4 ms·

1) it is absolutely a problem, but... 2) to fix it, you'd have to pay federal FAA employeees as much as equally-skilled members of the private sector at Boeing,

1) it is absolutely a problem, but... 2) to fix it, you'd have to pay federal FAA employeees as much as equally-skilled members of the private sector at Boeing, and that hasn't happened in a long time. My understanding is this system started because the FAA's best technical people kept leaving for Boeing and other private-sector employers.

martin8412 5y ago
Build it into the cost of certification. You absolutely want the brightest people working their hardest to uncover potentially fatal issues so they can be fixed before people die.
- macintux 5y ago
  How often do you certify a new plane of this magnitude? I’d wager you would have to plan on contracting that out vs hiring a bunch of people to only work periodically, and how are you going to find contractors who know how to build these?
- bombcar 5y ago
  There's problems on any side, if they're direct FAA employees they end up being paid way more than other similar FAA employees - though given that the only major airplane manufacturer is Boeing you could just charge Boeing enough to pay all FAA airplane examiners the requisite amount.
- daniel-cussen 5y ago
  No you want the brightest people (I object to the term brightest in general but anyway) making the systems so that people don't die. That's the first priority, it doesn't work to get them to check other people's works, they have to make the best works, actually perform what needs to be performed. Then check.
  - andi999 5y ago
    Bright and diligent.
    - daniel-cussen 5y ago
      For sure. Absolutely.
- bradleyjg 5y ago
  It’s not a money issue. The US government has plenty of money. It’s a perception of corruption issue. The government can’t have high paying jobs because voters will punish politicians if they do.
  - leksak 5y ago
    I don't have a US-context, so excuse my naivety but to me it'd appear as if government can't pay well for _some_ jobs. If the politician themselves make too much, then voters might not like that. If all government jobs pay "too well" then that too would meet opposition. But, as a colorful example: suppose that being a politician was tied to the median wage of the nation, then would anyone object to paying this type of oversight position adequately? Also, I'm not necessarily convinced a decent enough paycheck is enough to dissuade from corruption. Sure, it helps but it isn't enough on its own. If a person is getting money under the table, then they are making even more money even if they are already making a pretty sum. It's just that the size of the bribe would have to increase proportionally to their salary.
    - rocqua 5y ago
      In my country (the Netherlands) there is a norm that says "No government employee shall earn more than the prime minister". The idea being to prevent certain heads of departments from setting their own pay to high. This has had a side-effect of some actually qualified technical people from leaving because of salary.
      - bradleyjg 5y ago
        The US federal government is similar. The President makes $400k, cabinet secretaries $225k, and everyone else less than that. There are a very few exceptions—-some doctors for example.
- jillesvangurp 5y ago
  A way out that is popular with governments is to use contractors. Certification is a highly specialist job that requires independent experts. Perfect job for subcontracting to companies that employ such specialists. The FAAs job is to ensure that certification happens and that it is done right; but not necessarily doing it themselves. And effectively they aren't because they let Boeing self certify currently. So, this would be an improvement.
  - rossdavidh 5y ago
    This seems like the best idea, as a balance both of "it works" and "it could happen".
mschuster91 5y ago
Maybe it's time to finally pay market rate for government employees? The underpayment is a consistent factor that keeps cropping up wherever you search for the reason why a government project or entire structure failed or went over time/budget.
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  I agree, but you'd probably also need to have government NOT offer the job security far above what the private sector does, otherwise you have the opposite problem of all the people with the most in-demand skills in the government, not producing, just checking what other people produce. It does seem, though, like you might want to have something like government pay at 90% of the market rate, so that highly-skilled and in-demand jobs do get pay that is close to the market rate.
  - wnissen 5y ago
    The total of base compensation and benefits are already more or less required by law to be 100% of the market rate, as justified by surveys in the private sector. However, that does not include any stock compensation or bonuses. So government employees make about the same in industries that don't have significant stock or bonus. They make considerably less when more compensation is in those categories. So the situation is already what you describe, for the most part.

martin8412 5y ago

Build it into the cost of certification. You absolutely want the brightest people working their hardest to uncover potentially fatal issues so they can be fixed before people die.

macintux 5y ago
How often do you certify a new plane of this magnitude? I’d wager you would have to plan on contracting that out vs hiring a bunch of people to only work periodically, and how are you going to find contractors who know how to build these?
bombcar 5y ago
There's problems on any side, if they're direct FAA employees they end up being paid way more than other similar FAA employees - though given that the only major airplane manufacturer is Boeing you could just charge Boeing enough to pay all FAA airplane examiners the requisite amount.
daniel-cussen 5y ago
No you want the brightest people (I object to the term brightest in general but anyway) making the systems so that people don't die. That's the first priority, it doesn't work to get them to check other people's works, they have to make the best works, actually perform what needs to be performed. Then check.
- andi999 5y ago
  Bright and diligent.
  - daniel-cussen 5y ago
    For sure. Absolutely.
bradleyjg 5y ago
It’s not a money issue. The US government has plenty of money. It’s a perception of corruption issue. The government can’t have high paying jobs because voters will punish politicians if they do.
- leksak 5y ago
  I don't have a US-context, so excuse my naivety but to me it'd appear as if government can't pay well for _some_ jobs. If the politician themselves make too much, then voters might not like that. If all government jobs pay "too well" then that too would meet opposition. But, as a colorful example: suppose that being a politician was tied to the median wage of the nation, then would anyone object to paying this type of oversight position adequately? Also, I'm not necessarily convinced a decent enough paycheck is enough to dissuade from corruption. Sure, it helps but it isn't enough on its own. If a person is getting money under the table, then they are making even more money even if they are already making a pretty sum. It's just that the size of the bribe would have to increase proportionally to their salary.
  - rocqua 5y ago
    In my country (the Netherlands) there is a norm that says "No government employee shall earn more than the prime minister". The idea being to prevent certain heads of departments from setting their own pay to high. This has had a side-effect of some actually qualified technical people from leaving because of salary.
    - bradleyjg 5y ago
      The US federal government is similar. The President makes $400k, cabinet secretaries $225k, and everyone else less than that. There are a very few exceptions—-some doctors for example.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
A way out that is popular with governments is to use contractors. Certification is a highly specialist job that requires independent experts. Perfect job for subcontracting to companies that employ such specialists. The FAAs job is to ensure that certification happens and that it is done right; but not necessarily doing it themselves. And effectively they aren't because they let Boeing self certify currently. So, this would be an improvement.
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  This seems like the best idea, as a balance both of "it works" and "it could happen".

mschuster91 5y ago

Maybe it's time to finally pay market rate for government employees? The underpayment is a consistent factor that keeps cropping up wherever you search for the reason why a government project or entire structure failed or went over time/budget.

rossdavidh 5y ago
I agree, but you'd probably also need to have government NOT offer the job security far above what the private sector does, otherwise you have the opposite problem of all the people with the most in-demand skills in the government, not producing, just checking what other people produce. It does seem, though, like you might want to have something like government pay at 90% of the market rate, so that highly-skilled and in-demand jobs do get pay that is close to the market rate.
- wnissen 5y ago
  The total of base compensation and benefits are already more or less required by law to be 100% of the market rate, as justified by surveys in the private sector. However, that does not include any stock compensation or bonuses. So government employees make about the same in industries that don't have significant stock or bonus. They make considerably less when more compensation is in those categories. So the situation is already what you describe, for the most part.