Sanguy

With the Supreme Court's recent Chevron decision, it's entirely likely that JSX' lawyers can and will tie this question (135 v 121) up in court now for years. The FAA's (and other gummint agencies) power to make rules and regs without judicial and/or Congressional oversight will be very limited going forward. Had the FAA issued a final rule prior to the Chevron decision, it would be a done deal. But not now it seems. I'd bet that JSX lawyers are already preparing briefs in an attempt to fend off the FAA now that SCOTUS has essentially said they can have their day in court.

JohnBurke

One potential implication of knocking down the Chevron deference may be a reduction or elimination in the current rulemaking process. Whereas a NPRM with a commentary period, prior to enacting a final rule has a beneficial purpose to the public and to those crafting the regulation, the incentive or rationale to do so may go away. Presently that process enables an agency to put a lot more eyes on the proposed regulation and to "test" it via public examination. The language is examined, as is the efficacy, and with public input, opportunity to hear viewpoints previously not considered, occurs.

Federal court countermanding the move from 135.380 to al 121 framework is unlikely, though certainly JSX's attorneys (et al) may feel emboldened to try.

The direct, indirect, and unintended consequences of the latest turn at the high court is yet to be fullly realized.

aeroengineer

Begs the question how the court would view any rules promulgated without even an attempt at a formal process. Basically the FAA saying "because I said so".

I also wouldn't be completely suprised if someone at the FAA or their family member found themselves employed by one of the large air carriers in the future. Yes there are ethics regulations in place at the Federal level to prevent this but they're not airtight.

I may have missed it but has Congress really weighed in? It's now almost a clash of the well heeled customers vs the airlines and now they find out who has more congressional "support" since SCOTUS diluted government agencies power.

sailingfun

The fatality rate is vastly lower!

It’s worth remembering that there were no domestic fatalities on Part 121 air carriers in 2002, 2007-8, and from 2010 to 2017.

Part 135 operations had 43 accidents in 2019, of which 13 involved fatalities; 34 people lost their lives. Unlike the scheduled airlines, Part 135 operators (mainly commuters) flew fewer hours in 2019. Commuter airlines flew 415,162 compared to 421,319 the year before, resulting in one of the worse accident rates per 100,000 hours (2.168) in the last two decades. Since 2000, final rates were higher only in 2000-2002, 2008, and 2016. On-demand Part 135 companies flew 3.76 million flight hours in 2019, down from 3.84 million in 2018, and recorded a total accident rate of 0.903 per 100,000 flight hours (down from 1.041 in 2018) but an increase in the fatal rate, which moved from 0.182 to 0.319 per 100,000 flight hours, the worst since 2008.

HumbleHawk

The accident data can be parsed in different ways. How many fatalities have occurred for the Part 135 carriers that have been operating under the exemption? Each side can use statistics to back up their position.

sailingfun

What exemption?

aeroengineer

Insurance is a good indicator of risk and rates vary widely across different 135 Operators and Operations.

Way smarter than me actuaries know better than most how to put a dollar sign on risk and if JSX can't get insurance then that will put them out of business faster than the FAA could ever dream of.

SonicFlyer

The unions, the big carriers, and the government are colluding to push anti-competitive policies. It really is just that simple.

rickair7777

Maybe they should just let those us bound by 121 to operate under 135 like JSX?

We could contract out to a third party to sell tickets and set the flight schedule. Easy Peasy, all good.

rickair7777

SCOTUS didn't eliminate regulators authority to regulate, not by any means.

What they did was specify that regulators are no longer exempt from legal challenge is cases where grey area exists in the regs wrt to law. Most regs are pretty clear at face value, and would not be subject to judicial review (you could still sue, but the judge would toss it pronto).

The public charter thing might actually be a grey area which would be allowed legit judicial review. Not a bad thing, since there are businesses and jobs at stake.

Or as you say, congress could weigh in with clarity, one way or another. You can't (succesfully) sue regulators for enforcing clearly defined federal law.