Departing Aerospace Industries Leader: First-Rate Nations Respect and Support Public Servants

Marion Blakey on Thursday ended a seven-plus-year stint as president and CEO of the Arlington, Va.-based Aerospace Industries Association. Blakey brought to that private-sector post years of experience in no fewer than six federal positions (winning four Senate confirmations), including head of the Federal Aviation Administration, chief of the Transportation Department’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. 

As she prepared to cap her career by becoming president and CEO of Rolls Royce North America, the Alabama-born Blakey offered Government Executive her thoughts on Washington gridlock, sequestration’s threat to national security, funding for the Export-Import Bank of the United States and her proudest accomplishments.

GE: Why go to Rolls Royce?

Blakey: In a way this is having everything come full circle for me. I started out in government, in transportation, in aviation issues. Then I had the opportunity to represent the industry as whole at AIA, then the opportunity to head up a major portion of a worldwide aerospace manufacturer-- that’s about as good as it gets. Rolls Royce is a wonderful company with a storied history, and I was honored when they approached me. I was not thinking of leaving AIA or making that kind of change.

GE: How has Washington changed during your tenure at AIA?

Blakey: In the world we live in with all of our fast-paced technology and commitment to national security and the public good, Washington has changed dramatically, and not for the better. There’s the increased polarization of Congress and the fact that they find it very difficult to move ahead on things. Frankly, as an industry, we’re very flexible and understand the world is changing rapidly and the need to step up. But when Congress can’t do the most basic things, such as pass a viable budget, it holds everybody back. It’s gotten worse in the last decade.

There’s certainly less willingness to compromise across the aisle. But we are hopeful there may be a renewed emphasis on bipartisan collaboration. Congress has seen how destructive it is when they are unable to act. Things that had never been partisan such as infrastructure. Our national defense should never be partisan. The unwillingness to work together we’ve seen over past few years is really hurting the public good.  I sincerely hope they have to a degree recognized the folly of that, and are willing to say that some things we need to work together on.

GE: What is your outlook for the defense budget under sequestration?

Blakey: We have to a remarkable degree relative to the last several years had unanimity that the defense budget is inadequately financed for the level of threat experienced around the world. Most members of Congress understand that this is not responsible to continue to try to pay for deficit reduction on the back of the defense budget. What we’re also seeing is that while we believe sequestration should be overturned, that it is a bad policy has caused a tremendous amount of damage. That said, the kind of compromise we saw two years ago in the Ryan-Murray [budget deal] gave a reprieve of some of the worst effects of sequestration. We would expect and hope Congress is able to deliver this year. It probably will not happen until the end of the year, because that’s the way these things work. The compromise they’re talking about now using [Overseas Contingency Operations] funding is better than not addressing this tremendous problem. But we need to get to the heart of it and wrestle the twin bears of the problem of entitlements and mandatory spending, understanding that we’re going to have to adequately fund both defense and nondefense items, which is part of the government’s responsibility. We also recognize that some of this is a revenue issue—we’ve got to match the revenue with the requirements of government functions. Some of the [proposed tax changes to force] repatriation of profits, etc., offer a potential [solution].

GE: Does AIA see promise in the bill by House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, to reform Pentagon acquisition and more readily tap into commercial products and better train the workforce?

Blakey: We are encouraged that there is a serious effort on Capitol Hill to make major changes in the way we acquire weapons systems and the way we support broadly the services required by DoD. It’s a good thing to he has focused on commercial items and restoring that as a principle in our buying. Thornberry has a concern for research and development, evident in the bill, which makes great deal of sense.

GE: How are prospects for reauthorizing funding of the Ex-Im Bank?

Blakey:  There should never should have been a fight in the first place. The bank has a long and strong track record of supporting manufacturers—otherwise nothing would get into this country. A lot has been caught up in what we regard as ideological rhetoric that does not make any sense. Look at the numbers. There’s no disputing the fact that the bank accomplishes its mission. It is providing money to the Treasury through the fees it charges. It is actually an asset from the standpoint of addressing the debt and deficit. Wide majorities in Congress recognize this, but the big question is how to get a vote on the floor. That will probably come about more quickly in the Senate than in the House. Our membership is absolutely united on this. You can’t go out to sell American products with no [government] support when about 60 other countries are supporting their home team with exports. It’s a very un-level playing field.

GE: Will AIA support the plan of Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., with some union backing, to privatize air traffic control under a shareholder-owned authority?

Blakey: This is not a new question, and trying to achieve that kind of structural change has enormous challenges. None of us thinks the way FAA is financed is adequate and appropriate to running a 21st- century air traffic control system. But when talking about privatizing, taking the vast majority of funding and support outside of government, leaving behind responsibility for safety and oversight, you’ve got to be very clear you’re not undercutting the very basis of our system, which is arguably the world’s safest and best air traffic control system. Our track record is very good here for a reason. We spend time and attention focusing on safety in the system first. Mica is an authoritative voice, but what this bill is trying to do is no simple task.

GE: Regarding federal service in the future, will dignity and competence be restored, or will fed-bashing continue?

Blakey: You’re hitting a very important topic as far as I’m concerned. A year and a half ago, I gave a speech to accept the Wright Brothers memorial trophy, and chose the topic of criticality of government service, how it deserves to be upheld, supported and honored. As far as the future goes, I can’t imagine being a first-rate nation if we do not respect and support our public servants.

GE: What are your foremost accomplishments at AIA?

Blakey: We do these things as a team, and one of the things I’m proudest of is strengthening our partnership with government. There is ample evidence to show that as an industry we have reached out to try to be supporters and good partners. We just had a major meeting at AIA with some top people from the Pentagon, including [Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics] Frank Kendall and the service acquisition executives. It was remarkable how we spent four hours meeting where we really did talk together, hash through issues, strive for common ground, and look for improvements. It was the kind of meeting that everyone left saying, ‘Boy, if we could do that across the board in all sectors of government, that would be terrific.’ We also have partnerships with FAA, NASA, and the [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. It’s been very much worth the candle of working on.

I would also [point to] the sequestration fight we had to deal with when none of us expected it. The powers in government appreciate that we were not shy in stepping up to a campaign that said that American is second to none [the slogan for AIA’s 2011 campaign to dramatize the industry job losses due to  automatic budget cuts under the sequester]. It was a major investment of time and resources, and our industry continues to point out the misguided policy of sequestration and the kind of budget control act caps we’re currently living under. We don’t want to sound like pugilists all the time. We’ve had some major successes, such as getting U.S. commercial satellites back in the air… after the congressionally required [export controls] on the U.S. munitions list that made it impossible to sell U.S. technology. We were able to overturn it two years ago, and the market is going again. We have great technology, and you can’t [hide] behind an artificial firewall.

GE: Who is your successor?

Blakey:  AIA has not yet deemed a successor, but the executive committee has a process in place. The plan is to have a new president and CEO by early June before the Paris Air Show, where it’s important to fly the U.S. flag high, from an aviation, aerospace and defense standpoint, to demonstrate what we’ve got.