6 ms·

Money talks. The head of the FAA are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Usually the heads are people who use to work for the Airline Industr

by jmclnx 4y ago

Money talks. The head of the FAA are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Usually the heads are people who use to work for the Airline Industry or Manufactures of Airlines. So, major conflict of interest here.

nerdponx 4y ago
The problem is that airline industry people are actually also the most qualified (on paper) to run the FAA.
- ouid 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    No, treason is aiding a foreign power that is at war with the US.
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    Regulatory capture is not a problem that can be solved by executing examples, because the captured officials usually don't even think of themselves as captured. The solution is to align incentives, for example by closing the revolving door
  - tiedieconderoga 4y ago
    Organized sedition, maybe, but "treason" is narrowly defined in the US constitution: >Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. >The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood¹, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. ¹: "Corruption of blood" is a legal term. This passage means that treason charges cannot be carried to future generations, they only apply to the person who committed the act.
  - coreyoconnor 4y ago
    I appreciate the spirit. Not treason, but definitely anti-making-shit-better.
    - santoshalper 4y ago
      A betrayal of your duty, your country and your people, but not treason per se.
- rcme 4y ago
  Are they? Wouldn't a career FAA employee be a better choice?
  - junofan 4y ago
    No, the heads of federal agencies are usually external so they can be held accountable for fuckups independently of the agencies’ cultures.
    - rcme 4y ago
      No, the heads of federal agencies are external because they're political appointees. High profile jobs go to donors and those who have supported the politician in charge of the appointment.
      - boeingUH60 4y ago
        *Some federal appointees. The head of FAA under Trump was Stephen Dickson, who was an F-15 fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force, then a pilot for 27 years at Delta Airlines before becoming Vice President of flight operations [1]. The current head under Biden is Billy Nolen, a former pilot who flew the Boeing 757 and 767 and worked as an airline executive for years before joining the FAA [2]. By credentials, these two are definitely qualified. 1- https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-nominate-individual-key-administration-post-7/ https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/pr... 2- https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/30600-safety-professional-billy-nolen-acting-faa-administrator https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/30600-safety-professional...
        rcme 4y ago
        I think the original point being made was that having such extensive airline industry experience actually makes you unqualified to lead the FAA. For instance, Dickson, through his position at Delta, has likely developed strong ties to counterparts at Boeing. This made him unable to adequately address the safety issues of the 737 MAX. My follow-up point was that experience in regulating airlines is more important than experience running an airline when it comes to leading the FAA. However, those who regulate airlines as a career are unlikely to be big political donors, so they're unlikely to be chosen to lead the FAA.
- GartzenDeHaes 4y ago
  They have a conflict of interest, which makes them unqualified for public service.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    [dead]
dotancohen 4y ago
Would you prefer that the head of the FAA have no clue about the airline industry or airplanes in general? Where do you think that these people are to be found, if not those who used to work for that very industry?
- FridayoLeary 4y ago
  >Would you prefer that the head of the FAA have no clue about the airline industry or airplanes in general? Not being an industry expert shouldn't necessarily be a disqualifier. For example we don't insist that the secretary of health should be a doctor, or that the defence ministry should be run by generals. The main qualities needed is being a good manager and able to listen to alternative views and being a good politician (yes, it's important to have good politicians). If anything being an outsider actually helps the organisation more because it avoids conflicts of interest like op and it keeps the head humble.
  - tourgen 4y ago
    [dead]
  - boeingUH60 4y ago
    > For example we don't insist that the secretary of health should be a doctor. I'll definitely want my country's Secretary of Health to be a doctor who understands public health and its related policies, not a politician whose primarily skill is being popular and getting elected. >The main qualities needed is being a good manager and able to listen to alternative views and being a good politician. A Health Secretary who's not a doctor would find it difficult to judge if they're being fed the right information by their advisers. Remember that Boeing's woes began when the company ceased to be run by the engineers and aviation experts, but instead by the arrogant MBA counters who likely pitched themselves as good managers. It turns out they mostly cared about management and printing cash, but lacked engineering expertise, leading to screwups like the 737 Max.
    - ihatepython 4y ago
GartzenDeHaes 4y ago
It's not just the FAA. DoD, Treasury, FCC, ... well, pretty much the entire federal government.
WheatMillington 4y ago
Having worked for airlines or manufacturers in the past doesn't itself present a conflict of interest. Not to say a conflict doesn't exist, but previous employment isn't itself a conflict.
- kqr 4y ago
  Not as a strict logical consequence, no. However, it does sort of increase the probability that one has acquired insidership in social circles where people may frown if one temporarily kills off a profitable line of business.
KevSlater 4y ago
> Usually the heads are people who use to work for the Airline Industry or Manufactures of Airlines Recently they wanted to hire a guy who knew nothing about aviation
- Anechoic 4y ago
  a guy who knew nothing about aviation It's not that he knew nothing about aviation (he ran Denver International Airport), he didn't have first-hand experience as a pilot. But here's the thing - that's okay. FAA is a mess right now, and Phil Washington has experience cleaning up messy organizations. That works perfectly find for a Federal administrative position where you're generally only on the job for a few years and move on. You can argue that it's even fine in the long term - how much software or hardware engineering experience does Tim Cook have again? Sometimes the only way to escape regulatory capture is to hire an outsider, at least temporarily. Unfortunately the administration did Washington dirty by not properly preparing him for his confirmation hearing.
  - KevSlater 4y ago
    > here's the thing - that's okay It's not if you want competency
  - massysett 4y ago
    If a guy who ran an airport is qualified to regulate air safety, then a guy who owned a parking lot is qualified to regulate auto safety. Running an airport is running a business. An airport parks airplanes and collects rent from airlines and concessionaires. It wouldn’t teach you what you need to know to regulate airlines or air safety.
seanp2k2 4y ago
Don’t forget the military work that Boeing does. There’s more at stake with this relationship than just one aircraft platform.
- sneak 4y ago
  Boeing is basically part of the USG at this point and has been for decades. There is almost nothing they could do that would cause significant disruption to them. This is probably the root of the reason for the problem in the first place - Boeing can ship bad planes and they won't get stopped until they fall out of the sky multiple times - and even then nothing real will change.
monksy 4y ago
So who is the head of the FAA at the time of this issue, and who confirmed them? Let's put the names out in the public.
GuB-42 4y ago
Money talks, and for good reasons. When planes are not flying, people don't travel, so airlines don't make money, so they can't buy new planes, so manufacturers don't sell planes, so engineers don't get paid, so they leave, so they don't make better, safer planes. It is a difficult balance to find, and sometimes the FAA gets it wrong, and sometimes people die. It is tragic when it happens, but if you want to be able to travel by plane, the industry has to keep going. Overall, the FAA has done a rather good job despite the conflicts of interest: accidents go down and air travel goes up. When they mess up, they usually take corrective action, as it was the case here.

by jmclnx 4y ago

nerdponx 4y ago

The problem is that airline industry people are actually also the most qualified (on paper) to run the FAA.

ouid 4y ago
[flagged]
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  No, treason is aiding a foreign power that is at war with the US.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  Regulatory capture is not a problem that can be solved by executing examples, because the captured officials usually don't even think of themselves as captured. The solution is to align incentives, for example by closing the revolving door
- tiedieconderoga 4y ago
  Organized sedition, maybe, but "treason" is narrowly defined in the US constitution: >Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. >The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood¹, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. ¹: "Corruption of blood" is a legal term. This passage means that treason charges cannot be carried to future generations, they only apply to the person who committed the act.
- coreyoconnor 4y ago
  I appreciate the spirit. Not treason, but definitely anti-making-shit-better.
  - santoshalper 4y ago
    A betrayal of your duty, your country and your people, but not treason per se.
rcme 4y ago
Are they? Wouldn't a career FAA employee be a better choice?
- junofan 4y ago
  No, the heads of federal agencies are usually external so they can be held accountable for fuckups independently of the agencies’ cultures.
  - rcme 4y ago
    No, the heads of federal agencies are external because they're political appointees. High profile jobs go to donors and those who have supported the politician in charge of the appointment.
    - boeingUH60 4y ago
      *Some federal appointees. The head of FAA under Trump was Stephen Dickson, who was an F-15 fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force, then a pilot for 27 years at Delta Airlines before becoming Vice President of flight operations [1]. The current head under Biden is Billy Nolen, a former pilot who flew the Boeing 757 and 767 and worked as an airline executive for years before joining the FAA [2]. By credentials, these two are definitely qualified. 1- https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-nominate-individual-key-administration-post-7/ https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/pr... 2- https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/30600-safety-professional-billy-nolen-acting-faa-administrator https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/30600-safety-professional...
      - rcme 4y ago
        I think the original point being made was that having such extensive airline industry experience actually makes you unqualified to lead the FAA. For instance, Dickson, through his position at Delta, has likely developed strong ties to counterparts at Boeing. This made him unable to adequately address the safety issues of the 737 MAX. My follow-up point was that experience in regulating airlines is more important than experience running an airline when it comes to leading the FAA. However, those who regulate airlines as a career are unlikely to be big political donors, so they're unlikely to be chosen to lead the FAA.
GartzenDeHaes 4y ago
They have a conflict of interest, which makes them unqualified for public service.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  [dead]

dotancohen 4y ago

Would you prefer that the head of the FAA have no clue about the airline industry or airplanes in general? Where do you think that these people are to be found, if not those who used to work for that very industry?

FridayoLeary 4y ago
>Would you prefer that the head of the FAA have no clue about the airline industry or airplanes in general? Not being an industry expert shouldn't necessarily be a disqualifier. For example we don't insist that the secretary of health should be a doctor, or that the defence ministry should be run by generals. The main qualities needed is being a good manager and able to listen to alternative views and being a good politician (yes, it's important to have good politicians). If anything being an outsider actually helps the organisation more because it avoids conflicts of interest like op and it keeps the head humble.
- tourgen 4y ago
  [dead]
- boeingUH60 4y ago
  > For example we don't insist that the secretary of health should be a doctor. I'll definitely want my country's Secretary of Health to be a doctor who understands public health and its related policies, not a politician whose primarily skill is being popular and getting elected. >The main qualities needed is being a good manager and able to listen to alternative views and being a good politician. A Health Secretary who's not a doctor would find it difficult to judge if they're being fed the right information by their advisers. Remember that Boeing's woes began when the company ceased to be run by the engineers and aviation experts, but instead by the arrogant MBA counters who likely pitched themselves as good managers. It turns out they mostly cared about management and printing cash, but lacked engineering expertise, leading to screwups like the 737 Max.
  - ihatepython 4y ago

GartzenDeHaes 4y ago

It's not just the FAA. DoD, Treasury, FCC, ... well, pretty much the entire federal government.

WheatMillington 4y ago

Having worked for airlines or manufacturers in the past doesn't itself present a conflict of interest. Not to say a conflict doesn't exist, but previous employment isn't itself a conflict.

kqr 4y ago
Not as a strict logical consequence, no. However, it does sort of increase the probability that one has acquired insidership in social circles where people may frown if one temporarily kills off a profitable line of business.

KevSlater 4y ago

> Usually the heads are people who use to work for the Airline Industry or Manufactures of Airlines Recently they wanted to hire a guy who knew nothing about aviation

Anechoic 4y ago
a guy who knew nothing about aviation It's not that he knew nothing about aviation (he ran Denver International Airport), he didn't have first-hand experience as a pilot. But here's the thing - that's okay. FAA is a mess right now, and Phil Washington has experience cleaning up messy organizations. That works perfectly find for a Federal administrative position where you're generally only on the job for a few years and move on. You can argue that it's even fine in the long term - how much software or hardware engineering experience does Tim Cook have again? Sometimes the only way to escape regulatory capture is to hire an outsider, at least temporarily. Unfortunately the administration did Washington dirty by not properly preparing him for his confirmation hearing.
- KevSlater 4y ago
  > here's the thing - that's okay It's not if you want competency
- massysett 4y ago
  If a guy who ran an airport is qualified to regulate air safety, then a guy who owned a parking lot is qualified to regulate auto safety. Running an airport is running a business. An airport parks airplanes and collects rent from airlines and concessionaires. It wouldn’t teach you what you need to know to regulate airlines or air safety.

seanp2k2 4y ago

Don’t forget the military work that Boeing does. There’s more at stake with this relationship than just one aircraft platform.

sneak 4y ago
Boeing is basically part of the USG at this point and has been for decades. There is almost nothing they could do that would cause significant disruption to them. This is probably the root of the reason for the problem in the first place - Boeing can ship bad planes and they won't get stopped until they fall out of the sky multiple times - and even then nothing real will change.

monksy 4y ago

So who is the head of the FAA at the time of this issue, and who confirmed them? Let's put the names out in the public.

GuB-42 4y ago

Money talks, and for good reasons. When planes are not flying, people don't travel, so airlines don't make money, so they can't buy new planes, so manufacturers don't sell planes, so engineers don't get paid, so they leave, so they don't make better, safer planes. It is a difficult balance to find, and sometimes the FAA gets it wrong, and sometimes people die. It is tragic when it happens, but if you want to be able to travel by plane, the industry has to keep going. Overall, the FAA has done a rather good job despite the conflicts of interest: accidents go down and air travel goes up. When they mess up, they usually take corrective action, as it was the case here.