iflythewest

This is just the standard goat rope operation that Doug Voss runs. The management deserves everything they have coming and more.

ackattacker

Hmmm, this sounds like a troll. The regs are pretty clear that it's not a simple matter of cutting of ticket sales at 9. You actually have to only have a "maximum seating configuration" of 9 passenger seats or less (and a payload of less than 7500 pounds). That means for sure removing the seats, and probably it has to be fairly permanent. I don't see the FAA signing off on this at all.

JamesNoBrakes

1900s are already operated part 135 9 or less.

But anyways, see how easy it is to solve any "pilot shortage" problem? When you run EAS hauling 2 people out of some airport in the middle of nowhere, you don't even need to be 121...

ackattacker

Show me one that is operating 1900's in commuter operations with more than nine passenger seats installed under 135.

Also, EAS contracts are awarded based upon proposals for a certain level of service, including frequency of service and the number of seats. Material changes to the service provided would seem require putting the whole thing out for bidding again.

JamesNoBrakes

You missed the 9 or less part.
It's one of many AK flights on 1900-Cs operated under 135. There are also 1900s doing freight and 121 of course.

Dejavu

I flew the do228 part 135 we had 19 pax I don't under stand why limit is 9

Aero1900

I am not trolling. I am a current GLA Captain, and I am simply sharing what management has shared with us.

I am not very familiar with 135 ops as I went straight into 121. I've never flown 135. My understanding is that you can only run scheduled 135 flights if the plane has a max capacity of 9 passenger seats. I do not know if GLA will have to physically remove seats, mark 10 seats inop, or just sell a max of 9 tickets per flight. I don't know.

As I mentioned, our load factor is an average of 40 something percent. So, if we operated a handful of our thinnest routes under 135, the 9 pax limit would be fine most of the time. How many routes and flights would be operated under 135 would depend on staffing. Staffing is the entire reason GLA would do this.

As far as when the FAA might get around to issuing us 135 certificate, again, who knows? I have heard that the FAA is really stingy about giving out 135 certificates, and I have heard that during the "sequester" they are even less likely to do it, or at least slower.

On the other hand, our DO believes we are likely to get the certificate fairly soon. The reason for this is as follows: Since GLA is already a 121 certificate holder, and we are going to operate the 135 flights under the more strict 121 rules they should feel comfortable with the operation. His plan is to operate 135 flights exactly as we do 121 flights. We will have a release, and we will follow all the 121 regs with regard to weather, alternates and fuel requirements. The only thing that will be different is the FO will not need to comply with the new ATP rules

Captain Tony

What's old is new again. GLA operated 135 back in the 90s before the FAA forced them to go 121. Except I don't remember the 1900s limited to 9 people. Regardless, I don't see the FAA approving this scheme any time soon, but I give them points for creativity, lol.

Maybe they should being the Beech 99s back? I think a few are still sitting around in SPW.

Ramprat

Put Do Not Occupy tape on 10 seats, problem solved.

hypoxia

Yank unrestricted F/O's off of flights with 9 or less passengers if another flight goes 10+. Another problem solved!