In listening to yesterday’s House Aviation Subcommittee hearing on NextGen, I was reminded of the chicken and the egg. But what I concluded is, while we seem to have an egg, everyone – Congress, the industry, and even the FAA – is collectively sitting and watching, waiting for something to happen.

And, according to the Department of Transportation Inspector General Calvin Scovel III and General Accountability Office Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues Gerald Dillingham, so much work remains to be done to get to NextGen, the egg is not even fertilized much ready to hatch. Indeed, the National Academy of Public Administrators said flat out that FAA does not have the leadership to accomplish NextGen, nor was it clear, according to Ranking Minority Member Thomas Petri, who was even in charge of the project.

The impression seemed to be one of general chaos but that was not the most disturbing message to emerge from the hearing. That is, even those legislators who carry aviation’s banner on Capitol Hill have lost faith in both the agency’s and the industry’s ability to get the job done and there is no better example of that than what happened with the stimulus package.

Both House Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Jim Oberstar and Aviation Subcommittee Chair Jerry Costello explained in detail the reason aviation fails time and again to gain any traction on Capitol Hill. They said that not only has aviation and the FAA failed to make a case for their programs, that those beyond the Senate and House aviation committees have no confidence in either the industry’s or the agency’s ability to spend any money they might receive wisely. And, little wonder.

“Since FAA began its modernization efforts in 1981, it has spent $50 billion,” said GAO’s Dillingham, an astonishing figure, even counting for inflation, to be where we are today and for a system that was supposed to cost a fraction of that when calls to modernize first started in the 1960s.

It was clear that, while aviation legislators favored the inclusion of aviation in the stimulus, although one wonders why given the track record laid out yesterday, they did not have the ammunition they needed from the industry or the FAA to convince their colleagues that aviation should waft to the top of the pile. Nor will they be able to do what Air Transport Association President James May suggested in his remarks – make the development of NextGen a national priority akin to what the nation did in the 1950s with the highway system.

Oberstar’s condemnation suggested why. “In the end what prevented including aviation in the stimulus package was the lack of confidence on part of administration and appropriation committees that the industry and FAA were able to use that money effectively,” he said. “We tried to convince our colleagues but we kept running into a brick wall of confidence that the airline industry would come together and cooperate on their part and the FAA, on its side, would be able to make the investment properly.”

Costello pointed to the administration’s commitment to NextGen, making it a top priority at the Department of Transportation but that commitment can only go so far if the stakeholders are in the disarray that was described yesterday. He also noted that while a new FAA administrator was near a month ago, the many dropouts of nominees at other agencies have set it back because the vetting of new nominees takes priority.

Oberstar called the hearing a “benchmark, threshold” event and while he and others stated FAA is doing much better, he cited its stubborn resistance to involving the air traffic controllers and last year’s FAA reorganization as in direct contravention to Congressional wishes as stated in its reauthorization legislation and the previous legislation Vision 100.

In other words he was angry as was Costello who blamed the labor situation on the last administration which did its best to resist anything to reduce labor friction at the agency even if it compromised NextGen. He and other legislators also expressed deep concern over the deterioration of the air traffic control workforce as well as facilities.

Oberstar noted they’ve seen much of this before and urged the panelists not to repeat the mistakes of the past. In addition, he called the FAA’s customer service mentality destructive and has led to “a worldwide loss of confidence in the FAA as the gold standard of aviation safety,” he said. “I heard that first hand from transport ministers in Europe a year ago.”

Finally, legislators expressed deep concern as to the certification of NextGen now that the FAA has declared that only FAA-owned systems would be certified. Oberstar noted the over reliance on contractors led to the debacle with upgrading air traffic control towers and billions in wasted money and compromised the FAA’s ability to provide oversight because they are unable to understand what they are overseeing.

So, it came as no surprise that even these stalwart aviation supporters may have lost the desire to go to the mat given what they described as the political infighting within the agency and the industry. So, they are waiting; waiting for the industry to get its act together.

A staffer suggested that two other factors are to blame for the lack of confidence. First, the industry’s insistence on high-balling its cost estimates when it opposes a program. He pointed to the post 9/11 aviation security programs in which the industry said it would cost $75 million annually but when it came time to assess the industry for those costs, all of a sudden the actual costs were much lower.

As for the stimulus bill, he indicated the industry came late to the party and didn’t have the ammunition needed to convince Congress that money would be well spent. “Oberstar’s points were well taken,” he said. “This carries beyond just the stimulus. The airlines failed to convince enough people that they and the FAA are far enough along that they could get the money out there and create jobs.”

And, considering the fact that the FAA has yet to define the requirements for equipage, according to the IG, one can only conclude he is right. After all, yesterday we heard Air Line Pilots Association Executive Air Safety Chair and United Airlines Pilot Captain Rory Kay report that airlines are frustrated at sending old aircraft to bone yards equipped with technology that promised to improve efficiency and lower costs only to remain unused. So the industry is waiting; waiting for FAA to develop the requirements and provide more detail. It is also waiting for the FAA to define its costs so that an accurate and reliable user fee system can be developed.

If the hearing were designed to assess where we are now with NextGen and what can be done in the short term to improve things it did not engender much confidence. It turned into a litany of FAA’s long and complex to-do list and while there have been task forces formed and reorganizations done, it made it sound as if the agency hasn’t even begun. This is especially true since both GAO and the IG voiced concerns that FAA does not have the human capital to deliver NextGen. It needs 300-400 management and implementation specialists as well as engineers and scientists; and has only just defined a strategy to attract those skills to its ranks. So the FAA is waiting; waiting for the results of its task forces and to gain the personnel needed.

Dillingham noted that while the FAA has completed plans for NextGen, the problem is they were not sufficiently detailed for the stakeholders to act, nor is anyone sure what is or is not in NextGen.

“One in four flights were delayed last year, despite the fact there was a six percent decline in operations,” he told the committee. “Private sectors stakeholders need to be convinced investment will produce relatively quick returns that will enhance operational efficiencies, fuel savings and environmental benefits and FAA needs to develop incentives to get that investments.” Incentives, the industry suggests, should be in the form of giving priority for those who equip early.

But it was his list of what remains to be done that is most disturbing. “The FAA needs to develop standards, procedures and regulations that further enable the use of existing technology to achieve increased efficiency,” he said. “It has to develop a plan for maintaining and repairing existing facilities and address its human capital resource needs. Finally, it needs to support research and development in weather, human factors and environmental issues surrounding NextGen.”

He also noted the need for increased infrastructure develop to ensure that, once these technologies come on line, infrastructure is there when needed. “There are 14 major airports in need of additional runways to meet the projected demand,” he said. “Runways that take 10-15 years before concrete can be laid. The technical solutions will bring us five to 10 percent improvement in capacity but runways could bring us up to 100 percent.”

Scovel echoed much of Dillingham’s testimony saying the FAA is in a unique position to prepare now for the traffic rebound. “After more than four years of planning, the FAA must act,” he said. “While developing NextGen, it must sustain the existing system because there are 30 projects that are platforms for NextGen and decisions such as what is needed for terminal modernization are needed. The costs have not been detailed but are baselined at $600 million.”

He also cited new airport infrastructure projects as well as airspace redesign, new routes and procedures using RNAV/RNP must be completed because they have significant potential to enhance capacity, reduce fuel burn and noise and boost controller productivity. He noted that advanced avionics are already installed on aircraft and need to be fully integrated in airspace redesign initiative.

Scovel, who recounted a 13 percent reduction in domestic scheduled capacity and the grounding of 360 aircraft as of November, noted that FAA must complete its gap analysis of current system and NextGen and define its bridge architecture, adding it has reached no consensus with stakeholders on how to proceed. Such an analysis will not be completed until August. The FAA has yet tp develop firm requirements for reliable costs and scheduling needed to successfully meet mid-term objectives and indicated that the agency must make a number of business and management decisions to meet mid-term implementation. This includes outlining the development the management of NextGen initiatives and establishing a clear line of authority, acquiring the necessary skill mix for implementation and examining what can reasonably implemented.

Dr. Agam Sinah, senior vice president and general manager for Mitre, outlined what progress is being made but said more needs to be done, noting that, while traffic was down last summer, it was up at nine percent at such critical airports as Atlanta, Newark, Houston, Kennedy, LaGuardia, Chicago and Philadelphia. He pointed to RNAV/RNP as improving the situation by deconflicting close-proximity airports. RNAV at Atlanta, he said, resulted in gaining nine to 12 additional departures per hour at a $30 million benefit.

Airports approved for these new procedures include Boston, Cleveland, Seattle and St. Louis and in the case of Cleveland, where low visibility occurs 23 percent of the time, they add 16 aircraft per hour to the landing pattern in such conditions. He also noted that the New York area airspace redesign, scheduled for completion in 2012 will provide 20 percent reduction in delays at a $250 million benefit annually with similar plans scheduled for Chicago and Houston.

As for general aviation operations at small community airports procedural changes using RNAV approach procedures with vertical guidance has increased low-visibility access with 1,333 new procedures already approved for 833 airports.

The industry was also sending mixed messages on the pending emissions trading legislation. Either that or it has resigned itself to the fact that either a carbon tax or cap and trade system are inevitable. Heretofore, the industry has opposed such schemes as diverting the money needed for it to modernize its fleet and gain further emissions reductions just as it has been doing for two or more decades. However, yesterday, the industry’s major request on the subject was to urge Congress that any money paid into such a system by aviation, remain in the aviation industry to fund NextGen.

While the short-term initiatives and the FAA’s progress in squeezing out additional capacity is heartening, it does not produce what Congress needs to put ATA’s call for making NextGen a national priority into action. Nor is it likely to happen judging by industry reaction yesterday.

Despite the criticism heaped on it by legislators clearly frustrated that they can’t get more for aviation, not one industry panelist addressed the issue. It can only be hoped that the agency and the industry will return to their offices for some deep soul searching on what they can do to make their case. Clearly, they need more than statistics that aviation contributes $1.2 trillion to the economy. So Congress is waiting; waiting for the industry to give them what they need but given Congressional doubts about its collective ability to perform, it is waiting for actions to speak louder than words.