ALPA’s Campaign to protect Pilots is ex cathedra to DOT???
Below is an article which takes DOT to task for accepting the supplications of the pilots union and an airline {the Biden Administration has been STRONGLY chastised for the antagonism directed towards the carriers}. The writer points out that the target of this union objection is a 1998 DOT regulation being used creatively to offer needed services at lower prices, in attractive seating and as a vehicle for training less experienced second-in-command pilots.
Facially, ALPA asserts that this operation is unsafe but fails to counter these flights’ flawless record. One is inclined to perceive that Secretary Buttigieg accepts that the words of the ALPA Pope are ex cathedra, thus:
But Mary Schlangenstein catches a new filing that the Department of Transportation plans to consider changing the rules (‘Regulatory Definitions of “On-Demand Operation”, “Supplemental Operation” and “Scheduled Operation” under 14 CFR Part 110′) that would presumably allow them to deny the ability of SkyWest Charter to operate – and that could prohibit or place limits on the ability of JSX to operate.
The View from the Wing article recites a long list of reasons why this proposal bears no merit!!!
For an extended period of time, the Biden Administration was unable to put forward a nominee for the FAA ADMINISTRATOR. For 16 months this safety critical position was occupied by an ACTING career employee; the DAY on which a new Acting Administrator was allowed to be named, a rule, favored by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), but with unproven risk reduction, WAS ISSUED. Two former Administrators, both ATP pilots and one a past president of the UNION, proposed that the training requirements for commercial pilots be improved, ALPA opposes it vehemently1 and the Biden Administration has not even recognized the more effective pedagogy to prepare the safety professionals for flight risks.
The union’s mantra is a SINGLE LEVEL of SAFETY should be enforced on all flights without regard to the regulatory authority, size, mission, etc. If that is an absolute, then what about an operator like Net Jets, which has 531 sophisticated aircraft. Its fleet includes 10 types of planes and operates in North America and Europe. This is more than some airlines, such as Frontier Airlines (100 aircraft), Spirit Airlines (157 aircraft), and JetBlue Airways (270 aircraft). Its ~3,000 pilots are unionized. THE COLUMBUS, OH BASED AIRLINE FLIES BOTH UNDER FAR PART 135 AND FAR PART 91 SUBPART K.
Net Jets is not the only operator under these rules less than ALPA’s preferred Part 121. The One Level of Safety fallacy is enforced to ALPA’s satisfaction; thousands of jobs would be lost in this sector, too.
Oh, but ALPA asserts that its advocacy, with or without facts, is SOLELY MOTIVATED BY SAFETY. Really, has the union urged the Administrator to tighten the FAA’s blood alcohol limit to the SAFER STANDARD enforced in France??? ALPA’s goal appears to be to restrict the number of qualified pilots and to restrict competition. They may not understand correlation v. causation, but they get an A+ for their Lohn Locke /Adam Smith understanding of microeconomics:
FAA Proposes To Ban JSX Because They Offer Passengers A Popular, Quality Product
by Gary Leff on August 31, 2023
Due to a lack of pilots, major airlines have left scores of small markets. And the biggest airlines have virtually indistinguishable operations, offering seats with basically the same layout (same width, same legroom within a couple of inches) and very similar service levels.
The largest airports are congested. In some cases this is due to government slot restrictions. In other cases it’s how government-owned airports manage their gates, keeping new entrants out. Either way, it’s difficult for new carriers to break in.
In response to this, new airlines have started – or are trying to start – using rules that were laid out by the FAA.
- Use planes with no more than 30 seats, and you can have co-pilots with 250 hours of flight experience paired with 1,500 hour captains (similar rules to what was permitted at major carriers before 2010, and that many senior pilots flying today started their careers under).
- This can mean taking 50 seat regional jets and outfitting them with just 30 seats, as JSX does. That means ‘everyone flies first class’. JSX offers free snacks, free drinks, free checked bags and StarLink internet which performs better than what any major airline offers because the satellites are in a lower orbit (signals don’t have to travel as far).
- And even these operations can even fly out of private terminals offering greater convenience.
- Regional carrier SkyWest has proposed an operation, entirely legal under current rules, that would follow the JSX model to provide service to small communities that can’t sustain service with large aircraft and $200,000+ per year pilots.
THERE HASN’T BEEN A SINGLE SAFETY ISSUE IDENTIFIED WITH PART 380 CARRIERS COMPLYING WITH THE RULES APPLICABLE TO PART 121 OPERATIONS. In fact, the rulemaking even notes that “the FAA has adjusted its oversight of these increased operations” and has not expressed a concern about JSX or similar carriers.
The only reason the agency cites for potentially banning their operation is they’ve grown, but that is literally what the rules – and the Department of Transportation – are designed for. According to the government, they’re proceeding “in light of recent high-volume operations” but:
- They step into a breach created by abdication of markets and product offerings of major airlines
- The DOT is supposed to support abundant, safe, and efficient air travel.
There’s no logical reason for this proceeding, at this time, other than that the Air Line Pilots Association doesn’t like to see more co-pilots flying with fewer than 1,500 hours of training because it provides a paid path towards more commercial pilots, helping to address the pilot shortage which gives them leverage in negotiations.
The rule does nothing to promote safety since the hours can be racked up with the same clear air single engine takeoffs and landings from the same airports, rinse repeat. Hours can even be racked up in a hot air balloon. The balloon can even be tethered. The rule is just about creating a barrier of time and cost to become a pilot.
- The Department of Transportation and NTSB have both said they see no correlation between co-pilot flight hours and safety.
- Europe has maintained just as safe an operating environment as the U.S. without adopting a similar rule.
- What the U.S. did at the same time as legislate the 1,500 hour rule for commercial airline co-pilots is also institute stricter pilot rest requirements that do, in fact, matter. Pilot fatigue is a real issue for safety.
While at JSX they have 30,000 hour captains mentoring sub-1,500 hour co-pilots. Their operations call for different experience than is needed to fly transoceanic in a widebody aircraft with hundreds of passengers. They’re flying 30 seat regional jets on largely one and two hour flights in and out of the same airports. You don’t need co-pilots relieving captains for hours at a time. These flights have among the most experience up front among domestic operations. And since 90% of their flights overnight at base, pilots mostly sleep in their own beds – far better for fatigue than at nearly all Part 121 carriers.
AMERICAN AIRLINES JOINED ALPA (AND OTHER UNIONS) IN CALLING FOR JSX TO BE BANNED. They don’t like having a premium airline based in their home city of Dallas, employing many of their own retired senior captains and providing a competing product. I chose to fly JSX to Dallas even while I was an American Airlines ConciergeKey member because of the product they offer which I’ve found to be usually cheaper than American’s own premium fares.
JSX has been popular, and they’ve grown. That attracted the attention of ALPA and American Airlines, and the government now proposes to ban them for no other reason than this growth. They do not have safety concerns. It’s purely about changing regulatory definitions to eliminate flying that could serve small markets, and eliminate competition for a major airline. They want to shoot JSX (and by extension SkyWest Charter) dead because they offer too much value to passengers.
This effort is worthwhile to ALPA and American because,
- They may kill a competitor
- Even if they don’t, they distract the airline and cause it to burn cash on lawyers and lobbyists
- And slow down growth, because facing uncertainty new capital expenses likely makes less sense – why spend millions converting planes they may not be allowed to continue operating?
The FAA is making clear that airlines are a cartel and that’s how they’re going to stay. That’s regulatory capture, by the major airlines and by the largest pilot union. And we shouldn’t put up with that in this country. The FAA is taking public comment and is LEGALLY REQUIRED TO CONSIDER WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
The focus of the commentary here seems to be an unsubstantiated claim, offered without evidence, that ALPA’s agenda is targeting pilots with less than 1,500 hours, with reference made to the “1,500 hour rule.”
There is no such rule.
The requirement is an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate, which has varying requirements (depending on pilot qualifications, and privileges), but there is no “1,500 hour rule.”
Netjets is invoked by size, and compared to various airlines, but Netjets requires its pilots to hold ATP pilot certification, 14 CFR 91K, or 135 notwithstanding. Netjets hires pilots who hold ATP certificates, and first-class medical certificates.
When Operators such as JSX have grown in scope and size beyond the original intent of Part 380 and exist largely as an end-run around the more costly burden of Part 121, it may be time to move them into on demand 121 supplemental operations.
So far as holding 121 certification and requiring the ATP certificate, JSX (et al) might no longer be a haven for pilots older than age 65, and those unqualified to hold ATP privileges, but then that does not put pilots out of work or reduce the available jobs on the market. Relocation from Part 380 doesn’t eliminate jobs, but shifts them; ample jobs exist in the industry presently that the issue of job creation or elimination with an operation such as Skywest Charter or JSX is a red herring at best.
So far as the argument regarding safety; a regulatory move from a part 135 exemption to 121 does not, and should not, require a demonstrative safety lapse for justification. It’s largely an administrative matter in classifying the operation as it’s grown from small to large. The argument that JSX (et al) should remain under its exemption in Part 380 simply because we haven’t seen mishaps, is misplaced and non-sensical. It’s been wryly noted for many years that the regulation is “written in blood,” changes coming only on the heels of public disaster. It ought not take such to drive change. The FAA ought not need to justify actions based simply upon “no one has died yet.”
The proposed rule making isn’t about JSX, or about Skywest, per se, though applicable to both. There is a difference. When operators like JSX more resemble Part 121 operations than charter, they’re more appropriately treated as, and required to operate as supplemental carriers (etc) under part 121.
The arguments in favor of leaving the status quo seem to be more emotional and economically driven than logic-based or rooted in administrative alignment.