the JSX thread

Old Nov 7, 2023, 8:03 am
  #16  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DCA
Programs: AMC MovieWatcher, Giant BonusCard, Petco PALS Card, Silver Diner Blue Plate Club
Posts: 22,291
Originally Posted by Jeff767
The fact the whole thing is under one ownership JSX says is not pertinent. The FAA disagrees and is moving to insure the loophole is closed.
FAA was well aware of JSX's model and perfectly comfortable with it for years. Then SkyWest sought authorization to operate similarly, and ALPA began lobbying against it. Seeing and opportunity to shut down a potential growing competitor, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines began lobbying for a rule change.

The FAA in fact believes that the current JSX operation is consistent with rules that have been in place for decades. That's why American, Southwest and pilot unions want those rules changed. There is no safety data suggesting a need for a rule change. And American was clear with its employees after their third quarter earnings call that this is an commercial dispute - they do not want JSX offering customers a better product than what they offer out of Dallas.

Furthermore, it is not at all clear that this is a loophole or that there's been an increase in part 135 operations over a period of decades. We do not know that the FAA will change the rules, only that they are looking at the issue and have sought comment. It is not clear to me that FAA has the legal authority to treat 135 operators selling scheduled service under part 380 the same as part 121 carriers. And they may not wish to jump through the hoops necessary to do so in any case (for instance, entering into consultations with Native American tribes that would be affected by such a change).
jjbiv and Adam Smith like this.
gleff is offline  
Old Nov 7, 2023, 8:14 am
  #17  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 809
Part 135 does allow for scheduled airline operations so it’s hard to understand why some feel the intent is not clear. Here are the rules to fly under part 135 as a scheduled operator.

Commuter/Scheduled Operations: An on-demand operator may conduct scheduled flights in an airplane under these limited conditions:
1. The airplane used must be piston-powered or turbo-prop (i.e. not turbojet);
2. Theairplaneusedmusthaveamaximumseatingcapacityof9p assengerseatsorfewer;
3. Theairplaneusedmusthaveamaximumpayloadof7,500pound sorless;and
4. Theoperatorislimitedtoconductingfewerthanfiveround tripsperweekbetweenanytwopoints.
The air carrier that conducts commuter operations under part 135 must obtain the Operations Specifications paragraphs listed in 119.49.
Jeff767 is offline  
Old Nov 7, 2023, 8:44 am
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DCA
Programs: AMC MovieWatcher, Giant BonusCard, Petco PALS Card, Silver Diner Blue Plate Club
Posts: 22,291
Intent can be pretty clearly ascertained from the preamble to the FAA’s 1995 final rule on “Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements". Part 135 commuter operators were generally transitioned to part 121, and public charter flights aren't mentioned. Fourteen months later the FAA sought to correct mistakes in the Commuter Operations Rule. One of those was failure to link Prat 380 in definitions of on-demand operation, scheduled operation and supplemental operation in part 119. The FAA stated in its NPRM that the intent is to make clear that public charter operations are not considered scheduled operations and therefore would not be affected by the original Commuter Operations Rule.

The FAA’s intent from the commuter rule was not to apply Part 121 rules to public charter operators. The FAA concluded that the safety issues present for commuter carriers were not similarly present for public charter carriers, and the FAA may not have the legal authority to apply these rules to public charter operations in any case.

49 USC 41104 limits FAA’s authority to issue regulations on public air charters. It states: “The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe a regulation or issue an order restricting the marketability, flexibility, accessibility, or variety of charter air transportation provided under a certificate issued under section 41102 of this title only to the extent required by the public interest. A regulation prescribed or order issued under this subsection may not be more restrictive than a regulation related to charter air transportation that was in effect on October 1, 1978.”

To the extent that contemplated changes limit the “marketability, flexibility, accessibility or variety of charter air transportation” in a manner that is more restrictive than regulation on charter transportation in October 1, 1978, then the FAA is prohibited from issuing such a regulation.

Furthermore bookings by the public using set and advertised schedules offered by scheduled charter operators is specifically provided for in 49 USC 41104(1) “regularly scheduled charter air transportation, for which the public is provided in advance a schedule containing the departure location, departure time, and arrival location of the flight…” Regularly scheduled charter air transportation is defined in 49 USC 41104(b)(2) as follows: “the term ‘regularly scheduled charter air transportation’ does not include operations for which the departure time, departure location, and arrival location are specifically negotiated with the customer or the customer’s representative.” There are congressional definitions of regularly scheduled public charter transportation that are separate from both traditional charter transportation and traditional common carriage passenger-carrying operation for compensation by a traditional air carrier under Part 121, suggesting that the FAA lacks authority to treat these operations as identical to traditional non-charter air carriers, when Congress has treated them as a separate category since at least the 1970s.

It's precisely because JSX complies with the law and regulations as-written that ALPA, American and Southwest want the regulations changed (for their own pecuniary interests). And far from being a 'loophole' FAA has treated Part 380/Part 135 as linked for decades, consistent with statute.
jjbiv and Adam Smith like this.
gleff is offline  
Old Nov 7, 2023, 2:45 pm
  #19  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 41,796
Originally Posted by Jeff767
Keep in mind that JSX operates under part 135 and as such cant operate scheduled air service on an aircraft over 9 seats. Those saying everyone is out to get JSX need to understand that the rule has long been in place. To try and find a way to circumvent the rule when you buy a ticket with JSX youre actually purchasing the ticket through another company. They then charter a JSX jet for the flight. The fact the whole thing is under one ownership JSX says is not pertinent. The FAA disagrees and is moving to insure the loophole is closed.
Actually the FAA is acting as a bulldog at the behest of publicly traded corporations who want to use the FAA's regulatory authority to eliminate a viable competitor. JSX wasn't just started last week, they've been around for years - only now are they getting under AA's skin. No one is that naive to think this is nothing but just regulatory loophole maintenance.

Any FAA administrator who targets a competitor on behalf of another certificate holder for regulatory action on the basis of market competition should be terminated immediately and investigated for bribery.
jjbiv likes this.
bocastephen is online now  
Old Nov 7, 2023, 4:09 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 809
See my post with the rules to operate as a scheduled air carrier under part 135.
Jeff767 is offline  
Old Nov 7, 2023, 4:11 pm
  #21  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DCA
Programs: AMC MovieWatcher, Giant BonusCard, Petco PALS Card, Silver Diner Blue Plate Club
Posts: 22,291
Originally Posted by Jeff767
See my post with the rules to operate as a scheduled air carrier under part 135.
And see my responses above explaining how the JSX model is completely consistent with current law and regulation, how this is not a loophole, and how it is not clear that FAA even has the legal authority to change this (or would want to go through the necessary steps to do so).
jjbiv and moondog like this.
gleff is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2023, 10:00 am
  #22  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 809
Originally Posted by gleff
And see my responses above explaining how the JSX model is completely consistent with current law and regulation, how this is not a loophole, and how it is not clear that FAA even has the legal authority to change this (or would want to go through the necessary steps to do so).
I guess we will find out in the next year or so. You mentioned in another post that JSX has been doing this for a long time. They operated first under this model in 2019 and really did not gain steam until 2021. The real question is why all the trouble to avoid 121. Here is the answer.

Why Would JSX Use Part 135?

Costs, Costs, and Costs (and flexibility)

The regulatory burden of operating under Part 121 cant be understated when compared to Part 135. Part 121 requires higher levels of record keeping, maintenance, managerial oversight, data collection by the FAA/DOT, customer service, pilot training, and a slew of other things.
Jeff767 is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2023, 11:45 am
  #23  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DCA
Programs: AMC MovieWatcher, Giant BonusCard, Petco PALS Card, Silver Diner Blue Plate Club
Posts: 22,291
JSX began operating as JetSuiteX in 2016. They had to go through certifications prior to launching service. My point here was simply that FAA was well aware of their operations and had not expressed concern about the model until lobbying from pilot unions, American and Southwest.

It'll take longer than a year to know for certain whether the FAA has the authority to take contemplated actions. First we have to see what formal rule is proposed and finalized, and then we have to see whether it's consistent with law and survives challenges.

They work to avoid part 121 because (1) it gives a better customer experience, being able to operate from private terminals, and (2) because it allows them to use recently retired senior captains from United and Southwest, and because it allows co-pilots who have fewer than 1,500 hours. Their programs otherwise substantially exceed those required of part 135 carriers. In fact, since they codeshare with part 121 they have to pass IATA safety audits and have more obligations than a part 135 carrier would otherwise.
gleff is offline  
Old Nov 13, 2023, 6:52 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 809
Originally Posted by gleff
JSX began operating as JetSuiteX in 2016. They had to go through certifications prior to launching service. My point here was simply that FAA was well aware of their operations and had not expressed concern about the model until lobbying from pilot unions, American and Southwest.

It'll take longer than a year to know for certain whether the FAA has the authority to take contemplated actions. First we have to see what formal rule is proposed and finalized, and then we have to see whether it's consistent with law and survives challenges.

They work to avoid part 121 because (1) it gives a better customer experience, being able to operate from private terminals, and (2) because it allows them to use recently retired senior captains from United and Southwest, and because it allows co-pilots who have fewer than 1,500 hours. Their programs otherwise substantially exceed those required of part 135 carriers. In fact, since they codeshare with part 121 they have to pass IATA safety audits and have more obligations than a part 135 carrier would otherwise.
JSX operations as JetSuiteX were as a standard charter outfit. They did not start scheduled airline service until 2019. 2021 was when they rapidly expanded. They are taking full advantage of all the 135 rules where you can save money including maintenance requirements and reporting. Any airline can operate from private facilities. A 121 airline would however need to provide full passenger screening to prevent weapons or explosives being brought onboard. They would also have to provide full aircraft security to insure no attempts at sabotage or other aircraft issues.

Last edited by Jeff767; Nov 13, 2023 at 7:00 am
Jeff767 is offline  
Old Nov 13, 2023, 9:00 am
  #25  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DCA
Programs: AMC MovieWatcher, Giant BonusCard, Petco PALS Card, Silver Diner Blue Plate Club
Posts: 22,291
This is simply false. JetSuiteX operated with a published schedule and fares starting in 2016.
gleff is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.