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

A REVIEW OF AND UPDATE ON THE
MANAGEMENT OF FAA'S NEXTGEN PROGRAM

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

(112-103)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

SEPTEMBER 12, 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
75-851 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
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
BILLY LONG, Missouri TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BOB GIBBS, Ohio HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York LAURA RICHARDSON, California
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
VACANCY
------ 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
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota, Vice LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
Chair TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BILLY LONG, Missouri MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin (Ex Officio)
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
VACANCY

CONTENTS

Page

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

TESTIMONY
Panel 1

Hon. John D. Porcari, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 6
Hon. Michael P. Huerta, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 6
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 6
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, Government Accountability Office....................... 6

Panel 2

David J. Barger, President and Chief Executive Officer, JetBlue
Airways Corporation............................................ 31
Paul Rinaldi, President, National Air Traffic Controllers
Association.................................................... 31
Ed Bolen, President and Chief Executive Officer, National
Business Aviation Association.................................. 31
Susan M. Baer, Director of Aviation, Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey................................................. 31

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Hon. Russ Carnahan, of Missouri.................................. 45
Hon. Jerry F. Costello, of Illinois.............................. 48
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas............................. 52

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Hon. John D. Porcari and Hon. Michael P. Huerta, joint statement. 54
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III........................................ 66
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D....................................... 81
David J. Barger.................................................. 104
Paul Rinaldi..................................................... 116
Ed Bolen......................................................... 124
Susan M. Baer.................................................... 129

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Michael P. Huerta, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration:

Responses to questions from Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey 59
Responses to questions from Hon. Reid J. Ribble, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin. 64

ADDITION TO THE RECORD

Marion C. Blakey, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Aerospace Industries Association of America, written testimony. 133

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5851.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5851.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5851.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5851.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5851.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5851.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5851.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5851.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5851.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5851.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5851.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5851.012

A REVIEW OF AND UPDATE ON THE
MANAGEMENT OF FAA'S NEXTGEN PROGRAM

----------

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Petri. The hearing will commence. And my colleague, Mr.
Costello, will be here shortly, but I will begin with my
opening statement. And I suspect that by the time I am
finished, he will be here and we will be able to benefit from
that, as well.
Today the subcommittee will hear from Government and
aviation industry stakeholders on the FAA's management of and
progress toward transforming our Nation's air traffic control
system. This program, known as NextGen, is among the largest
and most ambitious public works projects in our Nation's
history. The successful implementation of NextGen is critical
to the future of our air transportation system and U.S.
competitiveness in the global marketplace.
Today our air traffic control system is very inefficient.
In order to accommodate the roughly 730 million passengers each
year and 70,000 flights each day, we need to modernize our
system. NextGen will transform air transportation by
transitioning to a satellite-based surveillance system,
improving communications between pilots and controllers, and
developing more efficient navigation routes from start to
finish.
The goal is to create a system that is safer, less impacted
by weather conditions, better for the environment, and more
consistent, with fewer delays. The FAA has made some progress,
but it also faces significant challenges. FAA is currently
spending roughly $1 billion each year to develop and implement
what we call NextGen. The aviation industry will have to invest
billions of dollars to equip their aircraft with the avionics
from which the benefits of NextGen will be derived.
Unfortunately, the FAA's progress is slower than expected. And,
as a result, the industry has been reluctant to invest.
Today's hearing will focus on the benefits that the FAA has
delivered to airspace users. The witnesses will discuss FAA's
progress with major transformational and NextGen programs.
Likewise, the witnesses will discuss challenges the FAA is
facing in the implementation of these programs, many of which
are outlined in recent Department of Transportation inspector
general and General Accounting Office reports.
It is very clear that everyone, including industry, FAA,
and Congress, wants NextGen to succeed. The FAA Modernization
and Reform Act enacted earlier this year devoted an entire
title to NextGen. Among the many reforms included in the law is
the creation of new leadership positions within the FAA that
are responsible and accountable for NextGen implementation, and
requirements for the FAA to define performance metrics to
measure progress and to establish operational or financial
incentives for avionics equipage.
Like other major infrastructure programs, NextGen is
expensive and hard. This is further complicated by the tight
Federal budget. But, according to the Department of
Transportation Inspector General, funding has not been a
problem. And certainly congressional support for NextGen
remains strong.
At the end of the day, the FAA must overcome the challenges
and get the job done. The success or failure of NextGen depends
on cooperation from everyone involved. And while we need to
make more progress, nobody thought this would be easy. And I
look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I thank each of
you for your participation here today.
And 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.
[No response.]
Mr. Petri. Without objection, so ordered. And before
recognizing Mr. Costello, I would just like to note that over
the 6 years that we have led this subcommittee, he as chairman
and me as ranking, or with the situation in reverse this last
Congress, we have been committed to working together on a
bipartisan basis to provide proper oversight and to ensure that
NextGen continues to move forward. This was the case when he
was chairman, and it continues today. This will be the last
NextGen oversight hearing that we will preside over together on
this subcommittee, and I thank him for his diligence and his
hard work on this issue over many, many years.
And with that, I now recognize Mr. Costello for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have
a formal statement that I will enter into the record, and make
some brief remarks.
But I do want to state for the record that the chairman is
correct. This project, NextGen, is a major project, one of the
most difficult undertakings that the FAA and the Department has
attempted to undertake in many, many years, if ever. And we
have worked very closely together. I think that other
committees and subcommittees and the Congress in general could
learn some--a few things by watching how this subcommittee has
operated. It has been bipartisan, both when I chaired it--I
also reached out to--not only to my ranking member, Mr. Petri,
but also Members on the other side of the aisle. And Chairman
Petri, since he has taken the committee over, he has done the
same. He has consulted me, he has worked with Members on our
side of the aisle. So it truly has been bipartisan.
And I have said publicly before that I could not have had a
better partner on this subcommittee, both as chairman and when
he was my ranking member. And he has been more than fair with
me and with our side of the aisle since he has been chairman.
So I appreciate all of the courtesies and the friendship that
we have established.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling the hearing today. As
you know, as we have discussed in the past, and most people in
this room who have followed and have been involved in NextGen,
they know that I have said many times that the best way to keep
NextGen on track is for us to hold everyone involved
accountable for their actions, that we develop a plan to
implement NextGen, and that for--this subcommittee needs to
make certain that we monitor the progress.
When I chaired the subcommittee, we held multiple hearings,
roundtables. We had a lot of discussions when we started
calling hearings, actually, and roundtables. It was very clear
to me that the stakeholders, the people that were going to run
the system, the people who, in fact, were involved in the
system, were not at the table. They were not consulted, which
concerned me and concerned Mr. Petri, as well.
I thought it was crazy to try and design a multibillion-
dollar system using taxpayers' money without involving those
who, in fact, would operate the system. And, in fact, in one of
our early roundtables, Mr. Petri will recall, I asked one of
the people from the FAA to describe what NextGen was.
Mr. Petri. I very much remember that.
Mr. Costello. In layman's terms. And the individual could
not describe what NextGen was in layman's terms. In fact, he
couldn't describe it at all.
So, we knew we had a problem on our hands at that point.
And we came together and we have held a number of hearings. It
is my hope that in the next Congress, with, I hope, Mr. Petri
as chairman of this subcommittee, that we will hold--you will
hold additional hearings in the future, to make certain that
the stakeholders are involved, everyone is working together.
And we have, in fact, achieved and seen a lot of progress
since those early days. We have come a long way, but we have a
long way to go. And I trust that the subcommittee will stay
actively involved and will provide the oversight that is
necessary.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am yielding back the balance
of my time, looking forward to hearing our witnesses.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Chairman of the full committee, John
Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and Mr. Costello, for your leadership. In fact, we are
going to miss you. We are getting towards the end here of the
Costello regime. But you guys have--both of you provided great
leadership to this committee and to aviation. We wouldn't have
had an FAA reauthorization without your help, even though it
was very difficult to pass that bill and to get the President--
although he did it in the dark of night on February 14th, never
sent me flowers or candy, but we did get the bill done.
And one of the most important components of the FAA
reauthorization which was stalled again--unfortunately, Mr.
Oberstar could not move it when he had the House, the Senate,
and the White House, and before that 4 years on the other side,
17 extensions.
But one of the most important aspects of not passing that
legislation was not having a blueprint, a formal blueprint,
which the FAA authorization provides. And we found in our
review that we needed desperately to have milestones, that we
need to hold people's feet to the fire, put folks in charge.
And we did just that with the bill, and the bill has provided a
framework to move forward. It has been the law since February.
But now we find ourselves looking at the progress that has
been made. Some you might--some of the blame for not moving
forward you might assign to Congress for not having the bill
and the policy in place. But nonetheless, it also requires FAA,
in its management and leadership role, to act and to provide
the administrative and executive leadership to get the--this
important program an advancement, taking us from a ground post-
World War II radar-based system into a satellite 21st-century
system.
Simple thing is--well, let me say two things. One, a few
weeks ago we had some near misses. I guess one was at Reagan.
But we see them--unfortunately, they are all too common
occurrences with aircraft flying close together and near
misses, near misses on the ground. And we have only to realize
that we will be doubling some of the air traffic over the next
couple of decades, and that we will have more planes in the
air, we will have more congestion, and our good fortunes to
date of not having a major incident in which we lose a large
number of lives is--I think that good luck is about running
out.
So, shame on Congress for not having acted earlier, the
administration on not acting earlier. But now we have the
blueprint in place.
The report by the inspector general does highlight, quite
frankly, a lack of leadership combined with a bureaucratic--
just stalemate, as the FAA fails to move forward on some
aspects of getting this new equipment and technology in place.
And it is not acceptable, period.
Now, I know we have got a stalemate in the position of--a
major position of leadership. But that is not an excuse. This
isn't an excuse that Congress hasn't provided. When the policy
or, two, the funding, both are in place--and now what we need
is moving forward and, again, making certain that the hardware,
the software, the systems, and the equipment, and all of the
above, as they are in--as they are developed, that they are
also deployed in an expeditious fashion.
Another point that I want to make here, too--and I will do
everything I can to keep FAA out of the development of the
technology itself--FAA should not be developing this
technology, or step in the way of its development. This we have
seen time and time again, that the private sector does a better
job. So we have got to keep the private sector in the forefront
with somebody making the decisions and meeting the milestones
and, again, the blueprint that has been set out by law.
So, we will hold this hearing, additional hearings, and
hold FAA's feet to the fire. The safety of the flying public,
the future of aviation, relies on this.
And finally, this is a contest in which, right now, we are
maybe slightly a little bit ahead. And it is not because of
what we have done--because we haven't done what we should, and
FAA hasn't provided the leadership--but this is an
international contest to dominate the field of development of
next generation air traffic control technology.
This is a contest. The European Union and others who are
trying to win this contest, only by their even grosser use of
bureaucracy and constraints by bureaucracy, only because they
are worse than we are, we are slightly ahead, in my estimation,
in this process.
But this will determine who controls the market, both
domestically, in changing out the--again, all of the equipment,
the software systems--domestically in the United States, and
long term, the whole world--and that is very important for
jobs, for economic opportunity for the future, and for the
future of aviation in the Nation and the world.
So, this is a critical mission. We are here to--we are
going to hear today from the inspector general on some of the
shortcomings. We need to mark each of these shortcomings and
check them off and not tolerate them as we move forward in this
process. So again, I am--I intend--and I will be here,
unfortunately for some folks--but I will hold people's feet to
the fire--ask Mr. Petri and others on the committee for also
holding FAA's feet to the fire. We are going to get this done,
one way or the other.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Representative Bernice Johnson, Texas.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you for holding this hearing.
With this year's passage of the FAA reauthorization bill,
NextGen modification, modernization, will transform the
national airspace system. Through NextGen satellite-based
traffic management, we will be able to address increased
congestion in our Nation's skies, while improving safety and
reducing environmental footprint of air transport.
Transitioning to the GPS-based air traffic control system
will allow airlines to reduce flight delays, save fuel, and cut
the amount of harmful emissions from aircraft engines. In
addition, the successful implementation of NextGen will boost
our economy and enable the creation of more jobs.
The Dallas Metroplex is a prime example of the significant
growth in the aviation market, and the potential benefits of
NextGen deployment. As with any metroplex, this growth comes
with growing pains. Metroplex sites, by their nature, are
located in busy, metropolitan areas. NextGen's use of
satellite-based technology is developing more efficient and
direct routes in and out of these major airports.
With this efficiency comes with shorter travel times for
passengers, fuel savings for airlines, and decreases in
emissions for the environment. Yet these advances come with a
hefty price tag. By the FAA's estimates, the development of
NextGen will require between $20 billion and $27 billion in
funding from 2012 to 2025. In addition to Federal funding,
private industry is making significant investments in the
development of aircraft upgrades and NextGen-capable avionics.
Both as a member of this committee and as ranking member of
the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, as well as
a conferee on the FAA reauthorization, I recognize making our
skies safer, less congested, and cleaner will require a
substantial investment. We must invest in the future. But we
must invest wisely. I am concerned with the Department of
Transportation inspector general's April 2012 report that the
end route automation modernization program implementation
schedule has slipped by 4 years and over budget by $330
million.
In addition, I understand that although progress is being
made, the agency has had difficulties in developing performance
metrics for NextGen goals.
I want to thank you, Chairman Petri and Ranking Member
Costello, for calling this hearing. And I look forward to the
testimony of the witnesses today. Because I do believe that we
need to implement the NextGen technology.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. And now we turn to our first panel.
And I would like to welcome the Honorable John Porcari, who is
the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation;
Michael P. Huerta, Acting Administrator of the FAA. Welcome
both, to both of you. And our regulars on this panel, the
inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the
Honorable Calvin Scovel, as well as Dr. Gerald Dillingham,
director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government
Accountability Office.
Thank you all for being here. Thank you for--and your
staff, for the effort that went into your prepared statements.
And, as you know, you are invited to summarize them for--in
about 5 minutes for the panel before we turn to questioning.
We will begin with Deputy Secretary Porcari.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN D. PORCARI, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ACTING
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; HON. CALVIN L.
SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; AND GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, PH.D., DIRECTOR,
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE

Mr. Porcari. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Mica,
Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, and members of the
subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here today to talk about
the progress that the Department has made in transforming our
Nation's air transportation system through NextGen.
As you know, we run the largest and safest air
transportation system in the world, and we are recognized as a
global leader in aviation. At the Department of Transportation,
we continually strive to enhance safety.
NextGen is one of the largest infrastructure investments in
the United States today. We are moving from a ground-based
navigation and surveillance of the last century to a satellite-
based system of the 21st century. NextGen is the way of the
future, not just for the United States, but for the world. It
will improve safety, reduce delays, relieve bottlenecks, and
foster the flow of commerce.
Our estimates show that by 2020 NextGen improvements will
reduce delays by 38 percent, as compared to what would happen
if we didn't do anything. Our forecasts show that airline
passenger traffic is expected to nearly double in the next 20
years.
NextGen prepares us to handle this increased demand on our
system. The challenges associated with such a complex
transformation require the right kind of leadership. Acting
Administrator Michael Huerta has done an outstanding job in the
last 2 years, intensifying the focus on NextGen within the FAA
and with our stakeholders. We needed someone who could take the
many technologies of NextGen from concept to reality, and we
needed someone who could forge public-private partnerships.
Michael has done both.
Under his direction and leadership, we have changed the way
we manage large acquisition programs, and we have changed the
NextGen management structure. We are already seeing positive
results. I applaud Michael for his leadership, and I remain
hopeful that the Senate will pass his nomination to lead the
FAA. We need a steady hand, a proven professional at the helm
to steer us through the many technological changes ahead.
Confirming Michael Huerta as the Administrator of the FAA would
allow us to name a Deputy Administrator who would serve as the
chief NextGen officer, continuing the important day-to-day
oversight of NextGen.
We are already seeing real improvements today from NextGen
technology. Satellite-based surveillance in the Gulf of Mexico,
for example, gives more precise images of the airspace where
there is no radar coverage. We worked in collaboration with the
oil and gas industry to place radio transceivers on the oil
rigs in the gulf. And the largest helicopter company operating
in the gulf has equipped its aircraft.
The technology gives pilots much better weather information
at lower altitudes, where they operate, which enhances safety.
It allows us to increase the number of aircraft flying in the
gulf during low visibility conditions, because we know exactly
where each aircraft is located. Equipped helicopters in the
gulf save up to 10 minutes and 100 pounds per fuel per flight
because of the greater efficiency, and they do that in greater
safety. That is just one example.
The FAA has also partnered with JetBlue to equip some of
its aircraft to take advantage of more direct NextGen routes
from Boston and New York down to Florida and the Caribbean.
These routes are like HOV lanes that bypass the congestion.
You may have noticed that these examples share something in
common. They reflect our commitment to creating public-private
partnerships. The Department cannot implement NextGen alone. We
are collaborating with industry to discuss the best way to go
about this major transformation of our air traffic control
system, and what actions we need to take first to produce the
best results. We are working hand in hand with all of our
aviation stakeholders. This communication is critical because
it helps us align our work with what will produce the best
results for the traveling public now.
As this committee well knows, civil aviation is vital to
our economy. It contributes 10 million jobs and $1.3 trillion
annually to our Nation's economy. NextGen will help make sure
these contributions continue for years to come.
I will stop here and allow Michael to give you more
details. Thank you for your support of America's aviation
system, and for keeping this economic engine running at full
throttle.
Mr. Petri. Administrator Huerta, go ahead.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman
Mica, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, and members of
the subcommittee.
As you just heard from Deputy Secretary Porcari, NextGen is
happening now. It is not something we are doing alone. It is a
public-private partnership that will enhance the safety of our
aviation system, and lay the groundwork for the United States
to continue to operate the safest aviation system in the world.
I have made it a priority to step up our collaboration with
our stakeholders externally to increase the focus on NextGen,
and to bring benefits to the traveling public now. The FAA has
a long history of engaging with industry to develop consensus
around policy, programs, and regulatory decisions. We have
worked closely with our industry partners such as RTCA, and
have incorporated important advice from that organization in
our NextGen planning.
We have also established a broad-based panel, the NextGen
Avisory Committee, to provide guidance and recommendations on
how to equip for NextGen, and how to measure our success. We
value the advice of the Joint Planning and Development Office,
which handles interagency coordination and long-term planning
for NextGen. And we work with the experts at the Institute
Management Council, which oversees the NextGen Institute. As
always, we work with airlines that are enthusiastic about our
pilot programs, and help us to gain valuable NextGen data.
Let me share a few examples of our partnerships for NextGen
and the progress that we are making around the country. In
Seattle, Washington, as part of the Greener Skies initiative,
we are partnering with Alaska Airlines, the Port of Seattle,
and the Boeing Company. We have created new NextGen approaches
for airlines flying into Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
These flight tracks are shorter. They are more fuel-efficient,
and more environmentally friendly. That is a lot of hard work
by all of our partners.
And, thanks to that, we reached a milestone this summer.
For the first time, Alaska Airlines is flying customers into
Sea-Tac using these new NextGen approaches. In fact, these
procedures will help all equipped airlines flying into Sea-Tac
to significantly cut total fuel consumption annually, reduce
carbon emissions, and deliver other important benefits.
And in addition to our partnerships, we have also taken
steps to change the way we do business and improve the
efficiency of our internal workflow. The results are apparent
in our work, tackling the problem of congested airspace over
busy metropolitan areas around the country.
The old way of doing businesses was to improve air traffic
procedures at one airport, separate from all the others. But we
are now taking a different approach. We are looking at metro
areas as a whole, and bringing all the stakeholders to the
table: airports, airlines, our air traffic controllers, and
Federal agencies. We are working together to improve air
traffic flow around all the airports in a metroplex. We are
creating new and more direct routes that will relieve
congestion and improve safety and efficiency.
By changing the way we approach the problem, we are
improving our airspace in 3 years. And under the old way of
doing business, these changes would have taken 5 to 10 years.
We are seeing great progress in Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte,
California, north Texas, and right here in Metropolitan
Washington, DC. And more regions will follow.
We have learned lessons from the past regarding our large
acquisition programs, and we have developed best practices,
moving forward. We have elevated and strengthened our NextGen
organization, and we have created a new program management
organization specifically focused on implementing major
technology programs, such as ERAM, which is our En Route
Automation Modernization program. This will strengthen and
improve the coordination among NextGen initiatives, ushering
them from the drawing board to live operation.
This new approach, as well as our improved working
relationship with our unions, is already showing results. ERAM
already is operating at nine en route centers around the
country. We plan to use it at a total of 20 centers. And now,
five centers are using ERAM as the primary technology to direct
air traffic. This sets the stage for taking advantage of more
NextGen capabilities throughout the air traffic control system.
This is truly an exciting time in aviation history. NextGen
is fundamental to ensuring that we continue to operate the
world's safest air transportation system for many years to
come. It will allow us to deliver more on-time and more fuel-
efficient flights. It is a better way of doing business for the
FAA, the airlines, the airports, and the traveling public.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
you today. This concludes my testimony, and I am happy to take
any questions you might have.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
General Scovel?
Mr. Scovel. Chairman Mica, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member
Costello, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me to testify on FAA's progress in developing NextGen. Since
FAA launched this complex program almost 9 years ago, we have
reported on cost and schedule risks, as well as challenges that
FAA must address to deliver NextGen benefits.
FAA has been responsive to our recommendations, and has
taken important steps toward moving NextGen forward, such as
establishing a new program management office. However,
transitioning from planning to benefits delivered continues to
challenge the agency. Today I will focus on three key
challenges FAA faces.
The first challenges concerns FAA's Metroplex initiative,
an effort to improve the flow of air traffic in major
metropolitan areas and reduce delays. FAA has made important
progress by aligning budgets and plans, completing airspace and
procedure studies, and performing design work at several
locations. Despite this progress, the expected completion date
is September 2017, 15 months later than initial plans.
Industry representatives are concerned that Metroplex may
not deliver all desired benefits, nor adequately integrate
other critical capabilities. Of particular concern are delays
in implementing DataComm, a capability industry considers key
to more precisely manage aircraft for improved fuel consumption
and operating costs. Additionally, FAA's Metroplex effort faces
barriers such as working across diverse agency offices,
improving implementation of new flight procedures, and training
of controllers on advance capabilities.
The second challenge relates to the deployment of ERAM,
FAA's flight data processing program for high-altitude
operations. FAA has installed ERAM at nine sites, a significant
step forward, since testing at the two initial sites revealed
many software problems associated with safely managing
aircraft. FAA's progress is largely due to senior leadership's
sustained commitment to resolve problems and improve risk
management. Still, controllers, technicians, and users familiar
with ERAM have reported an excess of 900 new high-priority
software issues, delaying ERAM's nationwide deployment, and
resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in increased
costs.
Problems with ERAM exposed fundamental weaknesses in
program management and contract oversight. For example, ERAM's
cost incentive fee did not motivate the contractor to stay
below cost targets, because FAA simply increased the targets as
requirements grew. Consequently, FAA paid the contractor $150
million in incentives, even though ERAM costs exceeded the
budget by at least $330 million.
In response to our findings, FAA modified the ERAM contract
to better align incentives to performance targets. FAA is also
taking steps to address other programmatic and contract
management issues we have identified, including modifying its
contract to better track costs. However, unresolved technical
and programmatic problems with ERAM continue to affect the cost
and schedule of NextGen.
The third challenge relates to the development of NextGen's
six transformational programs, which FAA expects will cost $2.4
billion over the next 5 years. Three programs in particular,
ADS-B, SWIM, and DataComm, will provide critical technologies
for NextGen, and allow for efficient data sharing among
airspace users and better management of air traffic. To date,
FAA has yet to develop total cost, schedule, and performance
baselines for the six programs.
For example, to realize ADS-B's full range of benefits, FAA
must finalize requirements for displaying traffic information
in the cockpit. It must also modify the systems that
controllers rely on to manage traffic, reduce radio frequency
congestion, implement procedures for separating aircraft, and
assess security vulnerabilities.
FAA also lacks an integrated master schedule to mitigate
operational, technical, and programmatic risks. Dividing larger
programs into smaller, more manageable segments, as FAA has
done for ADS-B, SWIM, and DataComm can reduce some risks.
However, as requirements continue to evolve, programs are left
with no clear end state, and decisionmakers lack sufficient
information to assess progress. Also, delays with one program
can significantly slow another, since the programs have complex
interdependencies with each other and with other FAA systems.
FAA is now developing an integrated schedule. But to fully
populate it, the agency must identify required data such as key
system dependencies.
FAA's recent actions to reorganize its NextGen efforts
demonstrate its commitment to improve the management of NextGen
and its major acquisitions. These efforts are in the early
stages, and will focus on improving airspace efficiency at
congested airports, resolving problems with ERAM, and
addressing uncertainties in NextGen's transformational
programs. These challenges are significant, and we will
continue to monitor the results of FAA's organizational
changes.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy
to answer any questions you or other members of the committee
may have.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Dr. Dillingham.
Dr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Costello, Chairman Mica, Mr. Duncan, and other members of the
subcommittee. GAO has been monitoring the transition to NextGen
for this subcommittee since planning for the initiative began
in 2003. We have made numerous recommendations to FAA to
address delays in NextGen's development and acquisitions,
improve business processes, and focus on accountability and
performance.
Over the last 2 years, FAA has taken several steps,
instituted many changes, and implemented several of our
recommendations to address these issues. While initial planning
focused on having NextGen in place by 2025, more recently FAA
has emphasized improvements that can be implemented through the
mid-term, which the agency now defines as through 2020.
Our work indicates that FAA views this emphasis as a means
to respond to industry skepticism about its ability to
implement NextGen, to build support for long-term NextGen
investments, and to more quickly address existing
inefficiencies and delays in the national airspace system.
Overall, FAA is making progress in implementing NextGen.
However, our work also shows that stakeholders are concerned
about the pace of implementation and, in some cases, about the
extent to which the full benefits of NextGen will be realized.
My written statement highlights five challenges, in
addition to what the DOT IG just explained, with regard to
implementing the NextGen, and the actions FAA has taken to
address these challenges.
The five challenge areas that we include: one, delivering
and demonstrating NextGen's near-term benefits for
stakeholders; two, encouraging operators to equip with NextGen
technologies; three, keeping key systems acquisitions on budget
and on schedule; four, clearly defining the NextGen leadership
roles and responsibilities for both internal and external
stakeholders; and finally, balancing the priorities of the
current air traffic control system through the transition to
NextGen.
In light of the Federal budget environment, this balancing
is particularly important to ensuring NextGen's implementation
stays on course, while also sustaining the current air traffic
system, a system that will be core of the national airspace
system for several years to come.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Costello, and members of the
subcommittee, while NextGen is certainly critical to
modernizing the current system, increased efficiencies from
NextGen improvements alone may not be sufficient to meet
projected increases in demand for aviation system capacity.
FAA's modeling indicates that even if all NextGen technologies
are implemented, some of the 35 busiest airports in the Nation
may not be able to handle the forecasted increase in air
traffic. If these projections are accurate, additional
capacity, including the construction of additional runways,
taxiways, and terminal gates will also be needed. Making
infrastructure improvements can be a very costly and lengthy
process, requiring substantial planning and analysis before
they can be implemented.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my prepared
statement.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Thank you all for your statements.
And I would like to begin questioning by asking Mr. Porcari or
Mr. Huerta if you have any comments or reactions to the--
General Scovel or Mr. Dillingham's statements that were made.
Mr. Porcari. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In both cases, the
reports have been very helpful in helping us structure steps
forward. We appreciate the fact that they recognize the steps
that have been taken on NextGen implementation. This is a
system of systems, so it is very complex in its implementation.
But in every case, we have tried to increase the collaboration
with industry, with our partners across the industry spectrum
to actually get this technology out there, and get these
procedures out there and usable as quickly as possible.
We do recognize this is a U.S. technological leadership
issue that is very important.
Mr. Huerta. Just to add to that, Mr. Chairman, as the
Deputy Secretary said, we have had a lot of discussions with
the IG and with GAO on the oversight and management of the
program. But I think one thing that I want to stress is the
management changes that we have made, and the focus on near-
term benefit has been just that. It has been what can we do to
ensure that, as we make investments, and as our industry
partners make investments, and as we collaborate with the
workforce that makes all this happen, how do we ensure that, as
we make these investments, we are matching benefits so that the
users of the system are seeing benefits as these investments
move forward.
That is extremely important, and that is what our
initiatives such as Metroplex are all about. How do we make
sure that users are actually getting benefits now, in things
like fuel burn, reduced emissions, reduced cost? And this
benefits not only the air carriers, but also the general
aviation community, the business aviation community. Everyone
benefits from greater efficiency of the use of the national
airspace system.
We want to assure that our system continues to be the
safest in the world, and also the most efficient in the world.
Mr. Petri. Well, I know it is a complicated process, and
you have to sort of break it down into pieces, and it involves
redoing training manuals and procedures and airlines retraining
personnel, and all the rest of it, and coordinating into
actually get things done. And trying to coordinate that with
investments and new equipment schedules is a perilous process
sometimes.
But Mr. Porcari, you have mentioned several times, and we
have known the United States has, we think, generally led the
world in aviation since the Wright Brothers. And it has been a
great asset for the United States, and I think a benefit for
the world. Can you discuss some of the implications of what we
call NextGen for that leadership, and why it makes a difference
beyond, you know, cheering for the good old USA?
Mr. Porcari. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
question. As you point out, the U.S. has led the world in
aviation since the Wright Brothers. NextGen, in particular,
because it really is the future of aviation in many ways, is a
great opportunity.
While we are collaborating, for example, with the European
Union on technological standards for SESAR, their equivalent of
this, that has been primarily a planning exercise to date. What
we have really focused on, and what Acting Administrator Huerta
and the NextGen implementation team have really worked on, is
operational benefits now. And we have done that in a way that
has been a collaboration with industry.
As Michael pointed out, we have worked hard to bring our
workforce into this, something that was not done in the
beginning of this program. I think we all understand we would
have benefitted from greater collaboration. But we see this
today and into the future as an opportunity for the United
States, worldwide.
I mentioned before the $1.3 trillion per year economic
impact of the overall industry, both from an export perspective
and certainly for future domestic growth. It is something that
we see as a core part of our mission. Transportation is also
economic development. This is one of the ways that we make the
foundational investments for a better future in America.
NextGen, as one of the largest infrastructure investments that
we are making as a Nation, is one of our primary tools for
doing that.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Costello?
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Dr. Dillingham, when
you concluded your testimony you made the statement that
NextGen may not be able to handle traffic at the busiest
airports in the United States. I wonder if you might elaborate
on that and, one, why you believe that, and, number two, what
needs to be done to address that issue.
Dr. Dillingham. Yes, sir. I was referring to the fact that,
based on FAA's forecast of traffic and the current airport
capacity, we are still going to have congestion at those
airports. The technology of NextGen will help us move planes
from place to place and, in some ways, also help manage traffic
on the ground.
But if the forecasts come true, we are clearly going to
need additional runways and taxiways in order to accommodate
that demand. Otherwise, we are going to see the levels of
congestion that generated the need for a NextGen.
Mr. Costello. So it is a funding issue. In order to make
those improvements, you are dealing with the passenger facility
charge and the airport improvement program. Is that correct?
Dr. Dillingham. Clearly, it is a funding issue. But it is
also a planning issue. I think one of the big obstacles to
infrastructure construction oftentimes, is not bringing in all
of the stakeholders early on; particularly the communities,
with regard to environmental issues, noise, and emissions. So
it is money, as well as stakeholder involvement and some of the
other issues.
Mr. Costello. I know that you are aware that in the bill
that the House passed in 2007 and again in 2009, we attempted
to--in fact we did, in that bill--increase the passenger
facility charge. In other words, take the cap off at $4.50 and
take it up to $7, and increase the AIP fund, where, in fact,
the law that--the bill that was passed and the President signed
into law, of course, keeps the cap on the PFC fund at $4.50 and
actually reduces funding for the AIP program. So that is a
challenge that we are going to have to deal with in the future.
Let me move on to the next question. You have talked about
progress has been made on planning and implementation of
NextGen. Give some concrete examples as to the progress that
has been made in the planning and implementation.
Dr. Dillingham. Yes, sir. I will start with what has been
mentioned a couple of times this morning. That is back when FAA
contracted with RTCA to bring all the stakeholders together in
one room. That was one of the seminal events where everybody
came together and agreed on how to move forward, which was a
unique situation. From that, FAA has, as mentioned earlier,
identified and prioritized metroplexes to start on integrated
implementation of NextGen.
We have seen demonstrations at various airports around the
country with savings in fuel and lessening of emissions. Those
kinds of things, from our perspective, build credibility for
FAA, in terms of the airlines' willingness to put forth the
money to equip, or at least stay in the game until these
benefits can be seen and, therefore, they are more likely to
equip moving forward.
We have recently seen a reorganization in FAA for more
accountability and oversight which also came out of the bill.
The reorganization is new at this point, so we don't know how
it will play out. We have seen reorganizations before that
didn't yield all the things we thought it would. But I think
those are some examples of what we mean when we say progress is
being made, although not as fast as any of us might have wanted
or expected. But as has been said this morning, it is very
complex, and one of the biggest things the U.S. is doing at
this point in time.
Mr. Costello. In addition to monitoring the implementation
of NextGen here in the United States, this subcommittee has
asked you to monitor what they are doing in Europe, as well, as
far as progress that is being made to improve their air traffic
control system. I wonder if you might give us an update as to
where Europe is, versus the United States.
Dr. Dillingham. Yes, sir. I think Chairman Mica probably
captured it when he said we are ahead, but just by a little
bit. There is a lot of cooperation, and some competition,
between the U.S. and Europe. I think what is important is that
this effort could go off track at any point in time. If we fall
behind in implementing NextGen, and they keep moving ahead, we
could, in fact, find ourselves in a different position.
On the other side, they have to deal with multiple nation
states to get permission to do the kinds of things that we do
here, since we have one system. At this time, in small measure,
the U.S. is in the lead.
Mr. Costello. Final question--Chairman, you have been
generous with my time--Secretary Porcari, it wasn't too long
ago that we had David Grizzle, who heads up, of course, the
ATC--or ATO organization at the FAA. And I asked about 2 months
ago, when he testified before the subcommittee, I asked him how
sequestration would affect the FAA. And he said that he would
get back with us, that there were no specific hard numbers.
So you have had plenty of time, and hopefully your agency
is planning both for--if sequestration happens or if it doesn't
happen. And I think it is in the interest of everyone here--
people, regardless if they support sequestration or they are
opposed to it, they should know what is going to happen. So,
what will happen if sequestration, in fact, goes forward? What
happens to the FAA, as far as funding is concerned? And
specifically, what happens to progress that has been made with
NextGen?
Mr. Porcari. Under sequestration we would face some very
drastic service cuts, which is why we would all urge Congress
to act quickly to avert those sweeping cuts.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Secretary, we heard that from David
Grizzle. What I am asking you specifically is to give me some
figures. You obviously know. You have had to plan for
sequestration. So, if sequestration goes forward, is it $1
billion out of the FAA budget? And, if so, one, what is the
figure, and how will it affect, dollar-wise, NextGen?
Mr. Porcari. If I can start with the impact part of it,
first, our primary objective would be to make sure it does not
impact safety. Safety activities excepted, we know it will have
impacts on air traffic control services, NextGen
implementation, which will be slowed down, and aircraft
certification for manufacturers, among other activities.
The cuts are estimated by the Congressional Budget Office
at 7.8 percent for the nondefense agencies. What I would
emphasize there is that if this happens in January, we are
already a quarter of the way through the fiscal year. So the
impact would be greater, because it is not spread over an
entire fiscal year, three-quarters of one, instead.
We are working closely with the Office of Management and
Budget through their guidance on specific impacts. I know that
OMB has indicated that later this week, most likely, there will
be a report to Congress with more specifics.
Mr. Costello. You are aware that the Aerospace Industries
Association took a look at one of two possible scenarios under
sequestration, and they said that full NextGen implementation
could be delayed until 2035 or beyond, resulting in 1.3 million
job losses and annual reductions in economic activity growing
from $40 billion in 2020 to $80 billion in 2035. You have any
reason to doubt those figures released by AIA.
Mr. Porcari. We have seen the Aerospace Industry
Association figures. They are based on very specific
assumptions, as are some of the other studies that are out
there on potential sequestration impacts. Depending on what
assumptions you make, those will obviously drive the
conclusions on the impact of service.
We appreciate the work they have done, but we don't have
any specific comment on that or other studies, because they are
all based on individual assumptions which may or may not play
out under a sequestration scenario.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Chairman Mica.
Mr. Mica. OK. Inspector General and Mr. Dillingham, you
both did some reviews here. What period of time did you cover
in your review, Inspector General?
Mr. Scovel. Chairman Mica, we have covered the last several
years, both with regard to ERAM----
Mr. Mica. OK. Would--but did you include the post-period
after February 14th, when we signed the new legislation, or is
most of this before that?
Mr. Scovel. Much of it is before that, sir. We do have
updates with regard to specific programs and FAA initiatives
post-February.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Dillingham?
Dr. Dillingham. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Most of our work
preceded the February 14th date, but we also updated the work
where we could in the time allowed.
Mr. Mica. The reason I ask is we put some pretty specific
parameters in law, again trying to deal with some of the
problems that had been disclosed before in management
oversight, milestones, leadership.
Secretary Porcari--well, we have got an Acting
Administrator. If I was going to say somebody in charge is
supposed to be--I guess the Deputy, is that Mr.--is that right,
Mr. Huerta, of a Deputy Administrator?
Mr. Porcari. Yes. The Deputy Administrator position----
Mr. Mica. Right.
Mr. Porcari [continuing]. Is the chief NextGen----
Mr. Mica. Right.
Mr. Porcari [continuing]. Officer. So----
Mr. Mica. But Huerta is acting, and then the deputy is
acting, right?
Mr. Porcari. Michael is a two-hatter at this point. He is
Acting Administrator. Until confirmed, if he is confirmed as
Administrator, we cannot fill the Deputy position. So he has
two day jobs right now.
Mr. Mica. But basically, then, if I have to look at
somebody and say who is in charge under the new law, then we
have to say the Acting Administrator.
And are you lacking anything in direction from the law, or
you see some difficulty in implementation? Or--I mean we passed
that 6 months ago. Is there something missing? Do you have the
tools to do the job? And is the guideline specific enough that
we provided?
Mr. Huerta. Mr. Chairman, we very much appreciate the
support and guidance that has been provided by the committee.
And as----
Mr. Mica. No, but the law.
Mr. Huerta. I will come back to exactly what we are doing.
The law provides for us to establish roles and functions
within the NextGen organization, which we have done, and the
Joint Planning and Development Office, which we have done.
Mr. Mica. Right.
Mr. Huerta. Both of those organizations report to the chief
NextGen officer. Our concept----
Mr. Mica. But that is you.
Mr. Huerta. Which is me.
Mr. Mica. OK. Have you delegated that?
Mr. Huerta. I have delegated the role of chief NextGen
officer, on an interim basis, to Vicki Cox, who is the head of
our NextGen organization. But I stay very personally involved
in it.
Mr. Mica. And that is adequate? You are able to now
identify who is in charge and move forward, and you don't see--
what I am--I want to know if what we did is adequate. Do you
have the legislative tools and direction? Yes? No?
Mr. Huerta. Yes, that is correct, I would love to have a
deputy.
Mr. Mica. OK. Well, that I can't change. But again, we have
got to make certain.
Now, the other thing, too, is we took the head of the JPDO
and we raised it to an--raised it to, what, Associate
Administrator position. Has that been done?
Mr. Huerta. It hasn't been done----
Mr. Mica. Why not, Porcari?
Mr. Porcari. First, going back to Michael's comment, there
is a chain of command issue here. Having an Administrator----
Mr. Mica. I know, but one of the things we directed in law
was to elevate that position. We have--OK, we give you
February, March, April, May, June, July, August. We are into
September. When will we see that position elevated and filled?
Mr. Porcari. The filling of the position is not in any way
holding up NextGen implementation, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. No, but what I want--you know, I just come from a
business background. I don't have a lot of experience, no
Harvard Ph.D. in business or anything, but you got to have
somebody in charge. That is what we identified as part of the
problem, OK? So I want identifiable people in place, the
positions, and what the law provided for, and then people doing
their jobs getting this in order.
Now, they said it wasn't--we said it wasn't money, but some
said it may be money. OK. Now who is in charge for a 3\1/2\
to--well, almost a half-a-billion dollar overrun in the ERAM,
and a 3--the ERAM, isn't that the--one of the key components to
the whole program, guys? Yes? Yes?
Mr. Porcari. It is.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Mr. Porcari. It is a foundational technology----
Mr. Mica. It is 3\1/2\ to 4 years late. Now that is post.
And it is--I have $330 million to half-a-billion dollars in
overruns. Did you pinpoint responsibility for that, gentlemen?
Mr. IG? It is not a small amount, and it is not a small
component to getting this whole thing in place.
Mr. Scovel. It is not a small amount. And you are
absolutely right, Chairman Mica. The problems with ERAM began
with the design of the contract, and persisted all the way
through development and implementation.
Mr. Mica. Which was developed by FAA----
Mr. Scovel. By FAA. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. And implemented by the contractor in
changes, et cetera.
Mr. Scovel. Right.
Mr. Mica. Now, somehow, whoever is in charge and the people
that are in charge, we have got to make some progress, and keep
the cost under control. If you work for me and you had a $330
million or a half-a-billion dollar cost overrun and a 4--I give
you a 3- to 4-year delay, your butt would be fired. OK? So that
is not acceptable.
And what we have got to do, we learn from the past. We have
got to have--I have got to have the pattern that we set in
place by law executed, and then we have got to have somebody in
charge and managing the contract and getting it implemented. Is
that the identifiable problem, Mr. Scovel, Mr. Dillingham?
Mr. Scovel. That is it.
Dr. Dillingham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK. OK. Mr. Dillingham, don't want to put any
words in your mouth.
Two quick things before I go--I won't be gone permanently,
unfortunately.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mica. Talked to manufacturers. Now, we need to move
some people around somewhere in FAA on certification for
manufacturing of equipment. Some regions, it appears, or
offices, they can get it done faster. Others are sitting on it.
We are losing a competitive advantage in manufacturing and
opportunities for putting people to work and capturing markets.
The longer that delays--now, don't tell me it is a
personnel problem, because the personnel are out there, and
some can do it. If we have to move people around, somebody has
got to have a plan. Come back to the committee with a plan so
that manufacturing certification can be accomplished, and that
we--and I know there are positions that can be moved around or
personnel that can be made available to accomplish those goals.
Or, at least some standardization in the process, so one place
has some ding dong requirements and keeping things at bay. Can
you do that for us, Mr. Huerta?
And then, one of the other things, I want you to come back.
We had talked before about working conditions for air traffic
controllers, which is a concern. Some of them are working in
dumps. And some of them are working in conditions that are not
conducive to doing a good job or being on the job alert, awake,
and all of that. And we had started talking about this with
your predecessor, and now I want to see a plan to start
implementing it.
So, they are our key, because this air traffic control
system of Next Generation won't be around for a little while,
so we have to rely on the men and women that are actually doing
the job, and making certain they are capable of doing the job,
working in an atmosphere that is conducive to accomplishing
that simple goal. So, can you get back to us on that?
Mr. Huerta. Certainly.
Mr. Mica. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just a
general note before I begin specific questions, but I would
note that there were two iterations of an FAA reauthorization:
one that was written on our side of the aisle, which would have
increased AIP and would have allowed an increase in PFCs, which
would have dealt with some of the issues that Dr. Dillingham is
talking about here and some of the issues just raised by the
chairman in terms of staffing and these programs. And, of
course, AIP was cut and PFC was capped in the legislation that
ultimately passed. So we have created some problems there. I
don't think the resources are adequate, but let me go to some
other issues.
Dr. Dillingham, is there going to be a guarantee of
interoperability between whatever it is the EEU is doing and
whatever it is we are doing? I have sat in hearings for 26
years on NextGen. I still don't know what it is, what it is
going to cost, when or how we are going to deploy it, but is
whatever it is we are going to do going to be compatible with
whatever it is they are going to do?
Dr. Dillingham. Mr. DeFazio, that's the plan. That's the
activity and action that's taken place to make sure that it is,
in fact, going to be interoperable. Because, as you know,
aviation is a global undertaking at this point in time. And FAA
is working very cooperatively and collaboratively with SESAR to
make sure that it happens.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. So say they aren't a bit dismayed at some
of the problems we're having, like with the ERAM or that? I
mean how does that--you know?
Dr. Dillingham. I am sure they are dismayed, but they have
problems of their own as well, Mr. DeFazio. They aren't at the
same place we are with regard to actually implementing some of
the technology. They're still planning and designing those
kinds of things. But, again, they have a very complex system
and there's a lot of cooperation going on. So I think from our
work, they understand the situation that occurs. Also, you
think you can do something quicker than you can do it,
particularly when it involves new technology, new procedures,
and all of the other things that are associated with such a
major project.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. But I have got to reflect that I think
it's outrageous that the contractor is still getting cost
incentives when they are at 100 percent over budget and 4 years
behind schedule. How do we explain that? Who would like to
explain that? Why are they still getting cost incentives? They
should be getting a whack on the top of the head.
Mr. Rinaldi. Mr. DeFazio, we have restructured the
contract.
Mr. DeFazio. Restructured in causing them some pain?
Mr. Rinaldi. I think that we have got their attention and
they are very focused in working with us. And, as I mentioned,
we do have ERAM at a point now where I am feeling that we are
well on our way toward final deployment there.
Mr. DeFazio. What's the 900 urgent software glitches
identified by air traffic controllers and others that are kind
of problematic? Where we have got the plane with the wrong
route and wrong number? And we don't really know who it is
where?
Mr. Rinaldi. It is certainly not of that magnitude. ERAM is
actually our primary technology that is in use at two of our
air traffic control centers; well, actually at five in
continuous operations where we have decommissioned the system
at two of those with a plan to get it out to all 20.
Mr. DeFazio. And these urgent software fixes do not apply
to those fully operational airports?
Mr. Rinaldi. In any operational system deployment you have
software issues and the important thing to focus on is their
relative priority and how quickly you can get those resolved.
We do that collaboratively with the workforce.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Well, we will hear from a practitioner
from the workforce later; and, if you will, they think it is
more serious. I just said this is, you know, 26 years. It has
been a long haul. I have been on this committee 26 years and I
have seen many reports from Mr. Scovel and Dr. Dillingham about
NextGen, but even before that, you know. We began these
discussions my first term in Congress. And I guess this leads
me, Mr. Porcari, to a question I opposed previously, and this
is not directed personally of you. But, why is it that the only
agency of the Government of the United States of America than
is worse than acquisitions than the Pentagon, who's famous for
massive waste and cost overruns, is the FAA? I mean what is
wrong with your procurement process, and how are we going to
fix it?
Mr. Porcari. As you have heard, Mr. DeFazio, in retrospect,
the ERAM contract would have been and should have been
structured differently. I will tell you that we got the
contractor's attention at the CEO level to get the changes that
we needed done quickly. The profile of the kind of work that
the FAA does is very high-risk, sometimes at the technological
leading edge, sometimes the bleeding edge. It is that kind of
project, more likely--especially when it's as complex as
NextGen is--to have setbacks and delays.
When you take the six, separate, foundational technologies
that constitute NextGen in the interplay and interaction
between them, it gets an order of magnitude more complex. That
is not an excuse, but what it puts a premium on is better
project management skills and understanding the risks from the
beginning, and we're very much focused on that.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, just one other quick question. I read
something yesterday about potentially using the iridium system
for the data management and maybe being able to move along more
quickly by contracting with them. Is that something under
active discussion?
Mr. Huerta. Mr. DeFazio, it is under active discussion. At
this point, what we're trying to get is a better understanding
of the relative cost of investing in the iridium. Iridium is a
space-based ADS-B technology which would supplement investments
that are already being made in ground-based ADS-B. We want to
ensure, before we make any decision with respect to funding or
contracting, that there is a valid benefit case to be made,
that this technology provides us something that we wouldn't
otherwise get and that it merits the investment that would be
required. But we are looking at it.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. And, Mr. Ribble?
Mr. Ribble. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
Chairman, I have some information regarding ADS-B that I would
like to submit for the hearing record, and ask unanimous
consent to do so.
Mr. Petri. Without objection.
Mr. Ribble. Yeah. Thank you. Well, I appreciated my friend
Mr. DeFazio's questioning. I've only been here 2 years, and
I've got to tell you I'm struck by the whole NextGen--I want to
call it debacle, but maybe it's not a debacle, but it feels
like it when I listen to your comments. And I guess I'll start
with Dr. Dillingham. In your opinion, has the FAA ever suffered
from lack of funding for NextGen? Because I'm beginning to
sense it's not NextGen. It's NextNextGen, or NextNextNextGen by
the time we get this done.
Dr. Dillingham. We have not seen any evidence where a lack
of funding has been a major contributing factor to the issues
that we've seen with regard to NextGen. Similarly, we have not
seen a situation where the availability of technology,
specifically, has been a major contributing factor.
Mr. Ribble. OK. Do you believe that there are stakeholders
that aren't committed to NextGen?
Dr. Dillingham. Our work shows that stakeholders are
guardedly optimistic of NextGen's progress. Stakeholders that
we talked to would like to see some evidence of benefits.
They'd like to see a small victory with regard to NextGen
implementation to build their confidence in FAA's ability to
come through with the larger investment. The airlines can take
that business case showing the return on investment to their
management. At this point, stakeholders are guardedly
optimistic, as best I can tell. Stakeholders have been in the
same room, and have said if FAA does these things, if FAA
provides these near-term benefits, then stakeholders will be on
board.
Mr. Ribble. Gen. Scovel, do you agree with that assessment
on stakeholders? The fact is I hear a lot of cynicism from
stakeholders. They don't think it is going to get done.
Mr. Scovel. There is a lot of concern, Mr. Ribble. FAA's
effort to advance the Metroplex project is key to this because
as a result of the RTCA task force recommendations, FAA moved
out to try to drop portfolios of initiatives on specific
locations. A key problem with many of the users is FAA's
misplaced focus, as they would characterize it, on a certain
type of instrument flight procedure improvement that provides
very limited benefit. Some are equipped to take advantage of
more advanced procedures.
Others are not, and that's the specific rub. As you'll
probably hear from the next panel, some users are very much
cheerleaders for FAA to move ahead as quickly as possible with
advanced procedures to embed those and train the air traffic
controllers. Others, who haven't yet made the investment, may
candidly tell you that they're kind of happy with the status
quo. So it's somewhat of a mixed bag. Conceptually, they are
all in favor of NextGen, big picture; but, where are we today?
What's the return on investment? How much money have we already
put into systems aboard aircraft? That's a different kind of
picture.
Mr. Ribble. Yeah. Secretary Porcari--and I am just curious.
I think it was back in 1961 when President Kennedy challenged
NASA, prior to manned space flight, to have someone on the Moon
within the next decade. And they were able to accomplish what
seems to me, looking at it through a historical prism, an
extraordinary feat within 9 years. Was this harder than that?
Mr. Porcari. This is not harder than that. That was
certainly an extraordinary feat, and as you're a student of
that, I'm sure you know that there were numerous setbacks along
the way. There was concurrent development of numerous
technologies that ultimately had to work together in
synchronicity. It didn't happen without setbacks.
We can certainly, as Americans, accomplish anything we put
our minds to. We view NextGen as one of the most important
infrastructure investments that we need to make as a Nation,
and, as you have heard before, as an element of U.S.
technological leadership nationwide. So we take it very
seriously. We appreciate the support that Congress has shown
for NextGen. We are starting to see, and it's easier on the
inside, sometimes, to see the progress that is being made in
operationally deploying usable parts of this that are making a
meaningful difference, in terms of completing flights in bad
weather, greater capacity, greater safety, and those benefits
will start to compound as well.
Mr. Ribble. OK. Thank you, the panel, for being here today.
This has been helpful for me. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Rep. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I would like to
thank the panel. Several of you have been to Memphis and I
appreciate your courtesies and service to our country.
One issue--and I think Federal Express has been a leader in
working on NextGen, and, of course, Federal Express is a leader
in all things. In aviation, in package delivery, in sports, and
every other way. Having made a comment, a word from our
sponsor, but let me ask.
I think probably Mr. Huerta might be the correct person to
ask. I asked you, I think, in Memphis about the proposed rule
that you all have about structures around airports. And, of
course, Memphis is one of the cities that helps to become and
is becoming, or some would say is becoming an metropolis, and
is a major economic engine for us. And so limitations on the
size of structures around the airport can be limiting in terms
of economic development. What is the status of that particular
rule about safety, aircraft and height of buildings around
there, and is there going to be comment periods and rigorous
cost to evaluation examination?
Mr. Huerta. Sure. Mr. Cohen, I will need to get back to you
with a specific timetable and steps going forward; but, in
general, the issue is that we need to find the appropriate
balance for the areas around airports. We need to plan, not
only for what are the routine flight paths that everyone takes
in and out of an airport, but also how can we ensure that,
should a mishap occur and an aircraft has a missed approach;
or, something that would be more dangerous, that they have time
to recover. We need to ensure that there are not hazards in the
way that would preclude their ability to recover.
Finding that balance is extremely important. That is
something that we have to do in a very thoughtful way for the
reasons that you talked about. The interests of the airport's
ability to operate, which represents one economic engine and
one economic benefit, versus surrounding property owners who
are located near the airport for the obvious reason that they
want to take advantage of that proximity. But, it's something
that we're looking at very carefully, and we'll get back to you
with more detail on what the next steps are forward.
Mr. Cohen. I appreciate it, and I understand safety is the
utmost concern, but it needs to be balanced in terms of you can
still have safety and have the economic development. We have
great hopes for economic expansion around the airport area.
Because of Federal Express, so many people have wisely brought
their distribution centers to Memphis.
More companies should be thinking about bringing their
distribution centers to Memphis, because it's so easy from
there, because of rails, runway, roads, and river, to move
their product all over the world. In fact, probably, the
Department of Defense should probably plan on moving its
operations entirely to Memphis to move everything out of
Memphis which we could do at a financially successful manner in
an efficient manner. But, we don't want to have our buildings
limited so we can't house them when they come there, and I know
they're all coming.
Mr. Huerta. And we're saying the same thing. It's finding
the right balance and ensuring we are operating a safe airport,
while at the same time providing opportunities for industry.
Mr. Cohen. And there will be opportunities for comment and
an analysis based on cost as well?
Mr. Huerta. We are looking at it carefully. We will get
back to you with what the process is going forward.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much, and thank you for all of
your work. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Rep. Cravaack.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chair. How about if we pool
some positive gee's. Dr. Dillingham, can you tell me some of
the positive things about NextGen and the FAA? What is it doing
right now?
Dr. Dillingham. Yes, sir. I think we can point to the fact
that with congressional urging and reports from both us and the
IG, we are now beginning to see some goals and metrics for
NextGen, so the Congress and GAO can better monitor progress.
Some of the other panel members mentioned that some of the
demonstration projects that are taking place at the various
airports around the country are showing stakeholders that they
can, in fact, benefit from NextGen in terms of fuel savings,
and reduction in emissions for the community surrounding the
airports.
I think, again, progress is clearly based on the fact that
we still have interested stakeholders who are willing to
participate, though they are becoming less willing to
participate as time goes on. We again would say progress is
being made, albeit not as fast as not any of us might want it
to occur.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, sir. I am a big believer in
NextGen, if we can ever get it. Look forward to hearing from
JetBlue to see how it's affected theirs. Has it alleviated any
congestion in the airports? Can you comment on that at all?
Dr. Dillingham. In those airports where the demonstrations
have taken place, FAA and the stakeholders are reporting that
they've seen efficiencies with arriving and departing. Some of
the issues that still remain are related to integrating surface
management with NextGen improvements. So, getting aircraft to
the airport is improving, but moving the aircraft on the
service around is still a work in progress.
Mr. Cravaack. Man, do I hear you on that one? I would hate
a taxiing aircraft at Chicago. OK. Gotcha. All right.
Mr. Scovel, what do you mean when you say that the FAA may
not be delivering the desired benefits? What, exactly, do you
mean by that?
Mr. Scovel. Let me look. You and Dr. Dillingham were just
talking about the Metroplex initiative and the need to
integrate procedures with surface management operations, and so
forth. The key aspect that I would seek to reinforce is that
FAA should respond to industry's demands. The users' requests
for a focus on the most advanced levels of procedures that are
possible, RNP.
Our data indicates that 67 percent of main line carriers'
aircraft are equipped for RNP. Forty-nine percent of the
aircraft are equipped and have crews that are approved to fly
them. In order to derive the most benefits from advanced
procedures, which would be precise routes and curved
approaches, RNP needs to be in place. Our data indicates 136
solutions were produced by FAA, but only 3 incorporated
advanced procedures with those precise routes and curved
approaches.
So there is a disconnect between what FAA is capable or
willing, at this point, to produce, and what the most advanced
segment of the airline carrier industry would like to see
happen. So there's that difference between what is expected or
requested and what can be delivered.
Mr. Cravaack. Do you think this is going to be a good
return on our investment?
Mr. Scovel. Absolutely. Come the Promised Land, you know,
when we all get to Jerusalem and NextGen is in place, it will
be an excellent return on investment.
Mr. Cravaack. Amen. OK. Sounds good.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cravaack. On a little but more of a touchy subject in
this regard, recently, on May 23, 2012, at a staff meeting a
gentleman by the name of Mr. Hickey, the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Aviation Safety made what I thought were some
inappropriate comments. If Republicans win office--``If
Republicans win office, jobs may be affected. If Democrats win
office, their jobs would not be affected.'' I think these
comments are extremely inappropriate, and I would like to know
where these comments are coming from. Is this an independent
speaking? Is it coming from the administration? Is it coming
from the White House? Where is this man speaking from?
Mr. Huerta. It is certainly not coming from the
administration or the White House. I take, and the FAA takes,
any potential violation of the Hatch Act extremely seriously.
We do understand that the Office of Special Counsel has opened
up an investigation into this particular instance, and we are
cooperating fully with that.
Mr. Cravaack. Good enough for me. Thank you, sir, and I
yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this will be
a little bit repetitive, because I share some of the same
frustration that Chairman Mica and Mr. DeFazio earlier
expressed, but I read in General Scovel's report. I see these
headlines, ``Unresolved problems with Iran continue to impact
the cost and pace of NextGen.'' And then I see it says below
that, ``ERAM software related problems have caused cost
overruns and schedule delays.''
In a staff memo, they have that $640 million has been spent
on Iran that was meant for other programs. And I suppose that I
have been to every hearing that we have ever had on NextGen
from the very start and have been to a couple of FAA facilities
to try to learn what this is all about and see how it would
operate. And I sure don't understand all this, but I said at
maybe the first or the very early hearings on this--that I
guess I either made a statement or asked the question--was some
future Aviation Subcommittee going to come in here and hear
about delays and cost overruns, because that's what everybody
sort of expected what happened. And, sure enough, it has
happened; not just on Iran, but on other things as well.
What I am wondering about, since it is similar to a
question I asked or a statement I made years ago, are we going
to have a meeting of the Aviation Subcommittee 6 or 8 years
from now and hear about additional delays and cost overruns?
And I understand I've been told over the years that when it
comes to all this technology that everything is obsolete the
day they take it out of the box, and I know that there are
always additional bells and whistles that people want. But, I
will ask all of you. Do you feel that we are doing everything
that could be done, or are there any additional things that
could be done to see that we don't have additional cost
overruns before this is fully implemented in 2020 or whenever?
Mr. Porcari?
Mr. Porcari. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. I think it is a fair
question and it is one that we take very seriously in the sense
that we have looked at some of the lessons learned. If you take
ERAM as one example, that contract would have been structured
differently. In hindsight, we would have brought in our
workforce from day one to help us develop it, and that was in
my opinion a large part of the problem.
We, if anything, would have had greater interaction from
the beginning with industry and users, and we have a very
collaborative effort that Mr. Huerta has described to you. It
has greatly benefitted the implementation of NextGen, including
picking some of the early procedural implementation parts of it
where we determine what and where is operationally implemented
for benefits.
It is, I think, not possible to say that there will never
be any problems going forward with this, but I will tell you I
have a much greater level of confidence. As the Department's
largest infrastructure program, it is something that I have
been very personally involved in. I have a much greater level
of confidence in where we are headed and the trajectory we are
on now than a couple of years ago. In part, I would credit
Acting Administrator Huerta's personal involvement as Deputy
and continuing as Acting Administrator.
Mr. Duncan. Anybody else what to--yes.
Mr. Huerta. Mr. Duncan, when I joined the agency a little
over 2 years ago, my background was program management, large,
complex technology deployment. What I saw when I arrived was
that we had a deployment that was encountering problems. The
problems we had were that we were starting deployment in live
facilities. We were running into operational difficulties,
workforce interface issues, things that posed significant
challenges that we needed to work through.
What we did at that time was to put a couple of things in
place. One was a diagnosis of what the problem was. We brought
in third parties to look at it. We determined that what hadn't
occurred early enough in the program was the human interaction.
Involving the people that are actually going to operate this
program must be involved in its development. In addition, our
testing had been insufficient to really understand how this was
going to work in a real-world environment.
As a result of evaluating this program, we started putting
management changes in place. We established a centralized
program management organization that will bring best practices
at program management to ensure that we can hit deadlines, that
we can hit milestones, and that we can hit budgets. That's why
we elevated and expanded the responsibilities of our NextGen
organization so that we can ensure that we have appropriate
system integration, that we're taking account of how one
project affects other projects, other schedules, and so forth.
What we wanted to do was make sure that we were using best
practices that are used in any business for managing a large
complex undertaking of this sort. It was in June of 2011 that
we re-baselined the ERAM program. At that time, we said that
that project was going to be 3 years and 8 months behind
schedule because of the problems that I told you about, and
that it was going to cost $330 million more.
Today, that is still exactly where we are. We have hit the
milestones that we put in place at that point, and I think that
we have turned the corner on that program. I certainly wish
that we had never gotten ourselves into this situation, but I
think we are well on the way to solving it.
Mr. Duncan. Well, before I run out of time, let me just say
this. I mean what is frustrating is years ago when all this was
started, when it was brought up, I think everybody probably
expected that there would be cost overruns and delays. I doubt
there is anybody in this room that is shocked or surprised that
there have been cost overruns and delays, or that there will be
in the future. But, let me ask you this. How much have we spent
on NextGen?
ERAM is not the whole NextGen program. How much has been
spent on the whole NextGen program so far, and how much is
going to be spent before it is fully implemented? And I'm
wondering if anybody can answer that question. I guess it is
almost an impossible question; and, I know that this is a
difficult thing. I know everything looks easy from a distance,
but I also know that we have an obligation to try to stay on
top of this.
Mr. Huerta. We have been spending at a rate of about $1
billion a year.
Mr. Duncan. I am sorry. I didn't hear what you said.
Mr. Huerta. We have been investing in NextGen at a rate of
about $1 billion a year, with the support of Congress. The
Federal investment in ERAM is a $20 to $27 billion expenditure
due to the cost overruns as we have talked about. Now, that
does not include----
Mr. Duncan. $27 billion?
Mr. Huerta. Yeah.
Mr. Duncan. And that does not--OK. Go ahead.
Mr. Huerta. That does not include what industry invests in
equipping their aircraft and everything that would be
associated with that. From our standpoint, we are managing this
program as a series of building blocks. We have six foundation
technologies that are baselined and all are operating within
their baselines.
We have adopted an approach which is premised upon best
program management approaches. That is a risk mitigation
strategy where we make incremental investments, match them up
with benefits, so that we can ensure that it makes sense to
continue making those investments. In a program of this nature,
investments are being made over an extended period of time, in
a very dynamic industry that is going through its own changes,
that deals with uncertainties, such as cost of fuel, and what
is the market doing. We believe that this is the most prudent
approach to ensure the best stewardship of the Federal taxpayer
investment.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I apologize. I ran over my time. This is
all very interesting to me. But I remember many years ago they
told me they had biographical sketches of all the Members of
Congress down at the Department of Transportation, and at the
bottom under each Member they had questions typically asked.
And under most Members, they didn't have questions; but, under
mine it says, ``How much will it cost?'' And I didn't realize
that I was so transparent, I guess, but I have been concerned
about that on this program, and I still have those concerns.
And it is a fascinating thing, but also a lot of concern too.
Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Well, under the next fellow, we'll hear from,
Mr. Coble, they probably have, have you taken a sharp pencil to
this program. Harry Coble.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been involved
with a simultaneous hearing between here and Judiciary, so I
have had to play catchup. I apologize for my belated arrival.
Good to have you all with us.
Mr. Scovel, I assume that the proposed trip to Jerusalem
will not depart today?
Mr. Scovel. It certainly won't, I regret to say.
Mr. Coble. We all want to go, but not today.
Mr. Scovel. OK.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Porcari, do you believe there are any
stakeholders not fully committed to the proper implementation
of NextGen?
Mr. Porcari. At this point I believe all the stakeholders
are committed to it, and we have worked hard on stakeholder
interaction and understanding their needs to make sure they see
the benefits of it. So I believe the stakeholders are
committed.
Mr. Coble. So, no naysayers known to you?
Mr. Porcari. Well, I do think there is appropriate
skepticism from everyone involved----
Mr. Coble. I gotcha.
Mr. Porcari [continuing]. That we get the proper benefits
for the investment.
Mr. Coble. Their own balance supportive.
Mr. Porcari. Supportive.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Huerta, how will NextGen improve the
productivity of air controllers, A; and, B, do you believe that
NextGen has delivered an increased productivity?
Mr. Huerta. To answer the second question first, I do. But
I think more needs to be----
Mr. Coble. Could you pull that mike a little closer to you,
Mr. Huerta?
Mr. Huerta. How's this?
Mr. Coble. Better.
Mr. Huerta. I do believe that it has increased
productivity, but much more needs to be done and we will
continue to deliver more productivity benefits. The major
benefits that we are seeing, and which we are really focused
on, is improved air traffic control procedures. You get the
maximum productivity by focusing on what you can do around
airports.
There are two dimensions to that: First, can you reduce
track miles flow on arrival and departure? What that gets you
is reduced fuel burn, reduced emissions and reduced cost.
Another example is something called an optimized profile
descent, which we are very focused on. Traditional descents
into airports are a lot like walking down the stairs. That is
the aviation equivalent of stop-and-go driving in traffic--very
fuel inefficient. With an optimized profile descent, engines
idle, so you are reducing your fuel burn.
All of that represents huge enhancements in productivity.
So improving the way aircraft approach and depart airports gets
you a lot more efficiency and gets you a lot more ability to
manage more aircraft in congested airspace.
The second benefit that it gets you is the ability to
``deconflict'' airports. In large, metropolitan areas, say
Dallas-Fort Worth, because of the nature of older technology
and just the geography of where airports are located, we need
to manage airports in conjunction with one another. Traffic at
DFW affects traffic at Dallas Love, and controllers need to
manage both in tandem.
With advanced navigation procedures, we can separate those
airports, because of the curved approaches that Mr. Scovel
talked about. And since the tracks do not conflict, that
greatly increases the capacity of both of those airports.
That's what we're trying to get at through the deployment of
advanced navigation procedures, and the benefits are quite
real.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, sir. Anybody else want to weigh-in on
that?
Good to have you with us. Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. And before Mr. Costello has something
to say, as long as you are here, Mr. Porcari, it's a little
unrelated to the subject of this hearing, but I wonder if you
could comment on the status of sort of the international
negotiations, if that's the correct way of framing it, in
dealing with the European--what I think and Congress has been
on record as criticizing--illegal emissions trading scheme in
that they are trying to impose it extra territorially. Would
you comment on where that whole issue stands?
Mr. Porcari. I'd be happy to comment on it. First, we have
serious legal and policy concerns with the proposed emissions
trading scheme. It is extra territorial. It is fundamentally
unfair in its approach, and we believe it's not the right way
to do it. If you look at precedents, using ICAO, the
International Civil Aviation Organization, for consensus
building on international aviation issues is a much more
effective way to do this.
We have been clear, both on the record, off the record, and
at every level with our EU counterparts that this is
unacceptable, that we do not support it. And, I think if you
are looking closely at the reaction around the world, you'll
see that we have a lot of other nations that in concert with
the United States also believe that the unilateral imposition
of that emissions trading scheme is inappropriate.
Finally, there appears to be some recognition on the
European side of late that there are real consequences for
doing this. So we will continue to press for the appropriate
avenues for resolution of an issue like this. We are continuing
to make it clear that we have serious concern sand do not
believe it should be implemented. And I think the consequences
of the European Union moving ahead unilaterally are much better
understood by the EU these days.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Costello?
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Just a few comments,
and I think it is worth noting oftentimes we point out when
there are mistakes made or cost overruns. But I just have to
say that since I have been involved in NextGen, I mentioned in
my opening remarks, there was a time when the FAA couldn't tell
us in laymen's terms what NextGen was.
It wasn't until Secretary LaHood was appointed Secretary of
Transportation, and Randy Babbitt, the former Administrator,
came into office; and, of course, with the Acting Administrator
in board 2 years ago, that there was in fact stakeholder
involvement. Many of you heard me say from this seat, and
actually that seat at that time, we heard Dr. Dillingham. We
heard General Scovel agree that we needed to get stakeholders
involved. But, that logjam did not free up until Secretary
LaHood and Administrator Babbitt came into office, and then we
started involving stakeholders.
We started talking about near-term benefits, and we
actually came up with a blueprint, which Chairman Mica
mentioned. Many of the things that are in the bill that was
signed into law in fact came from--the task force came from
Secretary LaHood, Randy Babbitt and the Acting Administrator
here today. So I think it is worth noting that much progress
has been made since that day.
I remember when Secretary LaHood was nominated. He came to
see me, and he said: ``What are the challenges with aviation?''
And I said, ``You have to do two things and you have to do them
quickly; and, one of the things is you have got to free up this
mentality at the FAA that we don't want the stakeholders
involved. We don't want to hear from them.'' And so to his
credit and to the credit of the former Administrator, Mr.
Babbitt, and the Acting Administrator who is here today, we
have made progress. We have made a long way to go, but we've
come a long way from just a few years ago. So, with that, Mr.
Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. And I must say, too, I think
currently the FAA's internal management competence in this sort
of process are due in part to several who are here as before is
leagues ahead of where it was just a couple years ago, because
this is a different type of process and it takes a different
type of experience. And we than you very much for your
testimony, and the first panel is adjourned.
We will turn to the second panel, and as they are coming
forward, let me introduce them. It consists of Mr. David
Barger, who is the president and CEO of JetBlue Airlines. And
we are particularly appreciative. We know he has a number of
important commitments and we have to select between them, and
we appreciate his attendance at this hearing today. In a sense,
it may be his swan song in that he is finishing up a
distinguished period of public service as the head of the
NextGen Advisory Board, and it has been a major contribution
moving this from dead center, or even slipping back in some
areas, to making real progress.
And I think it is to his credit that usually one good
measure of how someone is doing is whether they are preparing
someone to take their place and someone who is strong. And I
think in Bill Ayers, where you have another person of
competence and experience in this area, and I am impressed by
the fact I hear from some of his associates that he is blocking
off some extra time in his schedule so that he can engage in
helping on this process and turning some of his day-to-day
responsibilities over to others at the Alaska Airways. So that
is a tribute to you, in part, and we thank you for that.
Others on the panel are Paul Rinaldi, who is the president
of National Air Traffic Controllers Association. He has been
before us before. Thank you for being here again. And that's
true also of Ed Bolen, president and CEO of the National
Business Aviation Association; and, Ms. Sue Baer, Director of
Aviation, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Welcome. Thank you all for being here. We look forward to
you summarizing your prepared statements in about 5 minutes,
beginning with Mr. Barger.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID J. BARGER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION; PAUL RINALDI, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; ED BOLEN,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL BUSINESS
AVIATION ASSOCIATION; AND SUSAN M. BAER, DIRECTOR OF AVIATION,
PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

Mr. Barger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the very kind words as well. Thank you, Ranking Member
Costello, as well, for your ongoing support over the years. And
to distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
more than 14,000 crewmembers of JetBlue Airways, thank you for
the opportunity to be here this morning.
I am delighted to be here at this testimony. This morning,
I would like to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for your
genuine passion on this topic, educating all Americans about
the importance of NextGen. I know as we have spent time over
the years we think about, of course, your home State and the
robust aviation community in the State of Wisconsin, and what
happens over the course of the most spectacular week of the
year at the Oshkosh Air Show with the EAA.
And, with that said, I also juxtaposed my thoughts and
comments regarding just the home base of operation that I come
from at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport and the congestion,
and the airspace challenges that we have across places like the
New York metropolitan area, Philadelphia, and certainly
airports here in the Metropolitan Washington area. And all that
said, Mr. Chairman, and certainly to Ranking Member Costello,
as well, in all of my meetings over the years, you have
certainly been passionate about pursuing just real meaningful
solutions to these problems as if they had been right in your
own backyard, your own congressional districts across the
country. And we certainly appreciate that as an industry.
You have held hearings and conducted informational sessions
and have always had an open door, as you sought not to assign
blame, but really in terms of driving a shorter path to
progress in the future. And I have served for the past 2 years
as chairman of the FAA's NextGen Advisory Committee. I thank
you and the Members, again, for today's hearing, and I am
wearing two hats today, and, that is in the role of the
chairman of the NAC as well as CEO of JetBlue Airways.
Now, on the NextGen Advisory Committee, where as you
mentioned I will soon conclude my 2-year role as chairman,
we're a diverse group of 28 aviation leaders, really, from
across the world, that's both volunteer driven and volunteer
led. We provide consensus-based recommendations on complex
policy issues to the FAA in response to specific questions or
taskings that they represent to us.
Now, the NAC through the RTCA has reported back to the
FAA's taskings with recommendations or initial reports on 17
items critical to the implementation of NextGen ranging from
selecting and prioritizing Metroplex sites, NextGen rollout
within these sites to performance metrics, equipage incentives
to the issue of DataComm, and the 17 items have been submitted
in my written testimony. Now, as I have undertaken the
equivalent of a graduate level studies course on all things
NextGen over the past 2 years, in my spare time, I am delighted
to report that I could not be more pleased with the progress of
this group that I have chaired, including those, and the
support of my fellow panelists here with me this morning--and
also with our partners of the FAA, as you both mentioned in
your closing comments that we've worked with so closely over
the past 2 years of my chairmanship.
My fellow NAC members are participating in our meetings. We
are voting with our feet and we are there at each and every
meeting. In fact, over the past 2 years, we have held our
sessions here in Washington, DC. We have been down at Embry
Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach. We have been
up in New York at Kennedy Airport, and with Mayor Bloomberg at
Gracie Mansion, and even at the Boeing complex in Seattle
recently. And, in just a couple of weeks, we'll be hosted by
the Department of Defense at Wright Patterson Air Force Base.
The thought here--this in Dayton, Mr. Chairman--is to get out
and see what is happening across aerospace, whether it is
education or whether it is the different facets of aviation as
we talk about these issues tied to NextGen.
The NAC is engaged. The NAC is committed. And I would be
certainly remiss if I didn't thank our subchairs over the
course of the past 2 years: Tom Hendricks from A4A, who has
since moved on, and also Steve Brown at NBAA for their
tremendous work, and literally hundreds of volunteers working
on work groups and task groups. That was really led by RTCA
with Margaret Jenny, and I would also like to also thank Andy
Cebula with his help over the years.
Just as the NAC members are engaged in our work, we have
been very pleased with the knowledge and level of engagement by
Acting Administrator Michael Huerta, first as a designated
Federal official to the NAC while serving as the FAA Deputy
Administrator. Michael has become even more, not less active in
our work since being elevated to the role of Acting
Administrator. With Michael at the helm and with his interest
in working closely with the aviation community, I am confident
in our collective ability to overcome some of the barriers to
implementing NextGen.
Now, you commented about succession planning. And I am very
pleased that with my chairmanship sunsetting--and I will remain
on the committee--Bill Ayres, who is chairman of the Alaska Air
Group, Bill has been formally leading the Alaska Air Group as
chairman and CEO, who as an experienced aviator, will be taking
over the chairmanship of the NAC on a go forward basis as we
pass the baton at Wright Patterson Air Force Base here in
October.
I believe the Greener Skies initiative was illuminated upon
by both the Deputy Secretary and the Acting Administrator of
just tremendous success stories. And, while I won't go into
details about that, this collaboration, this work with the Port
of Seattle with Alaska Airlines with the FAA, over several
years, moving flight tracks over water, reducing miles flown,
optimizing descent profiles and altering air traffic control
procedures, all enhancing navigational performance, while
Alaska Airlines, the largest carrier in Seattle along with
others, they're reducing fuel burn and emissions today,
reducing noise exposure in the community. And Alaska expects to
save over 2 million gallons of fuel annually as a result of
this collaborative effort. This is NextGen that is happening
today in the Seattle Metroplex.
Mr. Chairman, the success taking place in Seattle is as
much about the technological improvements as it is about
surmounting the nontechnical barriers to implementing NextGen.
I am expecting that the final tasking from the FAA to the NAC
during my chairmanship will be to explore these nontechnical
barriers, and I look forward to recommending paths to
effectively cut through these barriers in the future.
A couple of closing thoughts: As I just put on my JetBlue
hat for today, first of all, JetBlue operates primarily in the
congested Northeast airspace, with our two biggest focus cities
being that of New York's Kennedy Airport, one of Sue's
airports, where we are the largest airline, and also at Boston
Logan Airport, where we are the largest carrier. And JetBlue
believes in the promise of NextGen. We certainly do. The
industry does. Well, candidly, in our airspace, we are
requiring solutions today, and this is on behalf of the 30
million people that we are caring, accommodating, over the
course of 2012 and growing.
So when we think about some of the partnerships, and,
again, illuminated, I won't go into details by the Deputy
Secretary and Administrator, the ADS-B out partnering that we
are doing in terms of equipping 35 Airbus A320's to pioneer new
routes, more fuel efficient routes, more emission friendly
routes, shorter elapsed time routes from the Northeast to
Florida and the northern Caribbean I think is a very important
example of collaboration. And, also, I would just say that
pioneering with the FAA the use of what we would call the RNP
13 left and 13 right approach into John F. Kennedy Airport is
also allowing us greater predictability into our home base of
operations in New York. These unique, performance-based
navigation procedures utilize a constant vertical descent in
conjunction with a precise curved flight path resulting in a
stabilized approach path, shorter flight times, as well as
reduced fuel burn emissions and noise similar to the Greener
Skies initiative in Seattle.
I think in my closing thoughts very good progress is taking
place, I believe, on behalf of our airline, as I put my JetBlue
hat on. I think that I would be remiss if I didn't comment that
we were a little bit disappointed that a new procedure that was
put into place at LaGuardia Airport has been suspended, because
we do think the deconflicting some of the airports in the New
York Metroplex--and this just happened recently--I think we'll
work through this with a solution, will benefit all of us in
the New York Metroplex. But all that said, very pleased about
the partnership that's taking place.
In closing, NextGen is a vital and necessary evolution for
the aviation industry. It is just as important for our Nation's
economy. NextGen will reduce aviation fuel burn, save energy
and improve the environment. Implementing NextGen will also
improve the efficiency and safety of aviation while adding jobs
and strengthening our economy. The case for NextGen has been
and continues to be compelling. I would again like to thank
you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Costello, distinguished
members of certainly the committee, for hosting the panel
today. I look forward to any questions you might have. Thank
you again, sir.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Rinaldi?
Mr. Rinaldi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Costello, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for hosting
this hearing today on important issue of NextGen.
NextGen is a catchall phrase over the last 10 years that
means everything to everybody in the aviation community. NATCA
is proud to be involved as an essential stakeholder in NextGen
development and fully participates in the NextGen Advisory
Committee, which Mr. Barger just spoke of. The NextGen Advisory
Committee has done an outstanding job of simplifying the
elevator speech, so to say, of what NextGen really is, of using
satellite-based technology and streamlining approaches to
reduce carbon emissions, using best technology to reduce voice
communications or voice saturation on frequencies.
That's what NextGen is as we are moving forward in the
short term and the near term. We have heard a lot about the
equipment and we have heard a lot about ERAM. Believe it or
not, ERAM is not considered a NextGen program. ERAM was
supposed to be implemented by now. Collaboration is key for
NextGen to work. Collaboration is key for anything to work, I
think, in life. But ERAM in 2009 when Randy Babbitt took over,
and when Secretary LaHood was confirmed, and when Michael
Huerta got involved, we were not involved in ERAM at all. And
at that time it was already over budget, and it was not
deployed in any facilities across the country. And it was in
January 2010 when we actually started to get involved in
identifying those numbers of areas that we were getting on the
positions as we were testing ERAM in the back room that it was
unacceptable and unsafe to run in air traffic control
facilities to track airplanes.
Through hard work, through collaboration, through the
passion of our controllers being involved in ERAM, we are proud
to say it is up and running continuously in five facilities
across the country; and, hopefully, we meet the goal in making
of 2014 being deployed across all of our facilities en route
facilities. The important thing to note is ERAM started to be
developed in 2003, and in 2009 it was supposedly ready to be
deployed, spent 100 percent of its contract, and it wasn't even
close to being finished.
In 2 short years we have brought it from not being able to
work in any facilities to working in five facilities right now.
And we are working hard, and real important, to get ERAM
involved in the NextGen discussion. Here is why. ADS-B, which
we talked about, the satellite-based navigations, DataComm,
which we talked about, the texting communications between
pilots and controllers, SWIM, which is the information
component that will go to the cockpit on real time necessity to
get there, all of that doesn't work unless ERAM is deployed.
So we have to focus on ERAM in making sure that that
actually is deployed properly, continues to be focused on
there. We put our reps, our reps are very proud of what they
have done in ERAM, and when we put them in place we said make
it safer, make it better, and make it work. And the
collaborations started with developing, testing, training and
implementing. And we take it short steps at a time, and here's
why. Let's not ever lose the fact that we are running the
safest, most efficient system in the world. And we are trying
to change technology, and it's not a flip of a light switch.
While we are changing the technology, it is like changing a
tire on a car that's running down the highway at 65 miles an
hour. We are still moving 100 percent of the airplanes and
changing the technology at the same time. So as we
incrementally take these steps in success, we have to
understand how we are getting here. We understand how ERAM
became a complete failure and is over budget, because
stakeholders were not involved.
Now that stakeholders are involved, we are seeing the
success of it. And, as we move forward, and I have heard a lot
of discussions about future panels on NextGen, we cannot forget
how we got to the success of ERAM to every program in NextGen,
that you need real stakeholder involvement, so that when we
deploy, we train, we test and we develop. They're involved on
the front end, so we save money and keep it going.
One of the things I wanted to talk to you about is recently
one of ERAM programs called TAMRA, which is a terminal
replacement, and our rep stumbled across a monitor problem
where it flickers. And when you turn the lights down it just
flickers, and it's a huge distraction. And for anyone who's
seen a radar scope, you can't look at that for a long time as
it's flickering like that.
We found work-arounds, where we were going to save the
agency almost $9 million. Now, I know that doesn't seem like a
lot when we talk about $27 billion, but if we are involved
early, as we were in TAMRA, that is how we can save money and
deliver our entire products. Once again, I thank you for the
opportunity to testify in front of you. I do want to thank you
for holding this hearing. I urge you in the next Congress to
hold more hearings so that we continue to keep the focus on
NextGen and its important programs. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Bolen?
Mr. Bolen. Well, thank you, Chairman Petri and Mr.
Costello. As you know, I am here today both as a representative
of the National Business Aviation Association and in my
capacity as vice chairman of RTCA. And you are very familiar
with both of those organizations. I would like to use my time
here today to pick up on the theme that I think Congressman
Costello articulated so well, which is where we were and where
we are hoping to go.
You know. Mr. Rinaldi said that when we started on this
NextGen kind of meant everything to everyone, which is another
way of saying it meant nothing to anyone. Right? If
everything's a priority, nothing is. But, I think where we are
today is NextGen is beginning to mean the same thing to
everyone, and that's a pretty important accomplishment. We've
talked today about the fact that NextGen is transitioning from
ground-based navigation to satellite-based navigation,
transitioning from analog communications to digital
communications. And we are doing that for very specific
reasons.
We are doing that because we believe NextGen can give us
substantial capacity increases that will reduce delays. We are
doing it because we believe that NextGen will enhance safety by
improving our situational awareness, and we are doing it
because we believe NextGen, by providing more direct routing,
can reduce our environmental footprint. So we are embarking on
this transformation for some very specific benefit. And we are
laying out a path.
I think the JPPO has done a great job of laying out a
vision for where we want to go. And over the course of the past
several years, RTCA has been taking taskings from the FAA and
beginning to figure out how we actually move forward very
clearly. And that movement forward is not without its
challenges. We are learning that NextGen is not just about
technologies. Clearly, ERAM is part of it. ADS-B is part of it.
SWIM is part of it, but it's also about policies and it's about
procedures.
It all has to fit together if we are going to move forward.
We are seeing ourselves beginning to move from a vision to an
operational system, beginning to take philosophical approaches
to issues, such as deciding that it's not a big bang, one size
fits all, let's do it everywhere all the time, but in more
measured, Metroplex approach that looks at some of the unique
attributes of the community.
I think a lot of the progress that we have made so far is
directly attributable to this subcommittee, the leadership that
you have provided and the accountability you have demanded. And
I also want to say that I think a lot of the progress is a
result of the tremendous leadership that Dave Barger and the
NAC has been able to provide. The NAC has brought together the
diverse industry stakeholders that you have demanded.
We have the military involved. We have general aviation
involved. We have airports involved. We have the airlines. We
even have community representatives, and we are all trying to
move forward, because we understand that we are all going to
benefit. The question was asked earlier, do all the
stakeholders support it.
I can speak for NBAA, and I think I can speak for the
broader general aviation community saying we do support it,
because the reality is the system that we have in the United
States, just like everywhere else, was built largely to
accommodate the needs of the commercial airlines, and that is
entirely appropriate. General aviation, including business
aviation, participates in that, but what we have seen is time
and time again as airspace becomes congested or airports become
congested, general aviation gets pushed out a little bit. I
remember when Midway Airport was a great general aviation
airport, or Fort Lauderdale Executive, or San Jose or
Manchester. You see how that begins to evolve.
We want to make sure that we can expand that capacity,
enhance the safety, realize the environmental benefits, and I
think we are moving forward today. We've got a lot of
challenges ahead. We can see the potholes. We can see the wet
pavement, but we have an opportunity to move forward, and I
want to thank you for the leadership and the accountability
that has been demanded by this subcommittee, because the
benefits have been very tangible.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Ms. Baer.
Ms. Baer. Thank you, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member
Costello and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting
me to speak today.
I am the Director of Aviation for the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey. We are the ones responsible for the
busiest airport system in the country, comprised of JFK, Newark
International, LaGuardia, Stewart and Teterboro Airports,
dedicated solely to general aviation. Together, these airports
serve more than 107 million annual passengers. That means about
20 percent of all U.S. flights operate into or out of one of
our airports.
First, let me begin by applauding the members of this
committee for delivering a 4-year FAA Reauthorization Bill. I
particularly appreciate how you included a strict timeline and
metrics in the bill that will help us analyze the delivery and
benefits of NextGen. I also have to thank Acting Administrator
Huerta, who is also our designated Federal officer on the
NextGen Advisory Committee, together with Dave Barger, who has
been positively brilliant.
He has led the NAC, providing careful guidance on how to
move the NextGen agenda forward, and I am very proud to be
known as a member of that committee. I was also honored to be
part of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's Future of
Aviation Advisory Committee, where NextGen was a fundamental
element of nearly every conversation we had, no matter what the
subcommittee, and a prevailing theme throughout all the
committee recommendations.
I should be clear. I really never intended to learn this
much about NextGen, but in many ways I just had to. With
experts like Vicki Cox or Paul Rinaldi here today, I can't
claim really to be an expert, but I know more than I'd ever
hoped to about the subject. And it's no secret that our
airports are consistently ranked at or near the bottom and on
time performance. And those delays in our airports trickle
throughout the country.
MITRE tells us that one in three U.S. flights are affected
by delays in the New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia
airspace, and 40 to 50 percent of the national airspace ground
stops and ground delays occur in New York. That means right now
about half of all flights in the country being held at a gate
or delayed on the tarmac can trace their delays to one of the
airports in the New York/New Jersey region.
Delays and ensuing capacity constraints have stifled growth
and effectively put a no vacancy sign on JFK, Newark and
LaGuardia. Our economists have calculated that for every
million potential additional passengers whom we cannot serve,
there are 5,000 jobs that don't get created in our region. So,
delays are not just an annoyance. They cost money, real money,
and have real economic consequences. Extra fuel, a new flight
crew, hotel vouchers, missed meetings, business deals not done,
extra meals in an airport, and so on.
In 2010 a University of California, Berkeley study found
that flight delays cost the United States $32.9 billion a year;
and, most unsettling of all is the fact that air passengers
bear the largest burden. Delays are a threat to this Nation's
global competitiveness. So, how can we, as a Nation, continue
to rely on an air traffic control system that is fundamentally
what was used in the 1940s? We can't. And we must act quickly
to fix this problem, because the cost of inaction is simply too
great.
NextGen is the fundamental backbone of the solution. It is
not the only solution but it is the backbone. Not to be
selfish, but if I am told that my airports are responsible for
50 percent of the problem, I really think that NextGen has to
be implemented in Newark, New Jersey region as soon as
possible, where it can deliver the greatest benefits to the
country. But, I'm realistic. I understand the wholesale
revamping of the way our national airspace functions can happen
overnight.
However, by attacking the problem where it is most acute,
NextGen can deliver improvements to constituents throughout the
country from Green Bay to Tampa Bay, from Portland, Oregon to
Portland, Maine, and all the points in between. Because
according to the 2010 GAO report, our three airports, along
with Philadelphia, Atlanta, O'Hare and San Francisco account
for 80 percent of all the departure delays across the entire
country. So you fix it in New York and a few others, and you
can fix the problem everywhere.
The problem in New York is so acute that we can't wait
until 2018 or 2020, or whatever the date is when the first
NextGen benefits should be realized. Recognizing that our
problem was truly an issue of national urgency in 2009, the
Port Authority established the National Alliance to Advance
NextGen, a coalition of business, civic and industry groups and
organizations devoted to getting out the message about NextGen.
We continued to grow, and last month we reached 1,000
members. In fact, the thousandth member was the Chicago Land
Chamber of Commerce from Ranking Member Costello's home State.
In all, we have members from all 50 States and Washington, DC,
firms like Sherwin Industries from Wisconsin, organizations
like the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce in California, Air
Dat, LLC, from North Carolina, St. Louis Business Travelers
Association, and hundreds more. Together, these organizations
represent tens of millions of U.S. air travelers who are
demanding improvements to our national air traffic control
system through the implementation of NextGen technology,
policies and procedures.
We have already begun piecing together elements of NextGen
on the ground, including a revolutionary ground management
system at JFK that has helped to meter departures and minimize
delays. We have done that in conjunction with our friends at
the FAA and the airlines. Using JFK in a very collaborative
effort it's been very successful. We are working with the FAA
to expand the program to LaGuardia and Newark airports. At JFK
alone, this system has saved nearly 5 million gallons of fuel
and almost 15,000 hours of taxi time annually.
Over the last decade, our agency has invested more than $1
billion to make airport operations on the ground more
efficient. Our initiatives have delivered. We have invested in
building high-speed taxi way exits, multiple entrance taxi
ways, minimizing runway occupancy time, enabling a more
efficient queuing procedure. The bottom line is that tens of
thousands of hours of delay have been adverted to say nothing
of the reduction in emissions and environmental benefits that
come from curbing delays and congestion.
And, as we move forward with NextGen, we have made a number
of efforts to be better neighbors, having recently launched a
single phone number that pulled together all our airports'
noise complaint hotlines together with a Web site that enables
the public to express concerns regarding aircraft noise. This
new system provides feedback in real time, has a standardized
repository, and offers the ability to analyze noise complaints
better than we have in the past.
As we have before, we will share complaint statistics with
the FAA to ensure that they are aware of the volume and origin
of complaints so they may consider any operational adjustments
such as runway selection, if feasible. All of this is well and
good, except that admittedly these efforts are not making
improvement, or are making improvements at the margins. It
doesn't mean we are going to stop, nor will I stop advocating
for the swift implementation of NextGen.
Members of Congress, we cannot afford for it not to happen;
not in this economy; not in any economy, frankly. In a time of
tightened budgets and other fiscal restrictions, it will prove
challenging to fully fund NextGen. But, do we instead continue
to risk the mounting challenges we will face as a Nation stuck
with a World War II era radar-based Air Traffic Control system?
With so much at stake, I urge members of this committee and
Congress to move quickly to implement NextGen Technology. We
certainly stand ready, willing and able to assist at the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Thank you and thank you all for your testimony.
Mr. Barger, you have had the opportunity to spend a couple
of years immersing yourself in some of the issues involved in
pieces of this problem, and I think you have looked at it from
the point of view of your own organization and the
opportunities and challenges. I don't know, but I would be
remiss if I didn't ask if you have any ideas or suggestions, or
feelings about how the process is going and how it can be
speeded up. How skeptical people in the industry--some of them
feel burned one or two times. This has been on again, off
again.
The technology keeps changing, and they're wondering when
they ought to leap and they actually like to see a return on
the investment when they do. How can this process be--Mr. Bolen
said it's a policy and procedure as well as a technology. How
can we help encourage sort of positive leadership to help move
this thing forward faster, so that boards see opportunities and
have something specific investment opportunities that would in
fact not just involve new equipment, but some new flight plans
and all the rest so there would be a payoff for their
organizations? Could you sort of discuss how you see us moving
this thing forward?
Mr. Barger. Sure. Thank you so much, Chairman, and if I may
I think I tend to be a cadence person. And when I think about
these past 2 years and Bill Ayres now moving into the chair
role at the NAC, and, by the way, this is working on behalf of
the very good work of organizations like task force 5,
previously, collaborating with the FAA. But, ensuring that
again the opportunity for industry stakeholders to have a seat
at the table, to respond to these taskings to the FAA, which
are complex, when you start thinking about Metroplex.
Seattle is different than New York. North Texas is
different than Atlanta, but the ability to talk about these
complex issues and respond to the tasking. So I think first and
foremost I'd keep the committee, such as the NAC in place, with
a cadence put in place for Federal advisory meeting cadence
with the FAA.
Number two, continue the taskings. And so the taskings that
I've come across so far from the FAA, such as equipage
incentives, Metroplex further definition and roll out are
prioritization, performance metrics. And, by the way, what are
the metrics? Is it access to the system? Is it lapsed time en
route? Is it fuel burn? Defining what these metrics are, the
use of DataComm, right, as Mr. Rinaldi talked about with the
use of technology to communicate, driving efficiency, I am very
excited about potentially taskings that talk about these
nontechnical barriers. So I think cadence, continue the
taskings.
We have 28 members, including the leader of SESAR. When we
talk about the impact over in Europe, including the director
general of Euro control, including stakeholders here in the
United States, this harmonization that's so important. And I
would just close, Chairman, by saying that really the benefits
of these policies, procedures, the equipage, everybody being on
the same page, when you look at the return on capital of the
business case--and I'll take an airline perspective--40 percent
of our cost of JetBlue, up to 40 percent, is fuel in terms of
producing a unit of measurement and available seat mile.
Well, I mean we all are looking at fuel, whether it is Mr.
Bolen's group with NBAA, whether it is corporate aviation, but
again, it's access. The benefits are obvious. The return on
investments are obvious. The business case to the boardroom is
obvious. And my sense is that's what we have to continue to do
and last but not least, as Mr. Rinaldi said, we are all using
the same language, the definition of what it is--what's the
elevator speech--because we were not, even as airlines, let
alone the rest of the industry, defining NextGen the same way.
Sir, thank you.
Mr. Petri. Well, we tend to, and it is understandable, but
in Government we try to have rules and be fair and equal for
everyone. Then there is the tendency for top down and follow
our rules or you are going to get in trouble, or whatever. And
in this case it strikes me that you need to get the incentives
right and get some kind of where people make a decision to
participate or to move forward faster and have a system that
has enough flexibility to accommodate that.
So, for example, if we get the basic technology out there,
then if an airport, say Dallas-Fort Worth, were to go to get
its procedures in place to be a NextGen airport, presumably it
would be more competitive from the point of view of travel to
that airport. The ticket prices, likely, would be less, because
the flights would be more efficient. The fuel cost would be
less, and so on. And that committee would have a little bit of
an advantage in competing, say, with Atlanta or someone else.
And why not figure out ways of getting some dynamics so
that people around the country, who are operating airports or
are trying to promote the regions, aren't starting to bang on
us and on the FAA and others saying move this thing forward,
because there's some opportunities for us here. Let us get
ourselves approved for this new procedure, because it will make
us more competitive. Would you comment on that?
Mr. Barger. Yes, Chairman, and I think two further
thoughts. One is the theme of best-capable-best-served. And
other members, including Mr. Rinaldi may have comments
regarding first-come-first-served versus best-capable-best-
served, not unlike an HOV lane, if you think about access to
moving on a congested highway. And so I think that when you
look at this concept, which is one of these nontechnical
barriers to implementing NextGen, best-equipped-best-served,
best-capable-best-served, there's different terminology for it.
My sense is, again, the incentives are going to be obvious;
and, these two partnerships that JetBlue is collaborating with,
the FAA, the approach into Kennedy Airport--and I'll take the
ADS-B out--pioneering offshore from the Northeast down to the
Caribbean, for us to save 6 minutes en route each way on an
airplane that burns 750 gallons per hour times $3 and whatever
it is per gallon, let alone getting the airplane back earlier,
so that maybe at the end of the day we can operate another
flight on a multimillion-dollar asset. The incentive is
obvious.
One other thought: I think of the success again of the
Greener Skies initiative in Seattle. This was many years worth
of work. Alaska Airlines, the FAA for many different components
of the FAA in the Port of Seattle working to really harmonize
not just Sea-Tac, but all the type of operations that were
happening in that airport, because you also want to be careful
about disadvantaging, right, because there is mixed equipage.
So I do think a couple thoughts there, sir, and things like
the issue of best-capable-best-served. It seems so obvious. It
really does.
Mr. Petri. Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was pleased to hear from this panel that we seem to have
made so much progress from some of the earlier efforts. I just
would like to know that it's both deep, i.e., that it relates
to the planning for NextGen and some of the things that were
specified in the reports by the IG and the others about not
having yet set parameters for a number of the major programs.
And, secondly, revisiting a little bit what changed so much,
and I guess I'd go to Mr. Rinaldi first with the ERAM program.
I mean what was the change here? What you described was much
more typical of my experience over many years with acquisitions
with the FAA.
Mr. Rinaldi. Sure. Thank you. What changed with ERAM was
our involvement, our involvement from a human in the loop
testing at the tech center in Atlantic City before it reached
the floor out in Seattle and Salt Lake. What they wanted to do
was deploy it in live traffic, and it just wasn't working. As
you said, it was tracking the wrong airplanes or it would
freeze up with a big red X. And once the controllers don't have
confidence in setting out the position that it's actually
giving you accurate information, then that's what you rely
upon. That's how we get through the day. So what happened was
there was delays.
Now, we pull it back. We actually test, identify what
really is problems, and the actual testing is controllers
hitting the keys that they would normally hit in a routine
sequence on a regular basis. And what that was doing was
actually shutting the program down in many cases. And the
reason that was happening is because you didn't have real live
testing going on, or real testing going on with air traffic
controllers. They had, you know, engineers doing it.
Not anything against engineers, but if you're going to
build a system for air traffic controllers, you need air
traffic controllers involved. Once we got to that point, and
then they had to rewrite a whole bunch of code. Lockheed Martin
can tell you exactly how much code that they had to write, but
it was a lot to change the direction of ERAM to actually get it
to function with human air traffic controllers.
Once we got to that point, we're incrementally testing it
now in nine more facilities and each time we test it we develop
it, we find another problem. But we're not implementing until
that problem is fixed or we have an acceptable work around of
that problem; such as, don't touch the ABC key and then hit
enter. And you get a big work around, so you don't do that.
The reason I talked about ERAM in my opening was regardless
of who's in charge of this committee or the White House, or who
the FAA Administrator is, the NAC has seen it. The industry has
seen it, and Congress has seen how we have success by having us
involved in the very beginning. Is it perfect? No. We are not
there yet with the agency that we're involved at pre-
decisional, very beginning of what NextGen technologies.
We want NextGen. We want the latest technology. We want
them to save fuel and be very successful, because we want the
best aviation system in the world. What it comes down to is us
really saying is this piece of equipment making it safer, more
efficient, or making everybody's job better.
Mr. DeFazio. Good. Mr. Barger, just from your experience
chairing the committee, do you think we've seen a systemic
change in the FAA and its relationship with stakeholders, and
not just air traffic controllers, but all the stakeholders?
Because in the past as Mr. Rinaldi said there was a
procurement. They went out, they got engineers involved. Then
the FAA started sending change orders, and yet there was no
relationship going on over here that the people were actually
going to have to implement, either buy the equipment or
actually operate the system itself.
Mr. Barger. Congressman, I have seen a change, but again,
my visibility is from 2 years back chairing the NAC to today,
and then obviously looking forward on the committee. But, what
I've learned with RTCA, task force 5, all the work that was
done before, JPDO, again, longer term, shorter term, and then
day of, I think the comments by the chair, as well as ranking
member, regarding the Acting Administrator, Michael Huerta, has
been 100 percent focused, in place, present, whether it says
Deputy Administrator or as the Acting Administrator, as the DFO
in my 2-year term.
Randy Babbitt before that as well has commented, and then
people like Vicki Cox in this room, David Grizzle, and a
significant number of FAA leaders. But, what I think is really
interesting, Congressman, is that again 28 members on the
committee, and they're there, whether it's down at Embry Riddle
or out at Seattle, going into Memorial Day weekend, or here in
Washington or a hangar in New York. People are truly--they're
present. And, again, whether you're an equipment provider,
whether you're building airplanes, you're operating airplanes,
whatever that make might be, whether it's corporate and whether
it's general aviation military airline, European, USA, I mean,
I think that that collaboration speaks volumes to stakeholders
being engaged. So I can say that it's a very healthy meeting,
because you know when you have something that's not healthy.
You absolutely know that.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Bolen?
Mr. Bolen. Well, I agree with exactly what's been said. I
think what has changed is now everybody is in the room. We're
collaborating, and we sense that at the top of the FAA there's
a commitment. And I think that has led us all to believe this
is possible. We can do it. I don't want to underestimate,
however, the challenges that remain ahead. You know.
Dave Barger mentioned best-capable-best-served. We want to
make sure that as we go forward no one misinterprets our
commitment to best-capable-best-served as not-capable-not-
served. One of the reasons we were so enthusiastic about what
we saw with the Greener Skies initiative up in Seattle is we
saw that those who invested in the NextGen equipment were able
to receive shorter approaches and saved fuel. Those who were
not equipped were treated the same way they have always been
treated. They weren't suddenly shut out.
We are going to be operating in a mixed use environment for
a very, very long time. The military, general aviation and some
international, there are groups they can't equip. We have got
to find a way to do that, and I think we are beginning to see
the pathways. And I think there's this clear vision now on how
we get there. We need to make sure the policies and the
procedures support that.
I do want to make sure we understand. Getting NextGen right
is not just getting the technologies out there, but getting the
benefit to be received. It's not enough to have ERAM, ADS-B and
SWIM. We've got to have more capacity, better safety, reduced
environmental footprint; and, that is going to be a challenge.
We are talking about equipage. Are you going to invest in the
technology and put it on your airplane? Only if I truly believe
the benefits are there. So I would urge this committee to stay
very focused as we move forward on whether or not we are
realizing benefits, not just deploying technologies.
Mr. DeFazio. Excellent. All right. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Costello?
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions, but
I think it is probably a good time to wrap this hearing up
based upon what Mr. Bolen just said. I think he is exactly
right, and I think it is the responsibility of this
subcommittee. And I know that you will take the challenge on to
make certain that the benefits, in fact, are there and that we
are monitoring NextGen as we go forward.
I just want to thank the witnesses, not only for their
testimony here today, but for your service on the committee,
and in particular, you, Mr. Barger. You have taken the time for
the past 2 years to not only get engaged and get involved, but
for your leadership. You truly have made a real difference in
bringing us to where we are today. So we don't want that to go
unnoticed. Thank you for your service, and we look forward to
continuing to work with you.
Mr. Barger. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. I will be working with all of you in a
different capacity, but this subcommittee will continue to work
with you in the future. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. One of the secrets of America is that many, many
people contribute in different ways, sometimes sung and
sometimes unsung, to the success of our national enterprise,
and this is one example. There are actually many others up and
down the line and it helps make us a great country.
So we thank you all for your testimony, and this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]