We now have a new head of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which I’d consider to be good news, as there’s lots of work to be done.
In this post:
Senate confirms Bryan Bedford as FAA Administrator
In March 2025, President Trump nominated Bryan Bedford as the new FAA Administrator. He has today been confirmed by the Senate, in a 53-43 vote, so he’ll now serve a five-year term.
For some background, while the term for the FAA Administrator usually lasts for five years, previous Administrator Mike Whitaker resigned on January 20, 2025, the same day that Trump took office. He had only assumed the role in late 2023, and clearly left (or was pushed out) for political reasons. Historically, the position of FAA Administrator had been pretty insulated from partisan politics, but I guess that changed.
Bedford has been in the industry for a long time, with over 30 years of experience. He had been CEO at Republic Airways for over 25 years, since 1999, before resigning several weeks back, presumably in anticipation of this job. For those not familiar, Republic is a regional airline, which operates flights on behalf of the “big three” US carriers.
While not of any consequence (at least to me), in 2010, Bedford was CEO of Frontier Airlines (when Republic purchased Frontier in bankruptcy), and appeared on Undercover Boss. Perhaps his reality TV experience was another reason he connected with Trump.
Why Bedford has proven to be a controversial pick
As mentioned above, historically the role of FAA Administrator hasn’t been partisan. For example, Biden’s appointee was confirmed by the Senate in a 98-0 vote. So by comparison, the 53-43 vote is much more partisan than we’re used to for this position.
On one end of the spectrum, you have some Republican Senators praising him for being an accomplished aviation leader who will bring expertise and common sense to his role…
…and on the other end of the spectrum, you have some Democratic Senators claiming he won’t put the safety of airline passengers over profits, and has shown a callous disregard for safety protocols.
The main controversy surrounding Bedford has involved his opposition to the 1,500-hour pilot rule, as he pushed for that to be eased while CEO of Republic. This has made him quite unpopular with pilots and the unions representing pilots, since it’s in their best interest to keep the requirements to be pilots high, so they can negotiate better contracts.
Personally, I’m with Bedford on this. In my opinion, the 1,500-hour rule was a bizarre response to the 2009 Colgan Air crash, where both pilots actually had more than 1,500 hours of experience. I also haven’t seen any data to show that the 1,500-hour rule makes our skies safer.
Pilots all over Europe get into flight decks with a lot fewer hours than that, and I don’t think anyone can argue that European skies are somehow less safe than American skies (though if there’s any data I’m missing, I’m always open to evolving!). Anyway, that’s neither here nor there.
I’m just happy to see that there’s once again someone leading the FAA, because this is a time where we need leadership for our aviation ecosystem. In theory, we’re supposed to see a modernization of our air traffic control system, and having an actual person leading the FAA is a key piece to that puzzle.
So congrats to Bedford, and as has been the precedent with FAA Administrators for decades, I hope he can be bipartisan and work toward solutions that make our air travel as safe and smooth as possible.
Bottom line
Bryan Bedford has been confirmed as the new FAA Administrator, after a 53-43 Senate vote. Trump’s pick will now serve a five-year term, and certainly has his work cut out for him. He has proven to be a controversial pick, mainly due to his take opposition to the 1,500-hour rule. I’m happy to see that we once again have someone leading the FAA, since that kind of seems like an important job.
What do you make of Bedford becoming the new FAA Administrator?
Brooke Rollins? I did not know such cabinet member until I looked her up now.
She is Agriculture Secretary whose background is in law who worked under Rick Perry. I read about Rick Perry when he was on "Dancing with the stars" ( I never watched the show but read about it) and who acknowledged that he did not know
nuclear arsenals were in the jurisdiction of Energy Dept. Absolutely a qualified candidate...
Brooke Rollins? I did not know such cabinet member until I looked her up now.
She is Agriculture Secretary whose background is in law who worked under Rick Perry. I read about Rick Perry when he was on "Dancing with the stars" ( I never watched the show but read about it) and who acknowledged that he did not know
nuclear arsenals were in the jurisdiction of Energy Dept. Absolutely a qualified candidate for the position. I am not aware of any Trump's cabinet members who are qualified to lead the departments they were nominated for. Most of all, I have beef with lawyers who make the final decisions in critical areas they have no background
in. Namely all Supreme Court justices who overrule decisions made by those who spent their lifetime working in specific fields, such as healthcare, labor, economic, etc...
Another monster on the Epstein list in a position of power. USA has fallen to fascism.
Did you forget to eat your daily covid vax for breakfast today? You seem like that sort of person..
the 1500 hour rule is indeed trash as policy but hardly the most pressing issue facing the US aviation sector, and on more crucial matters like air travel safety where this administration has suffered so many setbacks and is struggling desperately, it sure seems that Bedford doesn't have the stuff to turn the ship (plane) around.
@ digital_notmad -- Oh I agree the 1,500-hour rule is hardly the most important thing that needs to be addressed right now. But I don't think Bedford was suggesting it is. Instead, it's just something he has been getting a lot of scrutiny over, based on his role as CEO of Republic.
That is fair enough, no doubt! Did not mean to suggest that this post said otherwise; just wanted to underscore what the stakes are here.
" I also haven’t seen any data to show that the 1,500-hour rule makes our skies safer."
What a fallacy. Do you have data that proves the opposite?
Why do you advocate for lower minimums when it has ZERO impact on you personally?
There is no more pilot shortage.
Would a crew paycut finally make you and Gary Leff shutup about this topic (that you have no experience in)?
@ CanadianGoose -- Gary and I have very different takes on labor, so I don't think that's a fair take.
Look, my point is quite simple. I think it's important for pilots to be well trained. I just don't buy that someone being a Cessna flight instructor for 1,000 hours somehow makes them a better pilot than someone who specially trains to become an airline pilot, and has much more relevant experience.
As I said,...
@ CanadianGoose -- Gary and I have very different takes on labor, so I don't think that's a fair take.
Look, my point is quite simple. I think it's important for pilots to be well trained. I just don't buy that someone being a Cessna flight instructor for 1,000 hours somehow makes them a better pilot than someone who specially trains to become an airline pilot, and has much more relevant experience.
As I said, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Do you have any reason to believe pilots in the United States are better at their jobs than pilots in Germany, the UK, etc.?
I'm not advocating for lower wages at all. Quite to the contrary, I'm advocating for pilots to be able to earn better wages sooner, rather than essentially living at the poverty line while they're a flight instructor for years.
Ben, is the requirement that the applicant has to have 1500 hours or is the requirement that the applicant has to have an ATP? There is a pretty big difference.
@ FlyerDon -- Correct, they need an ATP, which ordinarily requires 1,500 hours, which is why it's typically referred to as the 1,500-hour rule.
True but there are several, I don’t know how many, universities like ERAU, that have flight programs that allow you to get an ATP with less hours, around 1,200 I think. There may be some non-university flight schools that also can offer the waiver. It’s been a long time since I studied for the ATP written but as I remember it covered part 121 regs, systems on transport category aircraft and had a lot of...
True but there are several, I don’t know how many, universities like ERAU, that have flight programs that allow you to get an ATP with less hours, around 1,200 I think. There may be some non-university flight schools that also can offer the waiver. It’s been a long time since I studied for the ATP written but as I remember it covered part 121 regs, systems on transport category aircraft and had a lot of weather questions. Having 1500 hours is an arbitrary number, but having an ATP, which coincidentally requires you to have 1200-1500 hours, shows a level of training and knowledge that, to me, is a reasonable requirement in order to be hired by a 121 carrier.
It requires an ATP @FlyerDon, which in itself has even more requirements. Including...gasp...large transport aircraft training!
"Im happy to be proven wrong."
Brandolini's Law: The amount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
You havent been proven right. You make claims (that you made up, not backed in data) and then ask everyone else to disprove your opinion.
Go apply to a carrier with 1000 hours in a cessna and see how many callbacks you get. The airlines are...
"Im happy to be proven wrong."
Brandolini's Law: The amount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
You havent been proven right. You make claims (that you made up, not backed in data) and then ask everyone else to disprove your opinion.
Go apply to a carrier with 1000 hours in a cessna and see how many callbacks you get. The airlines are hiring guys with varied experience, not your (and Gary's) strawman cessna and hot air balloon pilots.
"I also haven’t seen any data to show that the 1,500-hour rule makes our skies safer..."
...Sounds a bit like "I also haven't seen any data to show that keeping the driving limit over 16 years old makes our roads safer".
Wow, that guy is a disaster.
Not even a day on the job and he's a 'disaster'?! Either you have a low threshold for what constitutes an actual disaster or you're ignorant of what 'disaster' means.
Did I just witness John arguing against John?
RFK, Jr. should be made FAA administrator.
You were first in line when stupid idiots were created. Now get lost.
Please stop raping women. Your husband won't like it.
RFK, Jr. would be an excellent candidate because then he would be out of the Department of HHS
So basically Dems are funded by unions and thus oppose this pick. That's all this boils down to
@ CB -- Democrats are definitely more pro-union, so yes, I imagine that plays into this. Though there's a certain irony to this, since pilots tend to skew more conservative.
You're quite right that pilots tend to be more conservative. ALPA was one of a very few unions that endorsed Reagan in 1980. I think there were two others: The Teamsters.....and PATCO.
"...theres a certain irony to this..."
The irony is the laptop-class (Ben) telling the workers how their places of work should run.
Almost like people act in their own self-interest (including you, who advocates for lower wages because someone pays you to do so).
Why dont you say something about the mechanics, tradesmen, etc. who also skew conservative but like their union.
"Bloggers"
@ CanadianGoose -- "Almost like people act in their own self-interest (including you, who advocates for lower wages because someone pays you to do so)."
I'm sorry, what?
@CanadianGoose
I think the actual irony here is that Trump and co are gutting the safety nets and work protections that blue collar and many physical labor-intensive union workers depend on, but those people likely voted for Trump and co. Despite Biden's presidency doing more for union workers (Teamsters pension bailout anybody?) than any other post-Reagan. The current GOP is living proof that you can convince people to vote against their own interests.
And yet the Teamsters didn't endorse Kammy.
@Mark Christopher
Like I said, the current GOP is living proof that you can convince people to vote against their own interests. Ragebait makes for very effective propaganda.
I imagine it is is also part of the more and more polarised climate in Washington.
I heard a quote recently that if Jesus were nominated by Trump for anything, most Democrats would vote against. Yeah, it's part of the more and more polarized climate.
Other than Schumer who is just miserable period and probably can't give any reasonable answer on the 1500-hour rule than "it's safety!!!!!" I'm shocked he had time to denounce Bedford's confirmation in between blaming the Republicans for Texas flood deaths.
@Nedskid
Depends, what's he being nominated for and what's his experience? In case you forgot, Marco Rubio was unanimously confirmed. Doug Burgum had bipartisan support, as did Scott Bessent, Brooke Rollins, Sean Duffy, and John Ratcliffe. It's the utterly unqualified ones and complete loons like RFK, Bondi, Gabbard, and Hegseth that were heavily opposed by Democrats, for obvious and sound reasons.
Yes RFk and Gabbard are strange. Of course both were dems forever.