Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Dahnlen t1_jdsfg2b wrote

And yet look at the state of the Supreme Court

82

wobbly-cheese t1_jdso3xg wrote

did they expect the republicans to throw him a welcome party with cake and ice cream, cause thats not their way

−23

langis_on t1_jdsopbk wrote

Biden could nominate Donald Trump Republicans would be against it because Biden did it.

−33

I_Heart_Astronomy t1_jdswl3u wrote

Oh so NOW republicans are suddenly concerned about qualifications and experience. Fuck Republicans.

−42

DollyPartWithOn t1_jdswrib wrote

The GOP, who confirms lawyers who have never argued in court as federal judges, feels a man who was CEO for Denver Airport for two years is unqualified to head the FAA.

−39

psychedoutcasts t1_jdsxwz0 wrote

To be honest. I don't know much about what the FAA does so someone humor me. However. This is fine. We need people with spine. If he can't handle a bunch of crybabies than I doubt he is fit to do anything.

−22

RespectedPath t1_jdszydq wrote

I work in aviation and am left leaning politically. This dude was just a bad pick. Good on him for withdrawing so they can find someone more capable of filling the role.

592

VBNMW22 t1_jdt1fe2 wrote

Actually he was simply a bad choice but sure let’s blame it on politics because otherwise nobody would see our ads.

78

DollyPartWithOn t1_jdt2tri wrote

Replying to Power_Broker2 (#2,379,859)

Sure. He looks bad. And the fact that he was nominated mid last year and he seemed to not know some basic questions is concerning. Though, at least one of those questions seemed a bit ridiculous.

Edit: The senator knows the answers to the questions he's asking because he's asking them. Did he really have these things memorized before he and his staff prepared the questions? To ask what some section #'s of the FAA bylaws are seems a bit ridiculous to ask to me. It is not like it's a Supreme Court hearing where there are only 28 amendments.

−51

Turntup12 t1_jdtfben wrote

Replying to DollyPartWithOn (#2,380,080)

Dude, these questions were on basic knowledge of operations and the FARs. Even student pilots are supposed to know at least what part is what and where you can find information. Basic Med is something you learn very close after day 1 as a pilot. If you cant even know the requirements for basic med, you shouldnt lead the organization who has the responsibility of approving medicals and assigning certificates.

Edit: added ‘student’

32

hawtpot87 t1_jdtfhh5 wrote

Have you guys even looked at the video? Nobody would hire that guy.

76

teotronix t1_jdtg6xm wrote

was he too flighty? jk not jk haha his face says he wasnt

−9

Badird t1_jdtjjz9 wrote

Replying to RespectedPath (#2,379,673)

I am not here to pick apart your response, but to learn. What made him a bad pick? He is CEO of Denver Airport and has a list of former FAA Heads that vouch for him. Also, 3 of the last 5 to hold this position were not pilots.

I can't find a good reason for him as a bad pick, which I partly blame on media bias. I also refuse to take Ted Cruz at his word.

If you find the time to respond, thanks in advance.

130

Sarazam t1_jdtmsiq wrote

Replying to Badird (#2,382,529)

His first role to do with anything involving aviation was becoming CEO of Denver Airport in 2021. His history is in nothing related to aviation. He had no knowledge of the most basic aviation stuff when questioned at the Senate. I'd think you'd learn over the 8 months between nomination and the hearing. The difference in qualifications between him and the Interim FAA chief is insane. Only thing this nominee had going for him was that he was apart of Biden's transition team.

309

Sarazam t1_jdtn0w3 wrote

Replying to pro_nosepicker (#2,382,682)

Let alone being CEO of an airport isn't exactly aviation regulatory experience. It's mainly working with the logistics of the aircraft while they are on the ground. I.E working with airlines on their contracts with the airport to use the gates/services, overseeing expansion projects of the airport, Ground crew stuff. Building transportation to the airport.

34

Panaka OP t1_jdtniw3 wrote

Replying to Badird (#2,382,529)

> He is CEO of Denver Airport

Most CEOs don’t have any knowledge on what is and isn’t legal. The only credibility being CEO of KDEN adds is that he has experience leading a large transportation organization (his previous experience in California is better to lean on).

> has a list of former FAA Heads that vouch for him

Have those 3 Administrators been any good though? The FAA has been in a rough spot the past 15-20 years, I’d hesitate taking any of their opinions alone as a sign of a worthy candidate.

The reasons the FAA are so “buddy buddy” with the industry are due to those same people.

> Also, 3 of the last 5 to hold this position were not pilots.

I’d actually say normal airline pilots aren’t who you want running an organization like the FAA, rather someone familiar with the overall FARs and their implementation. Sometimes that’s a pilot, other times it’s someone in some other facet.

It’s a massive misnomer the flying public normally makes. Pilots don’t normally know the regs all that well.

> I can’t find a good reason for him as a bad pick, which I partly blame on media bias.

My personal problem with him is that a Republican Congressman was able to ask about FARs that are relevant to major controversies with the industry and he couldn’t respond to any of them.

The next Admin will be in charge of rebuilding the agency’s credibility in wake of the MAX8 crashes, the terrible state of the ATC system (staffing), the backwards medical program, and a modernization program that should have been completed a decade ago. As the nominated Administrator for just under a year, you should be able to answer questions about at least one of those.

Personally I think he could be a great C Suite level manager if you ignore the current litigation involved in his past position, but getting blind sided like he did was almost as bad as Kavanaugh crying over beer. You’re going to get questions on regulations, you really need to at least have a means to talk your way out of it. He has to inspire confidence and his confirmation hearing did the opposite.

> I also refuse to take Ted Cruz at his word.

I will forever vote against him, but a broken clock can be right twice a day.

97

Xanthelei t1_jdtnr61 wrote

Replying to Power_Broker2 (#2,379,876)

End result and reasoning can (unfortunately) be separate, and it's not like Republicans have been giving people reasons to not question their motives when it comes to anything Democrats want. I'm very happy this FAA nominee got quashed, but I'm not going to side-eye anyone for being skeptical about why he was opposed by a Republican, either.

Now, if Republicans want to keep making good calls, we can start back towards them having any benefit of the doubt, but there's a LOT of work they'd have to put in before we get there.

−5

Badird t1_jdtq2mq wrote

Replying to Panaka (#2,383,046)

Your best point, at least for me, is that if you're embroiled in this for months, you should have an answer to the questions you'll definitely be asked.

I think I can agree with you on most of this, thanks for the reply.

51

YubNub81 t1_jdtta8f wrote

I read the entire article twice just to be sure, and there is literally no examples of "racism". It clearly says that he had no aviation experience and there were federal warrants under his name.

39

walkandtalkk t1_jdu0b9n wrote

Replying to YubNub81 (#2,383,881)

There weren't federal warrants under his name. I believe he was named in an application for a warrant against someone else—an application filed by the (ousted) LA County sheriff as part of what appeared to be a corrupt investigation of the sheriff's political opponents.

The more-legitimate criticism was that the nominee had little technical experience in aviation. It's not obvious how vital that is—the administrator of the FAA runs a massive bureaucracy; he's not testing aircraft—but there's a valid criticism that the administrator should at least be fluent in the lingo and able to question the technical staff. Especially at a time like now, when people are worried about the safety of the air system.

23

throwayaswk2 t1_jdu0rdc wrote

Did you enjoy my idea to revert to analog instrumentation for aircraft in spite of digital instrumentation which are vulnerable to cyber attacks? I'll add I was compensated nothing for it.

−7

SassyMoron t1_jdu53nl wrote

Sinema holding up progress as usual

−15

carvedmuss8 t1_jdu7x57 wrote

The bottom of this comment section is extremely uneducated on the workings of this process.

10

booga_booga_partyguy t1_jdu9ek4 wrote

Replying to Panaka (#2,383,046)

>The only credibility being CEO of KDEN adds is that he has experience leading a large transportation organization (his previous experience in California is better to lean on).

To add to this:

It'a not even a large transportation organisation, but a transport hub. It's like a warehousing company's CEO taking over a trucking company. Yes, there is definite knowledge overlap, but that is limited as they are two fundamentally different types of businesses.

12

jdp12199 t1_jdunecd wrote

Why tf did Biden nominate him? Blind leading the blind..

31

Art-Zuron t1_jdv0ary wrote

Replying to AngryRedGummyBear (#2,384,768)

I didn't say my party, so I'm afraid you can't really claim it.

I'm not blindly favoring a particular party, but explicitly denying the validity of a particular party.

The one that purposely botched covid response, convinced a bunch of people to use ivermectin and drink bleach, harasses school shooting victims and their parents, blocks legislation purely on the basis of who supports it and not on its merits, hasn't won a popular vote in 20 years, has committed treason, fly a battle standard of Alabama claiming "heritage" and sTAtEs RiGHtS, actually committed voter and election fraud, Nixon's war on drugs, Reagan's bullshit economic model which has caused most of our modern problems, got the majority of an entire cabinet replaced or convicted, some positions several times, of crimes because of corruption, colludes with authoritarians and fascists and spread their propaganda, and is fighting constant culture wars because they can't tolerate not having some outgroup to persecute.

Among other things.

−12

AngryRedGummyBear t1_jdv4ukz wrote

Replying to Art-Zuron (#2,389,237)

> if the GOP criticizes someone, that probably means they are definitely the right pick

You are literally saying this in response to someone with relevant experience informing you the GOP is right to criticize this person.

Go outside and touch grass.

10

Art-Zuron t1_jdv5adi wrote

Replying to AngryRedGummyBear (#2,389,970)

I'm not disagreeing with that at all. In fact, I explicitly said that there are exceptions and implied this was one of them. But you conveniently left that out of the quote.

Also, I don't have any grass yet. It's still under a few feet of snow.

−8

ImActualIndependent t1_jdvtr8c wrote

Replying to RespectedPath (#2,379,673)

After watching that youtube clip of his 'interview,' good riddance! That guy is wholly and completely unprepared/capable for that position. My question, how the heck was his name even put into the hat, and how did he get ram-rodded this far?

Have we seriously gotten so far off track that people would have been willing to support this guy just because he was a Democrat appointment?

18

Johnson_N_B t1_jdvxtue wrote

Replying to psychedoutcasts (#2,379,407)

> I don't know much about what the FAA does so someone humor me.

Well it's kind of an extremely important organization, so you'd definitely want someone who was competent and qualified in charge. This dude wasn't the person for the job.

8

onarainyafternoon t1_jdw5g2h wrote

Replying to putsch80 (#2,383,438)

This comment betrays your ignorance to a stunning degree. Go look this guy up before you comment; and then you’d see that he has absolutely no qualifications. He’s been in aviation for like two years maximum. That’s not someone you want to pick for this position.

6

putsch80 t1_jdw5y4v wrote

Replying to onarainyafternoon (#2,395,503)

Yes, because if there’s one thing we know about republicans, it’s that they love black people in positions of power, and are very magnanimous towards Dems.

He might suck for other reasons, but don’t pretend that those reasons alone aren’t enough.

−4

arjay8 t1_jdwdits wrote

Replying to putsch80 (#2,395,583)

Blackness isn't a qualification for being in a position of power for me, a republican. You value black people for their skin color, I value them for their humanity, and on occasions like this, their competence for the job. We are not the same.

6