided that they were going to co-locate
the Boise and Salt Lake City facilities. Subsequently, in 2009,
they decided that they would go for a consolidation, but they
didn't communicate these changes to the workforce and to the
local community. So it caused some unnecessary questions and
concerns about what exactly what was going on.
Mr. Costello. Let me ask you about the funding levels in
the reauthorization bill.
Do you believe that they are adequate to carry out the
FAA's proposed consolidation plan?
Ms. Dixon. We are aware that FAA has identified some
funding shortfalls. They do not yet have all of the funding in
place that they will need to construct even the first segment.
However, as I mentioned, they are looking at some other
alternative financing options, but they have not yet really
finalized all the cost estimates. So before they can really
decide how to fund it or where to obtain the funding, they will
need to definitize the cost estimates, but it will be critical
that they continue to communicate exactly how much money they
will need and when they will need it.
Mr. Costello. You state in your testimony that the tight
funding levels in the authorization bill led to delayed
approval of the construction of the first phase of the
Northeast facility consolidation. Is that an indication of what
we are looking at down the road in the future? I mean, we are
now, we already have a delay because of a lack of funding level
for the Northeast consolidation. Is that an indication of what
we are going to see from here on out?
Ms. Dixon. Congressman, it is certainly possible that it is
an indicator. The funding environment obviously is very tight
right now. FAA recognizes that, and they are looking at other
options, but certainly that is a potential indicator.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Grizzle, you have heard me state in the
past more times than you like I am sure that if it comes to
negotiating contracts, if it comes to consolidation, whatever
it may be, that my opinion is that in order for the best
outcome, you have to have input from both sides, that the FAA
just can't develop a policy and say to the stakeholders, this
is the way it is going to be, that there has to be input. You
know, as you have indicated in your testimony and it has been
mentioned that Section 804 of the reauthorization bill in fact
requires the FAA now to engage and develop consensus with the
stakeholders.
These recommendations, which you have to report back to
Congress as mandated in the bill, are due in mid June, yet in
Mr. Rinaldi's testimony, he states that NATCA has not been
involved in any discussion efforts to produce these
recommendations.
So my question to you is, have you reached out as a result
of the reauthorization bill or that Congress has mandated a
report back from the FAA to the Congress as to how you are
going to involve the stakeholders, the controllers and others?
Have you reached out to NATCA and other stakeholders to ask for
their input?
Mr. Grizzle. Sir, I believe that we need more than just
input. I think that true collaboration is more than simply
giving another party an opportunity to comment on a plan that
has already been devised by you. And so we are engaging with
NATCA now and with our other unions and subsequently with other
community stakeholders to have true collaboration, which will
involve them in actually compiling the decisions and not simply
commenting on a decision that we have already made.
Mr. Costello. Well, specifically, tell me, what has the FAA
done with NATCA and the other union in order to begin the
process?
Mr. Grizzle. NATCA has been very involved in the
conceptualization of the airspace redesign and the design of
the New York facility, which will be the first implementation
of our long-term consolidation strategy. We are only now at the
point, as I said earlier, of beginning to definitize the site-
specific decisions that apply to that initial implementation.
Mr. Costello. But my question specifically is not about the
New York airspace. It is about how you are going to go about
with the consolidation plan for the entire system and what the
procedures will be as far as input from and input from all of
the stakeholders.
Have you developed that plan? And if not, when did you
intend to sit down with the stakeholders since you are to
report to Congress in just about 3 weeks?
Mr. Grizzle. The plan that Mr. Rinaldi and I have discussed
is that we would devise a set of criteria, which would guide
our consolidation decisions. That would be a set that we and
NATCA would agree are the right ones to apply to all of
consolidation decisions.
Mr. Costello. And when you sat down with Mr. Rinaldi, which
I will ask him to respond as well, how long ago was that?
Mr. Grizzle. We discussed this maybe a month ago.
Mr. Costello. Maybe a month ago. But not before that?
Mr. Grizzle. Not--not--the decision, not in terms of
devising the criteria, that is correct.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Rinaldi, I wonder if you would respond.
Mr. Rinaldi. I would be happy to, sir. Roughly 10 days
after that very authorization was signed by the President,
February 14, NATCA sat down and developed a scoping document of
what we would like to see out of Section 804. And we submitted
at a lower level where a working group would sit there and work
that. It seemed to be going nowhere. It was about a month after
that we had initial conservations, Executive Vice President
Gilbert and myself, David Grizzle and Deputy COO Rick Ducharme
had a brief conversation and said, we need to get moving on
this because our report is due, and they agreed. Their intent
was not to stall by any stretch of the imagination.
We then submitted what we thought would be a good starting
point that we could work on. And it wasn't until about a month
after that when we actually had the conversations that this is
a good place to start. And Mr. Grizzle is exactly right; we had
a conversation in which we talked about really developing real
metrics of what we are going to measure and how we are going to
analyze the real cost of doing realignments. And it was
probably last week or the week before where we set a meeting
for June 5 to have our first joint meeting to start working on
this game plan.
Mr. Costello. So just so I get this right, when you
determined that you would sit down, both of you, on June 5, how
long ago was that?
Mr. Rinaldi. About 10 days ago, I guess, yes.
Mr. Costello. About the time when this hearing was called,
is that correct?
Mr. Rinaldi. Pretty close yes.
Mr. Costello. So you knew--the FAA knew they were coming in
here for this hearing and, it seems to me, said, we better
reach out because the questions are going to be asked, but they
didn't reach out and talk to you before that?
Mr. Rinaldi. We had broad conversations, but as far as
putting some meat on the bones to develop a report, we had not
had those conversations.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I have already taken too much
time, but I think it is another example of how when this
subcommittee provides oversight hearings and holds the FAA's
feet to the fire, that they act, and I suspect that a June 5
date would not have been set had you not scheduled this hearing
today that we would have ended up missing the, either not
having a report to the Congress by the middle of June or having
a report without direct input in collaboration with not only
NATCA but the other union and other stakeholders.
So I would just make that point and again compliment you
for holding this hearing, and it is another example of when
this subcommittee acts, then the FAA acts. And when we do not
hold their feet to the fire, they go on to other things; when
we schedule hearings, they say we had better get our act
together and get moving on this because the subcommittee is
going to be asking us questions.
Mr. Petri. So we will be happy to work with you on
strategically organizing hearings to get all these things
moving.
Mr. LoBiondo, I apologize. Earlier, I note you had a short
opening statement, and I didn't realize that, and anyway the
floor is yours.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just was going to briefly say
that I am happy to see the positive results of the workforce
and the FAA management working together. This is clearly
something that we have to do, and I know the FAA and many
front-line controllers are working on dozens of modernization
projects at the tech center, which is my district. I have a
very keen interest in this because all of the validation work
will come through that tech center.
And I want to say to the men and women of that tech center,
a huge thank you for their dedication to excellence and each
and every day reaching out and going beyond above and beyond
the call of duty.
I think their presence is helping to ensure these projects
are on time and on budget, which are both extremely important
as we move through this, and I am confident that their
continued inclusions will benefit the flying public and the
American taxpayer. So NextGen is a huge undertaking for the
country, and I hope we can keep on track, and I appreciate what
you have done on this so far and certainly thanks to our panel
for being here.
I know, Mr. Grizzle, we have touched on some of these
things, but I am not sure if we touched on, is there a national
facilities plan or an FAA organization that is working on an
overall national facilities plan?
Mr. Grizzle. Yes, sir, there is. It is part of the
organization within the air traffic organization that is
responsible for all facilities decisions.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK, and does the FAA have an estimate of what
calendar year the cost sustaining and maintaining the old
facilities becomes more expensive than creating the new ones?
Mr. Grizzle. We currently expend more on maintaining old
facilities than building new ones.
Mr. LoBiondo. The other questions that I was going to ask
were already asked by the previous Members, so, Mr. Chairman, I
thank you and thank the panel once again.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am a bit puzzled and concerned here. We are going to
develop a comprehensive, long-term plan, which is going to
direct billions of dollars of invest, reinvestment,
reconfiguration, affect thousands of people and their lives,
affect the critical airspace. It was mandated by Congress. It
is due in 2 weeks. And you were also mandated to work in a
cooperative and coordinated fashion with the people who
actually provide the service, the air traffic controllers and
other unions involved in maintenance and those sorts of things,
and yet the first time you are going to sit down and have a
comprehensive scoping discussion or whatever it is going to be
is going to be 9 days before the report is due.
Is there a draft report already done that you are going to
present to them at that point for comment? Or you are going to
write the report beginning on the 5th of June and have it done
by the 9th?
Mr. Grizzle. Sir, as Ms. Dixon has said, these are
extremely complicated decisions, and our intention is to
develop a plan that would go out 5 to 8 years.
Mr. DeFazio. Is that what it meant when you said--there is
some bizarre word you used--``reasonably reliable visibility''
for the time period? Is that what you mean?
Mr. Grizzle. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. It would have been better if you had said 5 to
8 years, because I really don't know what ``reasonably reliable
visibility'' meant. OK.
Mr. Grizzle. And so the plan that we intend to submit to
Congress will go out to 5 to 8 years, will be definitive 5 to 8
years, and we are very much focused on making accurate
decisions, even if those decisions take longer to make than
what we would have liked.
Mr. DeFazio. Meaning--OK, that means we aren't going to
have a comprehensive--you are not going to present a
comprehensive plan for 5 to 8 years on the 14th because you
just said you wanted to be accurate and et cetera.
Mr. Grizzle. We believe it is very important that the plan
that we submit to Congress be one that we are confident can be
executed based on the input of the union and other stakeholders
who we involve in the decisionmaking process.
Mr. DeFazio. Right because we have had some problems in the
past; it seemed kind of like you were throwing darts at the
board and deciding you are going to consolidate here and you
are going to separate here and you are going to do that. And
the last time you sat down with the employees and talked about
this, I actually poked a lot of holes in your analysis in your
business case. And you had some independent reviews that did
the same. And then the GAO did the same. Have you developed all
new criteria since then and something that we can, that is
transparent that we can understand on how you are moving
forward with these decisions?
Mr. Grizzle. We are in the process of developing that
decisional structure with NATCA. The problem----
Mr. DeFazio. Or you are going to be in that process
starting on the 5th for a report due on the 9th?
Mr. Grizzle. The problem with our prior analyses were that
they were overwhelmingly capital cost-centric. Decisions that
are made solely on the basis of relative capital cost can in
fact be negative NPV decisions because they don't----
Mr. DeFazio. Negative what?
Mr. Grizzle. Net present value decisions because they do
not accurately consider the disparate costs of operating two
different facilities. If we don't restructure the airspace and
change the way we actually control that airspace when we move
it to a new facility, we, in fact, will have done ourselves no
benefit from a cost-benefit analysis.
Mr. DeFazio. I understand that. I have been on this
committee 26 years, and as I have said many times, there is
only one agency worse at acquisition and other sorts of
decisions than the Pentagon, and that would be the FAA.
Now let's get to it here. Come on. We are going to have
something comprehensive 9 days after you sit down for the first
time with the people you have just identified as the principal
potential cost factor in this, which is those who actually do
the work, versus looking at what buildings are leaking or need
replacing and those sorts of things; you are going to do all
this on a 9-day period? Don't you think you need to ask for an
extension here?
Mr. Grizzle. We are certainly not going to present an
incomplete plan to Congress.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. I am not concerned about the deadline. I
am concerned about the process and getting a good plan that is
better than that the last sort of random plan that didn't work
so well.
Mr. Grizzle. We share that concern very much because we
cannot make right decisions without including all of the people
who will be affected by those decisions.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, and Mr. Rinaldi, since your organization
is sort of the major focus of the new concerns of the FAA,
which go to how it affects labor, labor costs and operating
costs, do you feel that--I am a bit bemused by this process
that you are getting into the room and the major discussion is
9 days before the report is due. Do you feel they are really
committed to work with you on this?
Mr. Rinaldi. I believe the higher up leadership at the FAA,
David Grizzle and Michael Huerta, are absolutely, positively
committed to collaboration. Our frustration kind of develops a
couple levels down, when you actually sit at the table and try
to work on business cases and try to develop good criteria for
how to move forward, and it seems that there are a couple of
pieces of paper that are always missing from the table. It
doesn't seem to be forthright, and you are making decisions
without accurate information.
So my frustration comes at that level, not at the higher
level with David Grizzle and with Michael Huerta.
That said, I am concerned with developing a comprehensive
plan on something that is as complicated as consolidating
facilities and realigning facilities in the National Airspace
System, that 9 days is clearly not enough. Given everybody's
busy schedules, certainly 9 days is, I don't think, enough, but
it is certainly a start. We could sit down and look at
enhancing the operational services, providing improved safety,
modernizing these systems, working in state-of-the-art
facilities, addressing the stakeholders' concerns and really
looking at the real cost. Because if you take a TRACON from a
tower and you move it across the country, you are still leaving
that tower behind that FAA still has to operate, including the
cost and the personnel.
So consolidations don't decrease the spending of the FAA;
they actually increase it, specifically regarding personnel,
and in many cases, you are adding buildings to the National
Airspace System infrastructure.
So I have major concerns.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, I would reflect--I am pleased to
hear that Mr. Grizzle and others higher up are working
cooperatively with NATCA and others who are most knowledgeable
about many of the concerns. But I am really concerned about
pressure they might feel, the agency might feel, because of the
arbitrary deadline. And it is clear to me that between the 5th
and the 9th, we can't have something that would be a long-term
comprehensive work product that addresses all of the
deficiencies and the past planning efforts and consolidations.
And I don't know whether the committee might want to consider
somehow addressing that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In the very detailed pages of the briefing paper that we
received is this interesting quote from Bruce Johnson, the FAA
vice president of terminal services, who testified before this
subcommittee almost 5 years ago. He said, ``A key element of
the FAA's transformation into NextGen is consolidation of our
facilities. The number and specific locations of many existing
FAA facilities were determined by the capabilities and
limitations of 1960s technology. In the subsequent four
decades, the available technology has vastly improved,
rendering the long-existing pattern of FAA facilities no longer
the best configuration. Without consolidation, the FAA is tied
to maintaining outdated facilities and outdated technology
based on outdated 1960s radar boundaries. Further consolidation
lowers infrastructure costs and helps improve safety and
efficiency by making new technologies available for
controllers. These savings and improvements mean fewer air
traffic delays and lower costs for air travelers.''
Now that is a very interesting summary given to this
subcommittee 5 years ago. However, when I go further, it says,
of the consolidations identified in 2010, it says, as of May
2012, all further consolidations are on hold. And then it says,
two have been completed, Dayton to Columbus, Reno to northern
California. But then it says, West Palm Beach to Miami,
canceled. Abilene to Dallas/Fort Worth, continued. And then
three others: Muskegon, Grand Rapids to Kalamazoo, deferred and
on hold. Mansfield, Youngstown, Toledo, Akron to Cleveland,
deferred and on hold. Champaign to Chicago, deferred and on
hold.
It looks, to me and I think almost everyone else, that very
little progress has been made. And what I am wondering about,
Mr. Grizzle and Ms. Dixon, if this subcommittee was to hold
this same type of hearing 5 years from now, would we hear the
same type of testimony? Do you honestly, deep down inside feel
that there would be more progress? Or is this just such a
difficult, almost impossible task that we are not going to get
anywhere basically? Because we haven't made much progress in
the last 5 years.
Mr. Grizzle. I don't want to underestimate the difficulty
of the task. As I have said, if we merely consolidate
facilities without restructuring the airspace and altering the
cultures of the constituent groups that come into the newly
consolidated space, we may very well set ourselves back. We
will have a larger facility, but it will be operating at higher
costs than what the disaggregated facilities were previously
operated at.
We have not been able to do as thorough analyses of these
consolidations in the past as we need to be able to do. I
believe that in the next 5 to 8 years, you will, in fact, see
progress, but it will be progress that is based on decisions
that are made individually, without a bias in favor or against
consolidation of any individual facility when we began to
evaluate it.
Mr. Duncan. But do you agree with that lengthy quote that I
read from Mr. Johnson that he said all these good things that
consolidation could lead to? Was he exaggerating? Or was he
wrong?
Mr. Grizzle. Consolidation is certainly a major part of our
facility plan going forward. But still, each consolidation
decision must be made facility by facility because some
facilities will only increase our costs by being consolidated
into a larger and more expensive facility.
Mr. Duncan. Ms. Dixon.
Ms. Dixon. Congressman Duncan, we do believe that FAA has
made a great deal of progress since our 2008 review on this
issue in developing the plan. However, there are a number of
decisions that have yet to be made on cost, on location, on
workforce, the type of equipage, and those kinds of things. And
they are very complex decisions, as Mr. Grizzle said. This is
also a huge undertaking. So it will take a lot. We can't really
say what will happen in 5 years. But according to the plan, by
that time, they should be well on their way with segment 1.
Mr. Duncan. Well, let me ask you this: In regard--not only
to consolidations. But in regard to other things as well, does
the FAA have any type of incentive or bonus-type program for
employees who come up with ways to reduce cost or save money?
Ms. Dixon. I am not aware of that, Congressman. We have
never looked into that issue. So I really can't say. I would be
happy to get back to you with an answer.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Mr. Grizzle?
Mr. Grizzle. We implemented Department of Transportation-
wide a facility called Idea Hub which is intended to stimulate
cost-saving ideas, among other good ideas. And although they
are not uniformly attached with a bonus, it would not be
unlikely that if an employee came forward with an innovative
cost-saving idea, that they would receive a cash award under
the existing program that we have for awarding performance by
employees that is above and beyond the call of duty.
Mr. Duncan. I understand that on another thing that the one
roof/one pay policy has resulted in some pretty ridiculous
things happening. Is that still the policy of the FAA? Or is it
under review or being changed in any way?
Mr. Grizzle. Our current contract with NATCA provides that
all controllers working in a particular facility be covered by
the pay scale that applies to that particular facility. This is
one of the reasons that when we consolidate facilities, we must
do a more thorough job than we have in the past of actually
redesigning the airspace and the way the work is done so that
we don't just increase our controller costs by consolidating
the airspace in--or the work, rather, for the airspace in a
higher level facility.
Mr. Duncan. Is it true that that policy has resulted in
some controllers receiving much, much higher pay for much less
work?
Mr. Grizzle. They work in the same fashion that they did
previously, but they are doing the same work in some cases at a
higher pay level than what they were in the preconsolidated
facility.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Hultgren.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here.
I have a couple of questions.
Mr. Rinaldi, last week I took a tour of the enroute center
in Chicago, which as you know handles all the high-altitude air
traffic over Illinois and much of the Great Lakes region. I
learned a lot about ERAM, the new automation platform that is
being installed at the facility and other enroute facilities
across the country. It is the En Route Automation
Modernization. I was surprised to learn that the Chicago center
will have the system installed ahead of schedule and possibly
under budget, due mainly to the high level of collaboration
between controllers, management, and the facility. And as the
president of the controllers union, I wonder what your thoughts
are on that, how it is going, and also to see other ways that
we could model after this collaboration across the system.
Mr. Rinaldi. Thank you for the question, sir.
ERAM is a very important project. It is actually--to steal
David Grizzle's line--it is the chassis on which we are going
to bolt on many of the new technologies for NextGen, which is
living proof that you don't need to build a new building to do
NextGen. You actually can put ERAM into the current buildings.
Collaboration in a lot of facilities is going very well. In
some facilities, not so well, and we are addressing them at the
higher level and trying to mentor and give them some interest-
based collaboration tools so they can work together at the
lower level. And we believe--David Grizzle and myself--that
once we get the local levels working, as we have in the Chicago
tower and center and TRACON in that area, everyone seems to be
working on the same page. It is better for everybody. It saves
money for the taxpayers; and it runs a seamless operation, a
safe operation.
Mr. Hultgren. Yeah. I was really struck with, again, a
facility that I think they said was 50 years old, the building,
and yet cutting edge, a real positive feel as I went in there.
I was very impressed just with the work that was going on but
also the incredible collaboration between all the parties. I
really do think that it is a model of how it should be run.
Mr. Grizzle, I wonder, any potential facility consolidation
should certainly take into account user and public input. I
wondered how the FAA will ensure the user community and public
have that opportunity to be heard. And I wonder if you could
just walk through the process for us of how that will happen.
Mr. Grizzle. Sure. The reality about collaboration that is
frequently missed is that collaboration requires that your
planning horizon be enlarged. You can't do collaboration
quickly. And collaboration most frequently fails because
adequate time for collaborating has not been provided in your
process. So as we are working through our planning process for
doing consolidations, we are making sure that we create this
time for collaboration with the different stakeholders that you
mentioned. So an important part of that will not only be giving
them notice of our tentative decision but then giving them an
opportunity to be able to compile their insights about that
decision, to receive them, and then for them to hear what our
response will be. And so it will elongate the total time that
it will take us to make these decisions. But again,
collaboration takes time.
Mr. Hultgren. And I am sure the fact of CRs and kicking FAA
authorizations down the road 20-some times doesn't help in that
predictability of timing. So we have got to do our part up here
I know as well.
I have heard some concerns from some stakeholders, Mr.
Grizzle, that the FAA has conducted partial cost analyses with
a bias towards consolidation; thereby casting doubt on the
objectivity of the FAA's decision, Boise TRACON consolidation,
for example. The inspector general has echoed many of these
concerns. Will the FAA complete consolidations of this type
without a transparent accounting? Or will the transparent
accounting be there?
Mr. Grizzle. As I said earlier, we are currently looking at
consolidations without a bias in favor or against
consolidation. We believe that in many instances, it is exactly
the right thing to do for the airspace and for the economics;
and in other cases, it is not. And we intend to look at each
decision individually.
I think more importantly, we are going to do a far more
thorough job of retrospectively looking at the consolidations
that we do complete to assure that they have achieved the
objectives we set out for them. We are going to see, did we
bring them in on schedule? Did we bring them in on budget, with
particular attention to transition expenses which tells you
whether the consolidation you did was done cost effectively.
Have you achieved the operating costs that you expected to
achieve? Have you, in fact, produced a more efficient airspace?
And finally, what is your employee satisfaction?
Mr. Hultgren. I see my time has run out. Thank you very
much. I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Lankford.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you. I just have a couple of quick
questions. Thanks for being here as well.
Mr. Grizzle, talk to me a little bit about--there is this
transition point here between sustaining old facilities and new
facilities coming online. This is the challenge most people
have with an automobile of, how many years do I use this
automobile before it collapses, and at what point can I sell it
and get a different one? How are you guessing that out with
some of our facilities right now in that transition between
older facilities and what it costs to just sustain them and
keep them up, versus building new? And how do we handle that
transition?
Ms. Dixon, I am coming back to you on the idea on that same
thing as well.
Mr. Grizzle. Your analogy I think is perfectly apt. And
that is the reason that we are approaching these decisions on a
facility-by-facility basis. Because in addition to the decision
about whether you can afford to continue the upkeep of your
car, you have got sort of the relative cost of operating the
old car versus the new car. And so we are attempting and we are
going to, with each of our consolidation decisions, decide,
what will it cost to build a new facility or to consolidate
into an expanded facility versus the cost of maintaining it?
Mr. Lankford. How is that decision being made? Who is
making that decision? How is that decision being made? Because
obviously those are difficult numbers to get your head around.
Mr. Grizzle. They are very difficult.
The analysis, in terms of the actual computation, will be
done by members of the FAA staff but in collaboration with a
broader union group that will in a sense make sure that we are
getting all the cost elements in.
Mr. Lankford. OK. Ms. Dixon, obviously those are
challenging things when you start dealing with transitions on
it and people and process on that; ideas on how to be able to
evaluate that or suggestions that you would make that are
beyond even what you have written in your report.
Ms. Dixon. Congressman, we believe strongly that the key
will be developing good metrics and continually monitoring the
successes or challenges as they occur when they are going about
these consolidations. It will be critical that once they get
the first facility completed, that they are able to look at a
few areas to see whether they have achieved the cost savings,
for example, and whether they have achieved the operational
efficiencies that they had wanted to get out of this effort, as
well as the workforce efficiencies, because part of the goal is
to get productivity up. So we think that the metrics will be
critical.
Mr. Lankford. So you are talking about trying to go slow to
a few facilities initially, get it right, and then advance on
at a larger scale from there?
Ms. Dixon. Yes, sir. And that is actually consistent with
FAA's plan. Their intent is to build the New York facility
first and take a close look at all of the things that happened
with that construction and to determine whether they need to
make changes going forward.
Mr. Lankford. OK. Is there additional legislative authority
needed in this? As far as shutting down facilities and closing
down--I know closing down any facility, transferring, changing,
building becomes a political football in this process. What
else is needed at this point to be successful?
Ms. Dixon. I would say the funding is probably critical.
Mr. Lankford. There is an answer I haven't heard in a long
time in Congress.
Ms. Dixon. Well, FAA has indicated that in order to start
the construction on even the first phase, they need all the
funding in place.
Mr. Lankford. OK.
Ms. Dixon. So it is critical that they get that. But it is
also critical that they know how much they need and when they
will need it. So that is a critical issue for them. But
determining all of the things that go along with the
consolidation are certainly critical to that part. They have
got to figure out what equipment they want to put into the
buildings and how many people will go into the buildings. A
number of decisions like that are going to drive the cost.
Mr. Lankford. OK. Mr. Grizzle, can you make any comment on
that, any other legislative authority that you know if that is
needed?
Mr. Grizzle. We have adequate legislative authority. We
need stability of funding.
Mr. Lankford. OK. Mr. Rinaldi, would you like to make a
comment on that at all?
Mr. Rinaldi. I would like to make a comment just to
recognize that in certain situations, you are not getting rid
of that car. You are actually maintaining it and giving it to
your child. Because if we take the approach control out of
Oklahoma City and move it to Dallas/Fort Worth----
Mr. Lankford. Which would be a bad idea.
Mr. Rinaldi. It would be a bad idea. I would agree with you
there.
But if we did that, you would still leave a facility, a
tower behind that had to run the tower operations in the
Oklahoma City airport. So you would still have to maintain that
facility. If it had a leaking roof before you did that move, it
would still have a leaking roof. But in some situations, you
are closing facilities. Like in the New York project that we
are looking at, you would take two buildings--New York TRACON
and New York Center--merge them into one. You would get rid of
two buildings and have one building. So in certain situations,
it makes complete sense; and in others, you are keeping that
car for your child.
Mr. Lankford. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
We were talking about looking at things from the point of
view of the FAA and its desire to reorganize and looking at
things from the point of view of the employees affected. And
naturally, they are concerned about the location of their job
and working conditions and all the rest.
Are we also consulting with the customers or the people the
system is designed to serve; that is to say, the airlines or
the traveling public as they experience traveling through the
services of various airlines who use the system?
I have been impressed to visit some of these different
airline operations and discover that they each have their own
air traffic control system, which is nationwide that I guess is
usually out of one facility or maybe two, where they are in
some cases keeping track of thousands of flights and many
details and loading and unloading--it is amazing--operating
weather and compliance with different requirements of the
Federal Government, that they can't be outside the gate for
more than a half--
So they may have some lessons on how to--or does it make
any difference? I mean is the cost structure of the economy
affected by any of this? Will it make airlines more or less
expensive? I mean, what I am trying to say is, what we have
been talking about is one piece of it, but at the end of the
day, all this exists to serve the American public and the
economy. And the industry is sort of a proxy for that. And they
have a lot of experience. They are knowledgeable customers. So
will they be consulted as well? Or are there ideas there where
we can achieve efficiencies that will serve us all well?
Mr. Grizzle. The airlines are principally interested in the
design of the airspace. That is where their own efficiency is
impacted most significantly. And in that regard, they are
integrally involved in not only the large-scale airspace
redesigns, like we have completed with New York, but in the
sort of smaller, more incremental airspace changes that we are
making regularly throughout the system. In fact, we can't even
make those design changes without their involvement because we
frequently need them to run the proposed routes on their
simulators. So they are integrally involved in the airspace
redesigns, which is a part of facility consolidation, and they
have been for quite a while. They are essential to the process.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Costello at this time.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really don't have
any other questions. But I would like to say, one, given the
fact that my understanding is that the NextGen Facility Special
Program Management Office was established on September 1, 2010,
it is disappointing to hear that we do not have a metrics, as
Ms. Dixon and others pointed out, to determine how we are going
to go forward with consolidation and determine which
facilities, where it makes sense to continue to operate versus
to consolidate and build new facilities.
So I would just say that--I have been through the base
closure process now four times--five times, actually, since I
have been in Congress. And I have heard the Department of
Defense, from the Secretary of Defense to others, testify what
cost savings that we would achieve by consolidating and closing
facilities. And more times than not, they have proven to be
wrong, that we have not achieved the savings that the
Department of Defense said that we would achieve.
I, like I think all three of you and everyone, realize that
consolidation needs to go forward where it makes sense; in
other cases, where it is not cost effective, and we can
continue to operate with some of the facilities that we have,
we should do that.
But my main concern here is, one, that whatever action is
taken, that it is taken place collaboratively between all of
the stakeholders involved, number one. And number two is that
you come up with a metric that, in fact, measures the true cost
to the taxpayers, what makes sense and what doesn't. And it is
pretty obvious to me that consolidation is a priority in order
to implement NextGen.
The office was established in September of 2010, and we
still do not have--with the input of all of the stakeholders--a
plan in place where we can measure the cost of how we want to
go forward. So I would just say that I would hope that the FAA,
working with the stakeholders, can, in fact, begin to develop
that plan and a plan that measures the true cost of
consolidation and not duplicate what the Department of Defense
did. And that is that they overestimated savings and
underestimated cost.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. And I would like to thank all the
witnesses for being here today and your responses to the
questions of the members of the committee.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]