NotTHATJoker

ah your standard is "I can do X so I must be right"?

explains how you can be so wrong...no danger of learning here...

maybe this will help

https://viewfromthewing.com/quit-say...etter-product/

sailingfun

Seems the FAA disagrees.

Rama

They are using a loophole of course.
Charters, sure have at it. When you scheduling flights between two destinations (or more) continuously and sell tickets based on that it becomes scheduled service.
Not the same thing as charters.

NotTHATJoker

the FAA disagrees with what?

as I said, don't like the rule, change it - which is what the FAA is doing - as I wrote

if the FAA thought jsx was violating a rule, they'd file a regulatory action and start punching tickets

they, like others who've actually read the rules instead of blindly opining, understand there is a regulatory framework permitting jsx to do what it does and that does not define it as an operation subject to part 121

yes, regulations and the like are hard...

NotTHATJoker

<sigh>

another far expert who's never cracked a book..."I think this therefore I am right!"

I hope you don't operate a passenger-carrying aircraft with the same mindset...but I'm not optimistic

nice rhetorical flourish, your "of course"

of course, adding that lends authority and credibility ... like "everybody knows" or "it's clear"

strong flex

JohnBurke

I chose to ignore nothing. The upcoming change to be wrought upon JSX, et al, is not my doing nor my choice, nor shall I be the enforcer thereof. You can whine about it and complain about it as you will, but this makes no difference. The FAA has viewed JSX relative to its current regulation and determind that it has grown beyond the scope and intent of those regulations, and further, will move JSX toward a more appopriate regulatory framework under Part 121.

The puppy fit the little crate when it was small but has grown into a larger bed. Having made its new bed, it's time to laly down in it, or fail.

I'm quite aware of the regulation. It's existence is irrelevant, as JSX has grown beyond it. Should you disagree, and clearly you do, take it up with the FAA, not with me. In this case, I agree with the FAA, but it's the FAA that's updating the applicability of the regulatory framework. Not me.

If JSX wishes to stay in business, it can adapt.

NotTHATJoker

such projection! I am not whining nor complaining, perhaps you should look in the mirror you mean someone else

i am correcting those who continue to mischaracterize (unintentionally or as they persist despite facts, intentionally) the regs

puppies are cute, we agree on that..but puppy analogies are no way to run an airline

by the way you've read all of American's CEO talk about how this isn't about safety, haven't you? Interesting how so many here cry "but safety" when the architect of the FAA push has admitted all along it's all about protecting its turf

instead of projecting onto me and willfully ignoring facts, maybe spend a little more time editing - "appopiate"..."it's" instead of "its"...no wonder you don't like to read regs (clearly since you'd know there is no airline size limit in part 380)

for those still reading (kudos, but why?) who aren't willfully ignorant but truly interested in what's really going on, check this out

https://viewfromthewing.com/the-real...-shut-it-down/

JohnBurke

You are correcting nothing.

The relevant regulation is 14 CFR 121, under which JSX will soon be required to operate. There's nothing to mischaracterize. We all understand Part 121 quite well.

Soon, JSX will, too.

Or, JSX will be out of business.

Cuteness is irrelevant, as is the "way to run an airline." This isn't about running an airline. It's about the regulatory framework to which JSX, et al, shall be subject.

JSX has grown beyond the regulatory framework under which is has operated, and its legal responsibility under 14 CFR is shifting, accordingly. Simply because one begins as a part 135, or as a puppy, does not mean one remains so.

SonicFlyer

Nice attampt at strawman... but you fail, as always. Quantity isn't mentioned in the regs as you are alleging. JSX is still operating under their current regulatory framework and have not "grown beyond it" since there is no fleet size restriction to which they operate (beyond the 30 seat rule). They are doing the same thing they have always done, except with more aircraft. Having more aircraft isn't against the rules.

But people like you don't like it and so you're trying to change the rules because you don't like JSX.

JohnBurke

I couldn't care less about JSX, nor have I made any effort to change their regulatory framework. It's not within my purview. Mine are but casual observations of fact.

The FAA is placing JSX (et al) under Part 121. Take it up with the FAA.