A) I think the guy who was "responsible for the safety and operational performance of Delta's global flight operations, as well as pilot training, crew resources, crew scheduling, and regulatory compliance" has a lot of relevant experience that hundreds of thousands of line pilots probably would not have.
We already know you believe this. The question is why do you believe so. I gave you reasons why it's not relevant experience. Let's see if your reasons stack up.
Oh well, at least you backed off the "he's no different than hundreds of thousands of other pilots" canard.
B) All he did was mention his own sign off, he didn't say it would be the only sign off that would happen.
You're shifting the argument. I'm not arguing that he will be the only sign off. I'm arguing about exactly what he said - that he will be the ultimate sign-off. That is autocratic language.
He's the head of the FAA during the recovery from the biggest crisis of confidence the FAA has ever seen.
I think appearing to be autocratic is the least of his worries.
C) A person who was in charge of DL's pilot training in addition to being a line pilot is a great person to provide an evaluation of the new training package, and again, there's no evidence that he'll be the only one doing so.
Coming from DL means that he may not be unbiased and likely has a financial conflict of interest in the MAX grounding. That's not a positive.
If freedom from financial conflict was a requirement, most of the Trump Administration would need to resign, including Trump himself. Same can be said for a large percentage of all recent other administrations, red or blue. Regulatory agencies are all loaded with former corporate executives with all kinds of direct or indirect ties to previous employers. The Fed and the Department of the Treasury are jokes, there is a revolving door between them and Wall Street, the financial ties between the regulators and the regulated are obscene jokes.
Maybe we should do like China does and create institutes that crank out political cadre loyal to party alone so we can have a pristine bureaucracy?
But as I've stated before, his prior role was a rule-taker, not a rule-maker. Big difference. We can assume there are many people at the FAA that have experience making rules that other entities have to follow. He is not one of them.
I guess you see the transition from rule taker to rule maker as troubling, but I doubt others do. He was head of DL's pilot training. They would take Boeing's FAA approved training package and adapt it for their airline and then get the modified plan approved by FAA. Since DL was also flying A320, A330 and A350 he would have been part of adapting EASA training packages and getting them approved.
But this really isn't about the training package. In fact, in the article he says they will have people from around the world giving their evaluation and will defer to them. He implies that it will properly be a group decision. This is about him first flying the plane and not signing off until he does. From the article language, it implies this is prior to the validation of Boeing's training package. Saying he will not sign off until he has flown it is at best a PR statement. Is that what we want our regulations to do? Talk to us like we're fools?
Sorry you feel that you are being talked down to.
As I wrote earlier I feel better that we have experienced pilots as FAA Administrator and deputy administrator rather than career politicians. UASFA provides a great educational basis for people to go on and do great things. If the result is that these people have an autocratic air to them, it's something I think we can deal with.