mr. rinaldi a chance to answer this. you touched on the edges of the five to six billion dollar nextgen investment that the gao reported but there's little confidence, i think we have seen and heard through testimony, among the stakeholder in faa's ability to implement nextgen. where is the disconnect and what return on investment is the taxpayer seeing from this process, and mr. calio, if you can expand a little bit more on what you have already talked about on that issue, i'd appreciate it. >> thank you. congressman davis, there are, as captain moak pointed out, there are benefits already been realized in certain areas. we have put in place procedures where planes get in quicker and take off faster. more clearly needs to be done, though. the return on investment will come, i think, when the -- we think when the procedures -- the business processes that captain moak referenced and governor engler addressed are put in place. our problem is the system currently as it's structured and >> >> the airlines are seeing benefits

mr. rinaldi. you know we have to staff up, we have a lot of retirements, other policies are forcing more people to consider early out. this is a question, what is with the faa? why do you take people that have just graduated from the academy and send them to the highest level facility and basically engender a high failure rate? what could the advantage be, and do you really think we could have more retention and better controllers if we changed that? >> great question. the simple answer is yes, we --ld have a better system [inaudible] >> i have power. is a great question and yes, we could retain more controllers, if we send them to the lower-level facilities and let them develop and hone their skills, rather than sending them tree can't we have. they are struggling with anffing because it has been faa way to take someone fresh out of academy and then send them to atlanta, new york, chicago, and within eight months they are unsuccessful and they send them to lower-level facilities. we tried working

mr. rinaldi, air traffic control the use this. it has to benefit them, right? right. i saw the late and great staff director mr. thune sitting by the texan which i told him not to do during the hearing, but -- texting. he and i were leaving aviation the we both sort of like our four head when i chaired that. when i left as chairman sort of wiped our four head. it was a sigh of relief that there had been no major aircraft, passenger aircraft from this is in large aircraft that we had a disaster like the one we had, was at november of 2001, after 9/11. we did have small commuter and regional aircraft, the late mr. oberstar and i, we worked, mr. defazio isn't here, did you commuter safety, and we've done good there. but i'm telling you guys the clock is ticking. it's going to happen. it can be in air traffic control. it can be a pilot air. there is no reason for united states should not have the most advanced air traffic control system in the world. and we do not have to. mr. rinaldi, have you been to canada? >> i have. >> candidate is about one-tenth our size but they ha

mr. paul rinaldi. >> thank you, mr. chairman to testify. we all have a stake in national aerospace system. it's an economic engine. a contribute $1.5 billion to her gross domestic product every year. provides 12 million american jobs. i can appreciate the committees outreach to veterans and issues in the national aerospace. this committee is doing it the right way. identify the problem and collectively can develop the right solution. we must make something clear to any change we make needs to be accomplished with the precision like approach so we don't interrupt the day-to-day operation of the national aerospace system. currently we run the largest and safest most efficient most complex most diverse airspace system in the world. our system is incomparable, unequal and unrivaled by any country in the world. the united states airspace system and the faa is considered the gold standard in the world aviation industry. and yet we, to the reality we need change. the globalization and innovation are driving dramatic changes in aviation. our curren

mr. rinaldi,, but we have a situation. one of the things promised is lowered cost that will save us money over the long run to eliminate the outdated system which is obviously passive radar and radar overall but we all know t5. >> there we are. you can go invisible, if you want, if you pull that circuit breaker. there is no way of tracking that. then you hear the argument of making the system permanent. we know in an airplane you do not want to have a system that cannot be disabled if you have obviously an electrical failure or whatever the case may be. what worries me be. what worries me is ultimately we will be operating to systems. we will never achieve we will never achieve any cost savings. i would be very curious what you think. you can weigh in, and i would like mr. baker, if you could, too. go ahead. >> we have a problem that we will be able to work through on implementation mandates, but let's be clear. this is revolutionary, what we need, probably did five years ago,, less separation, can fly curved approaches at