Feduccia suffers from the same problem creationists do.
I don't find his arguments particularly compelling. He is a scientist that seems to frequently ignore science when it doesn't agree with him. Creationists tend to do the same. You are willing to cite particular critisms he levels when you think they support your position. However, he is making them to support an alternative evolutionary scenario. Unfortunately for him, the fossils, cladistics and morphology don't support that position. He has no solid evidence.
If he wants to overturn BAD, he needs evidence for his alternative scenario. Like creationists, he can only argue a rear-guard action against BAD. That doesn't support Feduccia's position and it certainly doesn't support a creationist one either.