Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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

Badird t1_jdtjjz9 wrote

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

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

the_blackfish t1_jdu0nzt wrote

I'm no conspiracy guy but when I hear Denver Airport I think Freemasons.

15

xnago_tyr_sires t1_jdu24yx wrote

I think of the terrifying 30 foot tall horse demon statute with glowing red eyes.

59

2tired2fap t1_jdu31vr wrote

He has a name. It’s Blucifer. He’s already killed once. Don’t make him do it again.

55

RobertNAdams t1_jdvzpl0 wrote

> He’s already killed once.

I had to look into this to see if it was hyperbole and...

 

>Luis Jiménez died in 2006 at 65, after a part of “Mustang” came loose while he was working on it. It severed an artery in his leg and he bled to death.

https://www.cpr.org/2019/11/04/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-blucifer-the-demon-horse-of-dia

14

BruyceWane t1_jduspeq wrote

>I'm no conspiracy guy but when I hear Denver Airport I think Freemasons.

Doesn't that make you a conspiracy guy?

20

Viewtastic t1_jdv4i7f wrote

Google the denver airport conspiracies.

The airport leans into and pokes fun at the conspiracies in a fun way. Entertaining airport for sure.

13

the_blackfish t1_jdydqfv wrote

Nobody spends money to poke fun at anything back then, this was all purposeful. That's what's so creepy.

3

TucuReborn t1_jdwk4sq wrote

Except the masons are a real group, just much more boring than Hollywood and conspiracy leads you to believe.

4

BruyceWane t1_jdwlrys wrote

>Except the masons are a real group, just much more boring than Hollywood and conspiracy leads you to believe.

I know, I used to know a member

4

God_Is_Pizza t1_jdu4iyh wrote

The last time Republicans nominated someone for a major political position it was a dude who ran a Casino into Bankruptcy to run our country like a business.

−29

Z3r0flux t1_jduel63 wrote

Does this make the FAA nomination better?

56

Normal-Flower4437 t1_jdufhoh wrote

That was Republican voters.

This is Democratic officials.

I’m so tired of “but THEEEEEY did a bad thing!” how long can you play that card

41

Panaka OP t1_jdtniw3 wrote

> 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

Badird t1_jdtq2mq wrote

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

yawetag12 t1_jdtrr0h wrote

Whoever was responsible for prepping him should be fired.

13

Shopworn_Soul t1_jdtw2ov wrote

Couldn't possibly expect him to prep himself like some pleb

27

booga_booga_partyguy t1_jdu9ek4 wrote

>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

pro_nosepicker t1_jdtkphu wrote

Less than 2 years experience in Aviation and we want him to run that for an entire nation?

No thanks.

78

Sarazam t1_jdtn0w3 wrote

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

key-wavelength t1_jdtk9q6 wrote

Lots of industry leaders loved the pick. Probably a little too friendly with those he needs to regulate.

71

Badird t1_jdtoo1c wrote

I've never known a Republican to dislike that. This can't be why they voted against him.

11

gnocchicotti t1_jdtvz5n wrote

Republicans only like it if it's their guy that is friendly with industry. If a dem is giving corporations what they want, who needs the GOP anymore?

−8

putsch80 t1_jdtq1ie wrote

He’s a Dem and not white. What more reason does the GOP need?

−9

onarainyafternoon t1_jdw5g2h wrote

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

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

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

vintagestyles t1_jdtsxwy wrote

The 2nd factor wasn’t it. It was cus he was a dem and not one of their guys so they had no influence. Or very little connection.

The fact he is black is just a bonus for them.

−9

vintagestyles t1_jdtsru5 wrote

Yes it can, it wasn’t their pick. They have no influence over him and what he can propose to those people.

−9

AFlyingGideon t1_jdtxw9t wrote

As a pilot, I don't want an airport manager in charge. I want someone who understands aircraft operations. Pilot, controller, whatever.

28

Power_Broker2 t1_jdt1of1 wrote

Reddit hive mind won't like this one lmao. Seriously though, he was a bad pick

72

akurra_dev t1_jdub5s4 wrote

Lol your comment is way more of a circle jerk than what the "hive mind" is doing in here. All the top comments are looking at it objectively and saying he was a bad hire.

6

ImActualIndependent t1_jdvtr8c wrote

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

rewindpaws t1_jdtpqf1 wrote

Serious question: why was he chosen? I read he had experience in transit, while not in aviation.

7

Person012345 t1_jdtfrs6 wrote

They're not just going to find anyone actually good to head the FAA and it won't change any of the FAA's policies either way.

2

Art-Zuron t1_jdtrad3 wrote

Generally speaking, if the GOP criticizes someone, that probably means they are definitely the right pick. But, there's always exceptions!

−25

AngryRedGummyBear t1_jdtzxgz wrote

Ah yes, blind partisanship, the best thing for democracy.

31

Art-Zuron t1_jdv0ary wrote

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

> 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

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

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

hawtpot87 t1_jdtfhh5 wrote

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

76

[deleted] t1_jdsjc3a wrote

[removed]

61

Power_Broker2 t1_jdt13we wrote

Nah, this nomination was completely fucked regardless of your political party: see this

51

BeautifulType t1_jdt29jg wrote

Politics shouldn’t be able to nominate anything and these positions should go to the best person working in these departments

6

usrevenge t1_jdtehi9 wrote

Unfortunately you then get "who decides who is best" which leads you to eventually the same issue.

11

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

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

jdp12199 t1_jdunecd wrote

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

31

carvedmuss8 t1_jdu7x57 wrote

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

10

[deleted] t1_jdsews1 wrote

[deleted]

−2

RespectMyAuthoriteh t1_jdswe9h wrote

From the article: " ...his only aviation-related experience is serving as CEO of the Denver airport for less than two years."

30

Power_Broker2 t1_jdt1h2q wrote

In this case, yes

17

Xanthelei t1_jdtnr61 wrote

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

Brutallll t1_jdsucsc wrote

You can honestly say this in good faith when dems do the same thing to repubs? It’s a cycle that never ends.

−6

SmurfUp t1_jdte8q7 wrote

No Democrats are always doing things out of the goodness of their hearts and Republicans are always evil cartoon characters.

1

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

teotronix t1_jdtg6xm wrote

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

−9

[deleted] t1_jdskzwa wrote

[removed]

−12

pegothejerk t1_jdsmqqb wrote

Nah, they stare into it and blame Dems and wokeness for their going blind

−2

SassyMoron t1_jdu53nl wrote

Sinema holding up progress as usual

−15

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

Johnson_N_B t1_jdvxtue wrote

> 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

psychedoutcasts t1_jdw5r6q wrote

Obviously not if he couldn't handle Republicans.

−4

Johnson_N_B t1_jdw714x wrote

Uh, ok? If that’s the only thing that matters to you then sure, I guess so.

6

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

code_archeologist t1_jdsqjhs wrote

Biden could sign an executive order saying that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are tasty, and they would be all over Fox News to scream and cry about how they were against it.

−18

[deleted] t1_jdslc7m wrote

[deleted]

−39

Malaix t1_jdt11w0 wrote

It failed because some democrats joined Republicans. In a senate that close you can't really afford defectors.

23

008Zulu t1_jdsspka wrote

The GOP loves forcing people to do things they don't want to do.

−12

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

Power_Broker2 t1_jdt1d2m wrote

He was most definitely unqualified

79

DollyPartWithOn t1_jdt2tri wrote

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

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

I_Heart_Astronomy t1_jdswl3u wrote

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

−42

HumanJello4114 t1_jdt4hzb wrote

that's what opposition parties are supposed to do - keep the other side honest. no party is good at self-critique when it comes to these kinds of things.

64

I_Heart_Astronomy t1_jdv7dmc wrote

Nothing about Republicans is rooted in any kind of honesty. They are just trying to grab political power in bad faith. There is no other reason.

−12