![]() |
I don't know if this is new news or not: https://onemileatatime.com/news/faa-cracks-down-public-charter-loophole
/ Has anybody on the inside heard anything new recently? |
They should close the loophole. It's not scheduled because the company that sells the tickets isn't the company that operates the flights? GMAFB, you could say the same about all the regionals. But give them a grace period to get their house in order, on the off chance the model can survive under 121 rules. I don't really blame them for the loophole, that's on the regulators.
|
Originally Posted by zippinbye
(Post 3698727)
"doing something," indeed. Telling the world we should not fly Part 121 past age 65. Outright lying by saying the "vast majority" of membership concurs with that assertion, although they never polled me for an opinion (nor any ALPA pilot I've ever spoken with). Well isn't it special that ALPA now seeks to eradicate an operation that in theory allows pilots to fly past 65? Thanks ALPA, for doing something!
|
Originally Posted by say again
(Post 3812332)
I'm sure the vast majority are against age 67.
|
Is it ironic that this is in the "charter" forum?
|
Originally Posted by FlyGuy2021
(Post 3812398)
Didn't JSX just crash an airplane on the runway attempting to land? That'll help their chances.
|
Originally Posted by captjns
(Post 3812428)
How about AA in Jamaica... How about SW nose diving for the deep 6 in HI? They go out of business? Passengers fleeing to alternate other carriers? Rather than posing a quesition in an accusational, turn our question into a fact based report. Better credibility... eh? How about maintenance issues with the 121s? Tires and engine cowels separating from their aircraft.
|
Originally Posted by FlyGuy2021
(Post 3812638)
But JSX's one was a full on crash. Did you see the pics? Landing gear through the wing. I mean...dammmm.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3812233)
They should close the loophole. It's not scheduled because the company that sells the tickets isn't the company that operates the flights? GMAFB, you could say the same about all the regionals. But give them a grace period to get their house in order, on the off chance the model can survive under 121 rules. I don't really blame them for the loophole, that's on the regulators.
The argument was to be that it was not an airline at all. It was a staffing and training company. They flew planes owned by the mainline contractor. They owned no gates, no ground equipment, no planes; they sold no tickets and accepted no charters. They solely existed to staff and use another companies equipment. This was actually seriously being looked at. It fits exactly with what you just pointed out about JSX. Then we hit one single issue. The staffing & training company held a piece of paper from the federal government that contradicted all of that common sense logic. The company held a part 121 Air Carrier Certificate, making it an airline, not a staffing & taining company. So that regional was an airline that owned nothing, sold nothing, and just staffed & trained people. I'm sure the argument will be the travel-vacation company decides when and where to fly, and just charters JSX. I don't really buy that "hands off" theory. It looks like the FAA didn't either. |
Originally Posted by say again
(Post 3812332)
I'm sure the vast majority are against age 67.
We'll never know though, because ALPO didn't even ask/poll the membership |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:41 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands