rickair7777

You kind of have to take your chances.

There's enough risk in most business ventures as it is. Takes some brass ones to bet the farm on a obvious regulatory loophole though.

trip

We'll have to wait an see what the FAA carve out contains for them, they could very well keep operating as they are under a new section with what hey have <30 seats, or the FAA says no go to the big terminal and do big jet stuff which would be a death knell.

Freightdogfred

The reg has been around for quite some time. It's obviously been effective as I don't recall any operator under it's provision spreading sheetmetal around ground, unlike some of the majors, who thru their proxies in Washington and Hearndon are the ones driving this. For ALPA to cry "One level of safety" is truly laughable- this has been all about the cheese JSX has been steadily siphoning away-the traveler willing to pay a premium for better service. If you can't beat em, regulate em out of business thru lobbys and the fat cats in Hearndon. Last I looked the NRPM website had like 20K letters in support of JSX and their model, but the FAA chose to ignore it. Who suffers now? The public

rickair7777

All true.

But there is a bigger safety concern... what if the regionals started using this business model? Buy a ticket from "Mainline Charters, with convenient pre-scheduled charter options and mileage point credit", with flying subbed out to 135 regionals. At least one of them is already doing something along those lines, and I'm guessing that may have been the final straw for the regulators. ALPA's motives are obvious, but it was an easy lift, all they had to do was point out the double standard. It's clear and obvious to everyone that the fundamental dividing line between 135 and 121 is scheduled operations.

JohnBurke

It's not a matter of "effective."

The framework under which they've operated no longer applies to them. It's more than simply a matter of not having wrecked an aircraft. The FAA has determiend that their operation must be placed under 14 CFR Part 121.

They may choose to comply.

If JSX provides "better service," then JSX can continue to do so under Part 121.

The FAA does not make regulation on the basis of "likes," and comments submitted to a Notice of Proposed Rule Making are not votes.

cactusmike

This is not about safety, this is about a carrier poaching premium passengers from AA, and ALPA making a fuss over a regulation that has been in effect over 20 years. (Part 380).

Comments absolutely should be weighed in when the FAA submits a NPRM, else why would there be a requirement for them to do so? Perhaps that will counter the comments made by the paid lobbyist that whispers into the ears of the FAA. Is that more to your liking? Buying influence and changing the rules to suit your agenda?

30 seats should never have gone part 121. The present regulation has actually reduced safety by moving EAS service to single engine turboprops. Offloading EAS service to 30 seat jets instead of 50 to 70 seat RJs actually makes economic sense and retains a higher level of service to markets that need it. Otherwise you see the market disappear. Citiy pairs that I flew as a commuter/regional pilot no longer have service because the 19 to 30 seat aircraft market went away with the forced move to part 121.

Rama

Make any argument you like, but the reality is 121 accident rates are far lower than 135.

JohnBurke

Safety is irrelevant: this is about placing an operator under the correct classificatin of operating certificate and oversight, and regulatory framework.

My "liking" is irrelevant. My "liking" has no part in this action, nor have I stated my "liking."

Commentary in any NPRM is considered. Commentary is not a vote. The FAA certainly reviews and addresses commentary in every final rule published in the Federal Register and addresses how and why the regulation is applied, and how the commentary was considered, and how it did or did not influence or impact the final outcome.

No rules have been changed to suit my "agenda." I have no "agenda."

Did you submit comments to the Docket? If so, then yours were received with all others from all concerns. If not, then you really didn't lift a finger to defend the subject, and our passion really isn't that great. I did not. I don't care. I don't care if JSX (et al) stays where it is, or moves under 121, and I don't care if JSX thrives or fails. JSX presently has the option to continue under 121, or fail.

Good luck arguing the past. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Save for a ridiculously expensive subsidy for flying around empty seats, EAS would never have existed, either, else would have fallen to smaller, more appropriate aircraft for the passenger load, and the major/legacies could have invested in other models, but again, woulda, coulda, shoulda. Regionals spent plenty of years milking the cash cow in EAS operations. Presently two round trips per day are subsidized in 30-50 seat aircraft, with greater frequency available in 9 seat aircraft, and all subject to annual review on routes and their ability to meet the reliability and frequency stipulations of that route, location, and contract.

CaptainJay

However do the Feds ever get anything done. Seems like all of the decision makers (ie the regulatory gurus) have decided to hold the NPRM right here on this forum, in this thread. Imagine that 🙄.
Who knew all the powers to be (with all the answers) were right here all along. Oh wait, we all did because it's the same cast of characters playing mine is bigger than yours (legal knowledge).

disclaimer: I've had a few laughs at the arguments here, because I actually flew for a public charter airline, under 380, around 15 years ago before Jet Suite X or Skywest Charters were a thing. We were ramped almost every morning in Boston and the Feds were clear they knew what we were doing was legal, but they didn't like it. They were always Professional, always treated the crews with dignity. They never found a single violation, and they never delayed us on our turn. The more recent players just moved it from 30 seat turbo props to 50 seat jets pretending to be 30 seaters. I don't have a dog in this fight, but let's be honest here. Alpa and the Big 3 are only whining because Jet suite X showed the public what a horrible product the modern day airlines offer. I fly for a 121 airline and even I drive when I'm on vacation. Not for safety reasons, but simply because flying 500 miles or less isn't worth the friggin hassle.

JohnBurke

By NPRM and a final rule. Nothing on this forum will change that, and one might enquire how many passionate souls bothered to submit commentary. Not passionate enough about the crusade to do even that?

Ultimately, JSX will comply, or die. Very simple.