Phil Washington, head of the Denver airport, has been nominated to become FAA Administrator by the Biden administration. His experience in aviation is limited, Democrats concede, but his backers argue that he is a good manager of public sector bureaucracies.
That management is in question based on his involvement in a corruption scandal from his time at L.A. Metro, and a discrimination lawsuit involving his leadership in Denver.
However it is neither his skills nor his management that have the potential to derail the nomination. It is his 24 years of military service.
- It’s odd for Republicans to argue that military service would disqualify someone from a federal leadership position.
- But the statute which created the FAA requires the head of the agency to be a civilian. There was specific concern over civilian control over airspace (something that doesn’t exist in many countries) and it was only a couple of decades past when the Roosevelt administration had the military take over flying the mail, following a government contracting scandal, with deadly consequences.
- And Phil Washington didn’t just retire from the military (as in ‘he’s a civilian now’) he maintains retired status in the military.
Because he served over 20 years in the military, he is still paid by the military (in addition to his government salary for his current role). In fact with 24 years of service he presumably retired – as a Command Sergeant Major – with 60% of his final base pay at the E-9 level.
In order to serve as FAA Administrator, then, he either must:
- obtain a waiver from Congress, allowing him to serve
- resign his retired status
There was a point in time where he could have rolled his military retirement into the federal retirement system calculations but I believe that window is shut.
Now, Democrats in the Senate say he’s simply eligible to serve because he is not active duty. That’s not a position that the Biden administration itself was willing to take publicly when forwarding his nomination.
Washington was originally nominated when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. A waiver should not have been a problem at this point. But Democrats in the Senate didn’t manage to take up the nomination last year. Now Republicans control the House, Ted Cruz says he plans to block the nomination by refusing the waiver, and House Republicans should be able to accomplish this.
Republicans Ted Cruz and Sam Graves tell Biden they'll block his nominee for FAA administrator by refusing to grant a waiver for the military retiree to serve in the job. Not an empty threat because Republicans control House. pic.twitter.com/cUv8vshdbj
— David Koenig (@airlinewriter) March 2, 2023
That leaves two avenues – Washington would have to surrender his military retiree status (at great personal cost) or Democrats would have to confirm him to lead the FAA and then win in court over his eligibility. The legal case for confirming him as a retiree would seem shaky, and would leave FAA leadership in question at a time when there have been numerous safety incidents.
In other words, uncertain leadership at the FAA becomes a political liability for the Biden administration. There’s already increased scrutiny over the agency, and failing to act to provide secure leadership could be damaging in the event of another incident since the administration would have ‘failed to take steps to prevent it’.
Of course in such a scenario they’d respond that it was really the Republicans who had prevented them from installing that leadership, as a result of their failure to grant Washington a waiver. But even having to have that conversation is a political loss (not to mention whatever loss would stem from the safety incident which triggered it).
@Gary – I think you mean Republicans now control the House.
I’m no fan of Cancun Ted Cruz but now he hates the military too?
Sounds like he should withdraw his nomination,as at some point the fight just isn’t worth it. But that’s his decision (with perhaps a nudge from the Administration if they rethink things). But just one point to note: The Spoils Conference on flying the mail that is referenced in the link occurred in 1930. That was 3 years before Franklin Roosevelt was sworn in and so it involved the Hoover Administration. In 1934 FDR signed legislation to avoid a repeat of the situation.
@drrichard – the political scandal came as the result of a 1934 congressional investigation into the spoils conference, and FDR ordered the military to fly the mail. There were 10 fatalities in less than three weeks.
This isn’t the only reason that Republicans don’t support him. In testimony it was brought out that his former jobs have been a disaster, and he has been plagued by employee lawsuits. as far as I can tell, the military thiig is just an easy excuse but if you listen to Cruz video, that’s not all.
It appears he’s not very well qualified and is more of a “woke” appointee. Since it is the only way the Republicans can attempt to block the nomination, it seems reasonable that they would do so to prevent a marginally qualified person from assuming a role of such vital importance.
Honestly, Democrats should just use this as an excuse to drop the nomination and pick someone else. He’s a patently terrible candidate and it’s embarrassing that some with such a tiny amount of aviation experience could have ever been considered, let alone nominated, to be the FAA Administrator.
Someone with significant actual aviation safety experience – not one year of experience as an airport CEO prior to his nomination – should be leading the FAA. Ideally, the FAA Administrator should be a qualified pilot and/or engineer from the aerospace industry who also has management experience.
They should just take the technicality of his retired military status disqualifying him as an excuse to withdraw the nomination and then nominate someone who is actually qualified. Ideally someone with regulatory or safety experience at the FAA, experience in flying aircraft, and/or experience in designing aircraft. Someone whose focus is on safety and efficiency (in that order) above political and social matters.
In my mindset it’s simple. Phil Washington does one of the following.
– surrender his military retiree status (at great personal cost)
– respectfully decline the nomination. Which if I was him I would choose. Being the head of the FAA to me is not worth loss of military service let alone the retirement money.
“The statute which created the FAA requires the head of the agency to be a civilian. There was specific concern over civilian control over airspace.” is there for a good reason, for all U.S. Citizens. In my humble opinion the many old school Law Makers knew what they were doing to protect U.S.A. as Republic vs eventual Dictatorship.
As to “I’m no fan of Cancun Ted Cruz but now he hates the military too?” don’t believe he hates military. But the law/rules are clear to me, no military service/connection in office. Go to Congress to get waiver/go a out is ridiculous, again law/rules are clear. Waste of U.S. Citizens tax dollars again.
My concern is his lack of aviation experience. Leo Mullen was a highly recommended businessman with banking experience. He knew how to spell “airplane” but that’s about it. He decimated Delta Air Lines years ago. In this gentleman’s situation, the law regarding government service can’t just be tossed out but Congress would have to make the decision. Considering the current administration of, mostly screw ball nominations (our “suitcase stealer”) I’d toss him out without a whimper.
We have a Sec’y of Transportation who’s unqualified.
We don’t need a head of the FAA who’s similarly unqualified.
If, like Brutus, he loved Caesar less and Rome more, he’d withdraw and allow Biden to find someone more competent.
@gary – Really doesn’t matter who controls the House since the Senate confirms appointments and the House has no vote.
@rick — it kinda does matter. Congress — both chambers — must approve a waiver, not just the Senate. The law clearly says the FAA head must be a civilian not military. We may either change the law or obey it. Ignoring a law we don’t like seems like a first step on a very slippery slope that we all should desire to avoid.
@Rick – if he needs a waiver from the civilian requirement that has to be done legislatively (therefore must pass both houses of congress)
He didn’t respond well to a Senator’s questions…..not qualified!
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2023/03/03/terrifying-bidens-faa-nominee-0-for-7-on-senators-aviation-policy-quiz-1337574/
An Army sergeant major in charge of the FAA? makes perfect sense.
The window for him to roll his military time into civilian time hasn’t shut, but it would be incredibly expensive and foolhardy. The only requirement for performing that is to be an active federal employee, so if he’s not a current Fed then he can’t do that. Even if could, by doing so he gives up his military pension and all access to the military health plan (Tricare), which would be a monumentally foolish decision. Lastly, the entire military buy back would need to be completed before one retires\leaves federal service. So, he would have 24 years of pay to convert PLUS interest to pay in Biden’s remaining two years in office (or 6 years if re-elected). As a perspective, I bought back 6 years of service and my interest payments were triple of what my pay portion was. Its not an inconsequential amount of money.
He’s better off just withdrawing from the nomination.