Rep. Sam Graves, the self described airplane nut who also chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is apparently in the running to be the next Transportation Secretary and regardless of your politics, it would be tough to find a more qualified or more passionate choice. Too bad he's not Elon Musk's favorite for the job.
I get your points, Russ, and I agree that qualifications and past behavior should count. But I think you missed something: The whole point of Trumpâs and Muskâs schtick is to shake up the status quo. Rep. Gravesâs qualifications are indeed impressive, but they are qualifications fit for a status quo government. Even you note that Graves would resist the very efforts Trump and Musk intend; to reign in the exorbitant costs and regulation inherent in hidebound government agencies. The more hidebound an agency, the larger the wrecking ball, and there are few government agencies as hidebound as the FAA.
Leaving the politics out, I agree that Graves would make a decent DOT Secretary, but itâs unlikely to happen. I just hope Graves continues doing what heâs been doing (at least on the aviation side - thereâs plenty of room to argue over other policies he may be for or against, but Iâd like to think in this âroomâ, we all have common aviation policy goals).
The time to leave politics out of it seems to have passed given the vitriolic comments contained in the AvWeb article.
Apparently the editor failed to read his own community guidelines prior to publishing his overly opinionated personal attack opinion piece.
Interesting how you and others in your corner try to reduce every discussion you donât like to an âattack piece.â Itâs not that easy. This isnât the second grade. The time for two-or three-word dogwhistles is over.
Not sure what âcornerâ youâre referring to, seems youâve made a pretty damn quick assumption about me with no factual basis.
It is neither âsecond gradeâ level or a âdogwhistleâ to expect accurate NEWS reporting from an aviation NEWS source rather than targeting someone for their past employer. If the editor wants to elevate the discourse on his site, he should consider setting an example rather than perpetuate attack journalism.
Your Liberal side is showing again Russ. I guess itâs all about Trump and his Conservative supporters that gets you all torqued up.
(post deleted by author)
In fairness, this is not a hard news article. Note that it falls under the âAviation Insiderâ banner - which is more OpEd than unbiased reporting. See AVweb Insider Archives - AVweb for past pieces.
Itâs opinion. Not a news story.
Politics is a major part of any discourse on aviation and is fair game for comment, including by me.
Was it not just last week that Mr. Niles was decrying EAGLE? If ever there was a man who could fulfill Mr. Niles wishes it would be Mr. Musk and his DOGE. In fact EAGLE is the very kind of target for which DOGE was created. Junkyard dogs are useful at times, donât dismiss them.
Well then Iâm sure youâll agree I have a right to my opinion that your comments were over-done attacks & heavy handed.
You have a nice day 
Unfortunately, history has shown that when politicians talk about âcutting government wasteâ, what they often really mean is cutting programs that they donât specifically benefit from and expanding ones that they do benefit from. And other laudible goals like âcut two regulations for every one addedâ often cause unintended (or sometimes intended) negative consequences.
It would be nice if Iâm proven wrong on this, but I suspect if EAGLE is cut as a result of âDOGEâ, it would also include cutting any support for G100UL or 100R, and I really would like to be able to fill my tanks with unleaded 100 octane avgas for all the benefits it affords, re: extended oil changes and reduced plug fouling to name two.
As that great life coach Mick Jagger once said, âYou canât always get what you want, but you get what you needâ.
Thatâs actually how that column started out. Weâve had a number of suggested targets for DOGE and I was going to write about that and then I found the stuff on Graves and Michael and switched gears. Stay tuned.
This is probably as good a time as any to realize that society has come to abuse the words Liberal and Conservative by implying them to identify tribes rather than to define policy. What is conservative about anarchists shaking up status quo, and what is liberal about trying to maintain but improve current institutions rather than obliterate them?
Thanks to Russ, I now know who Emil Michael and Sam Graves are.
Hereâs my summary: Michael is a âmanagement by flamethrowerâ guy. Graves is careful to not screw stuff up.
I am sofa king sick of the idea that you can make things better by having the flamethrower types âshake things up.â How many workplaces have been ruined by that simplistic thinking?
Real improvement can only happen in a workplace where you trust your boss. If you think your boss is going to make opportunistic nonsense out of any candid comments you offer, you wonât be candid.
Sean Duffy doesnât seem well qualified but anything is an improvement over Mayor Pete.