President Donald Trump will nominate former Delta Air Lines executive Steve Dickson to head the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the White House said on Tuesday.

At Delta, Dickson oversaw more than 13,000 pilots and an internal support team of 400 employees. He flew the A320, B727, B737, B757 and B767 during his career at Delta and is a former U.S. Air Force officer and F-15 fighter pilot.

Trump taps former Delta executive to head aviation regulator
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1R02JC

=

FAA Administrator post has been vacant for 14-months with a permanent nominee.

Seems the right man for the job.

One of the worst kept secrets in DC.

For those of you unaware, he was the Director of Flight Ops at Delta. Pretty good pick, imo. Glad to see someone nominated who has experience flying a real plane (The 727)! Anyone can be better than Huerta. Glad those days are behind us.

ual763 wrote:

Anyone can be better than Huerta. Glad those days are behind us.

Why was Michael Huerta so bad?

Roots1 wrote:

ual763 wrote:

Anyone can be better than Huerta. Glad those days are behind us.

Why was Michael Huerta so bad?

Well, aside from having barely any experience in the aviation industry (was a donor to both political parties), read up about what he did with ATC hiring back in 2013 & 2014. Didn't work out too well, and there are currently a couple class action lawsuits brewing as we speak. There are numerous other little things too, but this is the main one.

Does he have any personal affiliation with Trump or is this Trump's first independent nominee for a public office? If it's the latter that speaks for Mr. Dickson.

Why was the job vacant for so long anyway? Trump will try to market this, and the order to ground the MAX, as his win but he's been in office long enough to find someone much earlier.

mxaxai wrote:

Does he have any personal affiliation with Trump or is this Trump's first independent nominee for a public office? If it's the latter that speaks for Mr. Dickson.

Why was the job vacant for so long anyway? Trump will try to market this, and the order to ground the MAX, as his win but he's been in office long enough to find someone much earlier.

It hasn't been empty -- there's been an acting/interim FAA head since the last person resigned about a year ago. Apparently it's not uncommon for these types of appointed positions to be filled by a top-level leader in the organization for an extended period of time.

Either way, I think this Delta guy sounds like a pretty good choice.

PacificWest wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Does he have any personal affiliation with Trump or is this Trump's first independent nominee for a public office? If it's the latter that speaks for Mr. Dickson.

Why was the job vacant for so long anyway? Trump will try to market this, and the order to ground the MAX, as his win but he's been in office long enough to find someone much earlier.

It hasn't been empty -- there's been an acting/interim FAA head since the last person resigned about a year ago. Apparently it's not uncommon for these types of appointed positions to be filled by a top-level leader in the organization for an extended period of time.

Either way, I think this Delta guy sounds like a pretty good choice.

Since you made this a bit political, overriding the FAA and grounding the 737 was a “win”. It was the right thing to do.

Elaine Chao was formerly on the NW board wasn't she? Interesting that it's those formerly involved with DL/NW who have found their way to DOT/FAA government spots. It's a pretty poorly kept secret as well that Anderson would have been tapped for DOT Secretary had the election gone for Hillary.

enilria wrote:

PacificWest wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Does he have any personal affiliation with Trump or is this Trump's first independent nominee for a public office? If it's the latter that speaks for Mr. Dickson.

Why was the job vacant for so long anyway? Trump will try to market this, and the order to ground the MAX, as his win but he's been in office long enough to find someone much earlier.

It hasn't been empty -- there's been an acting/interim FAA head since the last person resigned about a year ago. Apparently it's not uncommon for these types of appointed positions to be filled by a top-level leader in the organization for an extended period of time.

Either way, I think this Delta guy sounds like a pretty good choice.

Since you made this a bit political, overriding the FAA and grounding the 737 was a “win”. It was the right thing to do.

While grounding may have been the right thing to do, it never should have been done by Trump.

winginit wrote:

Elaine Chao was formerly on the NW board wasn't she? Interesting that it's those formerly involved with DL/NW who have found their way to DOT/FAA government spots. It's a pretty poorly kept secret as well that Anderson would have been tapped for DOT Secretary had the election gone for Hillary.

She is also the wife of Mitch McConnell.

Politics is always a factor for department and agency heads. So yes, I would expect Mr. Dickson to be friends with someone in the administration and likely Republican. If you read the WSJ story, it states:

After a 27-year career with Delta, Mr. Dickson’s bid to become the top U.S. aviation regulator has garnered White House support, and generally positive response among Senate Republicans, according to people familiar with the matter.
If confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term, Mr. Dickson would be the first head of the roughly 45,000-employee agency in three decades to come directly from a senior executive post at an airline.

In general, Presidents don't appoint people to lead agencies if their views are too different, or are mavericks on their own.

Well Randy Babbit may as well of been an executive at a major airline. Wasn’t he the head of ALPA for a while?

It is problematic that people from inside the industry are tasked with regulating the industry. I’m curiuos what position awaits Dickson after he finishes “slumming it” in the public sector for a few years. Can you really trust an industry insider to properly and safely regulated the industry? The 737-Max says no.

Yossarian22 wrote:

It is problematic that people from inside the industry are tasked with regulating the industry. I’m curiuos what position awaits Dickson after he finishes “slumming it” in the public sector for a few years. Can you really trust an industry insider to properly and safely regulated the industry? The 737-Max says no.

I would much rather trust someone with knowlege of the industry than another political flunky. Congress already reeks of inbreading.

LAXintl wrote:

Politics is always a factor for department and agency heads. So yes, I would expect Mr. Dickson to be friends with someone in the administration and likely Republican. If you read the WSJ story, it states:

After a 27-year career with Delta, Mr. Dickson’s bid to become the top U.S. aviation regulator has garnered White House support, and generally positive response among Senate Republicans, according to people familiar with the matter.
If confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term, Mr. Dickson would be the first head of the roughly 45,000-employee agency in three decades to come directly from a senior executive post at an airline.

In general, Presidents don't appoint people to lead agencies if their views are too different, or are mavericks on their own.

You are correct politics always matter but I don't think any one outside of D.C. cares about his politics or who he voted for what most people are looking for is someone with experience which Mr. Dickson has. With the FAA being under fire and under investigation by a federal grand jury over the MAX certification program that agency now more than ever needs someone at the top with real world experience who also has the ability to lead the FAA through these difficult times and restore trust in that agency.
I see no reason why the Senate would not confirm him unless as you pointed out politics come into play. But right now with the heat the FAA is taking it would be foolish for the Democrats to play politics on this nomination this vacancy needs to be filled.

The government/industry revolving door spins merrily along.

People are funny. As if an agency head has anything to do with regulatory oversight. He’s not going to oversee certification. He’s not going to be a safety inspector. The whole Boeing in bed with the FAA is ridiculous. Name one aircraft program that didn’t have issues. Name an aircraft program that hasn’t has a crash. Name an aircraft program that hasn’t had design changes after certification. The USA has one of the safest aviation cultures in the world and the FAA is part of that. This outrage of the month stuff needs to stop.

But hey, the guy flew a 737. What more do you need. He’s super qualified to oversee certification

mxaxai wrote:

Why was the job vacant for so long anyway?

Because senators balked at Trump’s first idea of nominating his personal pilot to head the FAA.

Not long ago Trump said he was nominating his own personal pilot to head the FAA. What ever happened to that plan?

Yossarian22 wrote:

It is problematic that people from inside the industry are tasked with regulating the industry. I’m curiuos what position awaits Dickson after he finishes “slumming it” in the public sector for a few years. Can you really trust an industry insider to properly and safely regulated the industry? The 737-Max says no.

If it was someone from Boeing, then you may have a point, but not sure what bias an ex-DL exec would bring to the FAA's role. If anything I think its good that a ex-pilot is being selected and I would hope(expect) that he will put public safety above any personal/political gain

LAXintl wrote:

President Donald Trump will nominate former Delta Air Lines executive Steve Dickson to head the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the White House said on Tuesday.

At Delta, Dickson oversaw more than 13,000 pilots and an internal support team of 400 employees. He flew the A320, B727, B737, B757 and B767 during his career at Delta and is a former U.S. Air Force officer and F-15 fighter pilot.

Trump taps former Delta executive to head aviation regulator
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1R02JC

=

FAA Administrator post has been vacant for 14-months with a permanent nominee.

Sweet. They're putting a Delta guy who retired off the Airbus A320 in charge. Checks all of SWAs preferences one after the other. Now just put Anderson in charge of the DOT and see if Boeing "the ship without a rudder" explodes. He is still pissed about Boeing and our 737 sims.

Heck of a job to inherit, but for those at the FAA... wear your hats.

B737900ER wrote:

People are funny. As if an agency head has anything to do with regulatory oversight. He’s not going to oversee certification. He’s not going to be a safety inspector. The whole Boeing in bed with the FAA is ridiculous. Name one aircraft program that didn’t have issues. Name an aircraft program that hasn’t has a crash. Name an aircraft program that hasn’t had design changes after certification. The USA has one of the safest aviation cultures in the world and the FAA is part of that. This outrage of the month stuff needs to stop.

But hey, the guy flew a 737. What more do you need. He’s super qualified to oversee certification

Just one?
I guess the most appropriate one from the list of those that haven't had a crash would be the A320NEO ....

But I could add to that..
The A380
The 748
The 787
The A350
The 330NEO

In fact, to the best of my memory, every major development programme launched by either of the big 2 this century has a crash record which demonstrates the expectations of modern safety management - i.e. none.

I will gladly stand corrected, but that is the context that the MAX crashes exist in, in the 21st century.

Rgds

Dunno why, but I was terrified before opening this that it would say "Vicki Escarra"

26point2 wrote:

Not long ago Trump said he was nominating his own personal pilot to head the FAA. What ever happened to that plan?

I believe it was shot down behind the scenes before it got any legs, so it never actually went anywhere

astuteman wrote:

In fact, to the best of my memory, every major development programme launched by either of the big 2 this century has a crash record which demonstrates the expectations of modern safety management - i.e. none.

I will gladly stand corrected, but that is the context that the MAX crashes exist in, in the 21st century.

Rgds

Give it time.

Avation has become so safe that we don’t expect accidents or incidents. But the fact of the matter is that flying is inherently dangerous. The 787 came close. The A380 came real close. The rest of your list will experience a crash or will come really close to crashing at some point. How many A320 crashed due to poor designs? Not bashing any model in particular, but you can’t predict every situation and every flight crew decision during testing. The head of the FAA isn’t going to change that.

gatibosgru wrote:

26point2 wrote:

Not long ago Trump said he was nominating his own personal pilot to head the FAA. What ever happened to that plan?

Let's just be happy that miraculously didn't happen.

He’s actually an EXTREMELY intelligent guy and an amazing pilot. I know him and speak to him regularly at work. You should see his license card, or rather cards, quite the amazing list of type ratings.

I like the choice, DL has taken maintenance and safety seriously yet at the same time operate older fleets where that is more challenging. I am sure there are parts of the FAA that need a good house cleaning. Being business friendly does not require a sell out.

Political appointees often are because they donated, not whether they know a thing about their current job. How many ambassadors have been total flakes.

Dickson is a solid choice, a good man, and my former boss.
Nice to see Trump nominating someone who doesn't want to dismantle the agency they are picked to lead for once.

DENTK wrote:

Dickson is a solid choice, a good man, and my former boss.

Never would have guessed you were a Delta guy with that username

ual763 wrote:

Never would have guessed you were a Delta guy with that username

Couldn't resist this lovely Colorado weather.

S0Y wrote:

Yossarian22 wrote:

It is problematic that people from inside the industry are tasked with regulating the industry. I’m curiuos what position awaits Dickson after he finishes “slumming it” in the public sector for a few years. Can you really trust an industry insider to properly and safely regulated the industry? The 737-Max says no.

If it was someone from Boeing, then you may have a point, but not sure what bias an ex-DL exec would bring to the FAA's role. If anything I think its good that a ex-pilot is being selected and I would hope(expect) that he will put public safety above any personal/political gain

Of the largest U.S. airlines, Delta is the only one that doesn't have the max on order. The next largest U.S. airline that doesn't have them ordered is JetBlue. The sudden need to appoint someone to this position was likely precipitated by the max crisis. It's actually a pleasantly surprising avoidance of a conflict of interest.

Jouhou wrote:

S0Y wrote:

Yossarian22 wrote:

It is problematic that people from inside the industry are tasked with regulating the industry. I’m curiuos what position awaits Dickson after he finishes “slumming it” in the public sector for a few years. Can you really trust an industry insider to properly and safely regulated the industry? The 737-Max says no.

If it was someone from Boeing, then you may have a point, but not sure what bias an ex-DL exec would bring to the FAA's role. If anything I think its good that a ex-pilot is being selected and I would hope(expect) that he will put public safety above any personal/political gain

Of the largest U.S. airlines, Delta is the only one that doesn't have the max on order. The next largest U.S. airline that doesn't have them ordered is JetBlue. The sudden need to appoint someone to this position was likely precipitated by the max crisis. It's actually a pleasantly surprising avoidance of a conflict of interest.

The FAA does more than regulate the 737-Max, it regulates airlines as well. That is a conflict of interest, it is problematic that in nearly every regulatory position is a guy who once was a high level executive in the industry he is now regulating.

Yossarian22 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

S0Y wrote:

If it was someone from Boeing, then you may have a point, but not sure what bias an ex-DL exec would bring to the FAA's role. If anything I think its good that a ex-pilot is being selected and I would hope(expect) that he will put public safety above any personal/political gain

Of the largest U.S. airlines, Delta is the only one that doesn't have the max on order. The next largest U.S. airline that doesn't have them ordered is JetBlue. The sudden need to appoint someone to this position was likely precipitated by the max crisis. It's actually a pleasantly surprising avoidance of a conflict of interest.

The FAA does more than regulate the 737-Max, it regulates airlines as well. That is a conflict of interest, it is problematic that in nearly every regulatory position is a guy who once was a high level executive in the industry he is now regulating.

My statement was in the context that the only reason why they are appointing someone now *is* the max crisis. Otherwise the admin didn't seem to care about filling the position. I understand that it may be a conflict of interest in regards to other issues, however as far as hiring former airline executives goes, this is the best choice for the situation.

Yossarian22 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

S0Y wrote:

If it was someone from Boeing, then you may have a point, but not sure what bias an ex-DL exec would bring to the FAA's role. If anything I think its good that a ex-pilot is being selected and I would hope(expect) that he will put public safety above any personal/political gain

Of the largest U.S. airlines, Delta is the only one that doesn't have the max on order. The next largest U.S. airline that doesn't have them ordered is JetBlue. The sudden need to appoint someone to this position was likely precipitated by the max crisis. It's actually a pleasantly surprising avoidance of a conflict of interest.

The FAA does more than regulate the 737-Max, it regulates airlines as well. That is a conflict of interest, it is problematic that in nearly every regulatory position is a guy who once was a high level executive in the industry he is now regulating.

There has got to be some leeway though. You either have someone with no Aviation experience (kind of like the last Administrator) who sucks, or you have someone with prior Aviation experience (which unless the company they used to work for is no more, there will always be some sort of CoI). I will take someone with experience anyday of the week. Plus, there is lots of oversight by other government agencies to ensure they are playing by the rules. Hence the current review of the FAA by the DOJ and DOT.

B737900ER wrote:

astuteman wrote:

In fact, to the best of my memory, every major development programme launched by either of the big 2 this century has a crash record which demonstrates the expectations of modern safety management - i.e. none.

I will gladly stand corrected, but that is the context that the MAX crashes exist in, in the 21st century.

Rgds

Give it time.

Avation has become so safe that we don’t expect accidents or incidents. But the fact of the matter is that flying is inherently dangerous. The 787 came close. The A380 came real close. The rest of your list will experience a crash or will come really close to crashing at some point. How many A320 crashed due to poor designs? Not bashing any model in particular, but you can’t predict every situation and every flight crew decision during testing. The head of the FAA isn’t going to change that.

And if I needed any further evidence that the safety culture is well and truly broken around the 737 MAX, not that I did, this response would be it.
It's appalling - just like Boeing's and the FAA's response to the crashes.

At the moment the programmes I cited have a 0 statistical probability of crashing.
The 737NG and A320CEO from the '80's and '90's have a 1 in 10 million statistical probability of crashing.
But the MAX - the latest programme of them all - has a one in 100 000 statistical probability of crashing.
That is 100 times worse than 1990's designs and infinitely worse than 21st century designs.

Yet both Boeing and the FAA pushed hard to keep it in the Air!!!!!
In the '60's and '70's that might have been acceptable, but I can guarantee you that it isn't in the 2nd decade of the 21st century
And I need to be really clear here. That's not a debatable statement
The twisting and turning of apologists on these forums notwithstanding.

You had better hope that the new Head of the FAA changes this utterly disgraceful cavalier attitude to other peoples safety pretty damn quick.
He bloody needs to!
Otherwise your prophesy will indeed be self fulfilling.

astuteman wrote:

But the MAX - the latest programme of them all - has a one in 100 000 statistical probability of crashing.

Right now it has a 0 in a gazillion statistical probability of crashing.

Better this guy takes the job than some political hack. Of course, the a.net armchair administrators would do a better job.

B737900ER wrote:

Name an aircraft program that hasn’t has a crash.

A350, A380, A340*, 717, 787, C-series,....

Best regards
Thomas

*all hull loses on the ground

B737900ER wrote:

People are funny. As if an agency head has anything to do with regulatory oversight. He’s not going to oversee certification. He’s not going to be a safety inspector. The whole Boeing in bed with the FAA is ridiculous. Name one aircraft program that didn’t have issues. Name an aircraft program that hasn’t has a crash. Name an aircraft program that hasn’t had design changes after certification. The USA has one of the safest aviation cultures in the world and the FAA is part of that. This outrage of the month stuff needs to stop.

But hey, the guy flew a 737. What more do you need. He’s super qualified to oversee certification

Well as FAA head he can advocate for more funding so that his agency can actually do its job instead of delegating it to Boeing.

Of he can be a political hack and say his agency should be gutted because "less government is better" or such nonsense.

So that makes quite a difference, in the end.

LAX772LR wrote:

Dunno why, but I was terrified before opening this that it would say "Vicki Escarra"

And yet another post of patently pointless commentary about someone who has no tangible effect on the industry.

Back on topic: After reading various press releases and multiple sources describing his bio and background information, Dickson seems to be quite qualified for the job. Hopefully he can clean up the mess that is the FAA we know today and get things moving forward on NexGen.

winginit wrote:

Elaine Chao was formerly on the NW board wasn't she? Interesting that it's those formerly involved with DL/NW who have found their way to DOT/FAA government spots. It's a pretty poorly kept secret as well that Anderson would have been tapped for DOT Secretary had the election gone for Hillary.

She was on NW’s Board and played a role in union busting NW’s AMFA represented AMTs.

Well it looks like with the Presidents appointment here, we will at least know what FAA leadership will be in place during the development and certification phase of the

incredible Boeing 797.

He definitely looks like a guy that is competent to do the job well.
I think that's a good choice.

ual763 wrote:

For those of you unaware, he was the Director of Flight Ops at Delta. Pretty good pick, imo. Glad to see someone nominated who has experience flying a real plane (The 727)! Anyone can be better than Huerta. Glad those days are behind us.

More like he was the SVP of Flight Ops at Delta....

Steve was the former SVP of Flight Operations at Delta for years. He’s an extremely intelligent, competent pilot. As I recall he was number 1 in his class at the Air Force Academy prior to flying the F15. He was on numerous FAA and industry steering committees and very involved with NextGen as well as other roles. I think he is an excellent choice to lead the FAA. His biggest issue will be driving a large federal bureaucracy as opposed to a division of a public company. Either way he’s way more impressive than Trump’s personal pilot.

catiii wrote:

ual763 wrote:

For those of you unaware, he was the Director of Flight Ops at Delta. Pretty good pick, imo. Glad to see someone nominated who has experience flying a real plane (The 727)! Anyone can be better than Huerta. Glad those days are behind us.

More like he was the SVP of Flight Ops at Delta....

True, but on their FAA certification, the FAA would have him as Director of Ops, since Senior VP is a company term.

Aesma wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

People are funny. As if an agency head has anything to do with regulatory oversight. He’s not going to oversee certification. He’s not going to be a safety inspector. The whole Boeing in bed with the FAA is ridiculous. Name one aircraft program that didn’t have issues. Name an aircraft program that hasn’t has a crash. Name an aircraft program that hasn’t had design changes after certification. The USA has one of the safest aviation cultures in the world and the FAA is part of that. This outrage of the month stuff needs to stop.

But hey, the guy flew a 737. What more do you need. He’s super qualified to oversee certification

Well as FAA head he can advocate for more funding so that his agency can actually do its job instead of delegating it to Boeing.

Of he can be a political hack and say his agency should be gutted because "less government is better" or such nonsense.

So that makes quite a difference, in the end.

Not even that. He could just change the culture from the top down without more people. There are reports of people with concerns being overruled by their supervisors.

Maddawg88 wrote:

Steve was the former SVP of Flight Operations at Delta for years. He’s an extremely intelligent, competent pilot. As I recall he was number 1 in his class at the Air Force Academy prior to flying the F15. He was on numerous FAA and industry steering committees and very involved with NextGen as well as other roles. I think he is an excellent choice to lead the FAA. His biggest issue will be driving a large federal bureaucracy as opposed to a division of a public company. Either way he’s way more impressive than Trump’s personal pilot.

While he seems like a good choice, whether he is a pilot or not really has nothing to do with being able to run a large agency like the FAA.