As the FAA and others will recall, in 2001 the certificate holders resisted Whitlow on the grounds that the cost would put certificate holders out of business. We anticipate the same approach to this NPRM. In their request to stay enforcement of Whitlow, the RAA stated that the Whitlow interpretation would “bring about the demise of smaller carriers.” They would be required to hire numerous flight crewmembers and the cost would mean elimination of service to smaller cities. Likewise, the ATA complained that enforcement of Whitlow would inconvenience the traveling public as their members would have to delay and cancel flights. Additionally, the ATA carriers would be subjected to having to hire many additional flight crewmembers incurring tremendous costs for salaries, benefits and training.

For this reason they engaged in litigation to overturn Whitlow. When that effort failed, the certificate holders implemented the interpretation with little or no impact on their operation. They adjusted their scheduling practices with minimal or no cost. It can be anticipated that the certificate holders will take the same position on hard limits as they did with Whitlow. The sky is falling approach should be rejected.