[matthewdgreen]

The value of having confirmed appointees in those positions is not necessarily their native technical expertise. As you’ve noted, that expertise can be provided by career employees. The value of political appointees is the political clout they carry. Given that they’ve been appointed directly by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it is much harder (or politically fraught) to simply threaten or replace them when they take an unpopular stand like “let’s ground an airplane.”

The US government is a complex system, and like most complex systems it works best when you, a non-expert, don’t randomly yank out pieces and declare them unnecessary.

[jki275]

Well, that's not what I said. I've not claimed they're unnecessary, just that they have a slightly different and perhaps less important role than the post I replied to was giving them. The undersecretaries can make the same decisions, and in fact the career personnel in the organization have far more ability to take action without fear of replacement by anyone as they have more protection than a secretary who serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority.

That said, generally the undersecretaries are appointed and confirmed as well, as their role is to step in and backfill if the primary is not available, so that answers that issue.

[matthewdgreen]

I can’t find any evidence that the current acting FAA administrator was Senate confirmed. Is the Internet just being unreliable here?

I think your notion that career personnel have as much DC political clout as unconfirmed career officials is one of those things that sounds good if one is trying to win a debate, but is unlikely to represent the actual facts on the ground.

[jki275]

Just a quick google search turns up this article that says he has been.

https://www.americanshipper.com/news/?autonumber=67974&sourc...

Political clout in DC isn't what runs organizations and gets the day to day business done. It's what plays well on the hill in pointless back and forth BS sessions that a totally ineffective congress likes to have, it probably helps to some extent in budgeting discussions, but it's more posturing than anything else in a lot of ways.

Anywhere you go in the military you'll find all the GOs who are in charge, and powerful, and senate confirmed, and all that good stuff, and they've got a Chief of Staff and an aide who actually run everything, and can continue to do so if their GO walks in front of a bus. It's no different in any huge bureaucracy -- sure, CEOs make decisions, but the day to day business doesn't stop if they don't answer the phone for a while. I would actually posit that if it did the whole organization is dysfunctional to the point of ineffectivity. But I'm being redundant in describing DC that way perhaps.