studentpilot

There's "The Rules" and there's the intent of "The Rules". Nothing wrong with taking maximum advantage of "The Rules" as written, as these companies have. However, if you're going to do that, you shouldn't be suprised when "The Rules" get clarified to align better with the intent.

Pilot4000

Don't think it will affect Cape Air and Southern because they are 9 or less.

hercretired

yeah Boeing never did this. the most government funded and subsized company in history

retiring 4-star in Air Force? Boeing has a spot in corporate for you. Please bring your rolodex to your new office.

4dalulz

What they're trying to go after is "alter ego" type operations where the same holding company esablishes two subordinate entities... one which (exclusivley) charters supposed "on demand" operations from the other which (almost exclusivley) fills those flights. It's been done many times before and was always an exploitation of the intent of the regulations. Much like buying some "dormant" (or near so) 121 certificate was a fast track to starting your own 121 operation.

As an aisde, another loophole used to be that your certificate needed to be "held" in the geographic region of the associated FSDO (before they changed to the CMO structure)... so at least two airlines I know of "held" their certificates in safety deposit boxes within the region of the San Jose office (it was a notoriously "easy" office) and operated in entirely different regions. That loophole started getting closed around 2006. Obviously this was gaming the system and, while legal at the time, I don't see any reason why a regulator wouldn't move to close such loopholes in those cases or this case.

cactusmike

JSX, Contour, etc have proven that the use of 121 rules for 30 seats and under was just a land grab by ALPA. Their safety record has been better than a lot of 121s. 30 seats and under should go back to 135, the way it was before the "schedule with safety" push to go 121 went through. I flew under the old rules and the new rules, nothing changed except the Hour and age requirements. Nothing was "improved", nothing better happened. Colgan was 121, so was Eagle with the ATR icing and all the 121 mishaps since then. 777s and 737s diving for the waters off Maui. Overruns and taxiway excursions. Nothing has been improved by 121 being exclusive to scheduled operations.

Safety has nothing to do with the number of seats or a pilot's age. It's training and a commitment to a safety culture. NetJets, Flexjet, and the big 135 operators put just as much into their training as United or American. There's just a lot more arrogance at the legacy training centers. I saw it at AA. The big sign saying " the best pilots in the world pass through here". Right. The same ones that have screwed up on multiple occasions. It's not the errors, it's the arrogance. The feeling that you couldn't possibly be wrong because 'you are the best'. I'd rather take a fired up and eager 1500 hour f/o willing to learn than some flow who thinks he knows it all because he flew at Eagle. I saw it all at American. I'm seeing it here at SWC. There is a night and day change in how we approach the job. The commitment here to be safe, standard and thorough is a lot more than I saw at the legacy. There is a lot more riding on this job because we are much more focused on meeting the needs of the customer.

A legacy job is still the pinnacle because of pay and benefits. And for me international flying was the easiest job I ever had. But don't fool yourself into believing that's it's superior in safety. That's just not true.

Flame away.

HumbleHawk

^ Well said, Mike. Thanks for your sharing your perspective.

I won't throw myself into the middle of this disagreement. Instead, I'll just say that it would be best if we could all keep our emotions and egos aside when we're discussing controversial issues. It's obvious that both sides have valid points. "Safety" and "fairness" are both important. But those words are often used as smoke screens to disguise people's self interests. Again, I'm not taking a position one way or another.

Carry on, folks.

captfred

That was a great post Mike.

4dalulz

I disagree - and entirely because limiting the amount of available bodies drives up my potential earnings... and, frankly, that all I care about.

However, your argument doesn't address whether or not the loophole should be closed or not (it should), now whether 135 operations should be extended to 30 seat aircraft - well that's a related subject and something that public commentary is supposed to address with an NPRM. However, since in the US you have lobbying (legalized bribery), figure it's best for pilots to play the game rather than try to change it, since it's apparent that nobody really wants to change the game anyway.

Peoplemvr

The "Eagle" you refer to was an airplane design problem, not a pilot problem. It has been
well documented. AE 4184.

305n242

Airline jet + schedule = airline rules. They are perfectly free to apply for a 121 certificate.