MinRest

Except the only instances where people operate under this exemption, is to run an airline and not be beholden to Part 121 regulations.

Guess what a scheduled charter is...

An airline.

JohnBurke

It was a Part 135 operation, operating under those regulations, with an exemption due to the nature of the operation that did not fit into other classifications. The nature of the operation has changed, and now the FAA proposes to remove that exemption and place them under 121, instead of 135.

Again, the FAA is still taking comments.

JBird

you do work for the FAA don’t you?

SonicFlyer

This is nothing more than protectionism with the government picking winners and losers.

Excargodog

Utter nonsense. It is a proposed rule. If you think it is inappropriate you can provide your opinion like anyone else. If you believe the FAA is overstepping their bounds oppose it legally and this can join the other four cases challenging agency over reach and the Chevron Deference doctrine.

SonicFlyer

Under the Constitution the FAA shouldn't exist without a Constitutional Amendment.

Ah, more crap a court just made up and pulled out of their butts, which once again, is directly contrary to the Constitution.

idontknoworcare

"Under the Constitution the FAA shouldn't exist without a Constitutional Amendment."

just like "privileges and limitations" there are no privileges. i wouldnt say its a right either but the amount of time and money that is required to get from zero to atp and to still call it a privilege is ridiculous to me. of course people dont do any research and dont realize you dont need a drivers license to drive a car. why? because its a RIGHT not a privilege. you dont need permission. you only need a dl if its for commercial purposes. anybody know what texas penal code 38.02 says without looking it up? ignorant americans dont even know their basic rights. anybody wearing a mask right now is an idiot. the short answer to all of this? do the research or s t f u. because the mainstream media says its going to rain skittles tomorrow doesnt make it true. and JB dont even think about responding to this post with your senseless dribble. because if you do i wont readi it.

Cranberry

If the founding fathers wanted there to be an FAA, they’d have put it in the constitution. We didn’t fight Queen Elizabeth for this.

Av8rinchina

The FAA is asking for comments and this is my comment:

The new rules that were implemented in the wake of the Colgan flight 3407 crash were determined by the FAA to improve the safety of the flying public.
My first question is: Are passengers that would normally fly on a part 121 Regulated Airline less safe flying on JSX Airlines?
My answer is: Yes, if the new rules in the wake of the Colgan crash were indeed determined to make the flying public safer, a passenger on a JSX flight is less safe because they are flying under the old and less restrictive rules.

JSX operates the EMB145 under part 135 rules, this is an airplane that has been operated under part 121 for decades. The only difference that allows JSX to operate the same airplane with far less experienced pilots and far less restrictive rules is that it carries 30 passengers whereas part 121 operators can carry 50 passengers.

My second question: Since when did the number of passenger seats onboard an aircraft have any impact on the safety of flight?
My answer: It doesn't and it would be absurd to claim otherwise.

My conclusion: The FAA will lose all credibility in the eyes of the flying public, and the industry as a whole, if they continue to allow scheduled airlines like JSX to operate with the same type of airplane, flying scheduled flights, under far less restrictive rules, with far less experienced pilots than the competition. The FAA determined that the old rules were significant factors contributing to numerous aircraft disasters in the past. It would be absurd to let JSX continue to operate under the old and less restrictive rules simply based on the number of passenger seats installed in the back of their aircraft.

JohnBurke

On a scale of 10 to dumbass, with dumbass being a negative number, this assertion that the founding fathers should have memorialized aviation is absolutely idiotic. Setting aside the fact that the constitution is a living document, the creation of the FAA as an Act of Congress, starting with the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 did not need to be a constitutional amendment. The Constitution, which recognizes rights, doesn't need to be amended with a Federal Aviation organization; flying is not a right. Moreover, there wasn't any aviation at the time of the drafting of the constitution, and certainly not any technology or aviation to regulate at that time. Of course the founding fathers didn't create an aviation agency under the original constitution. The assertion that they should is bonkers.

The Federal Aviation Act created the Federal Aviation Agency (replacing the CAA), and as amended, became the FAA. This act was an act of congress. The FAA is authorized, and legitimate.

If you don't like the proposed notice of rule making, then enter your comments during the comment period. That's what it's for. If you don't like the proposed rule and you say nothing, then you've not a leg to stand upon.

This is a lie, perhaps made in ignorance, but it's a lie. You do not have a right to fly, and your pilot certificate is a privilege. That privilege can be revoked. How much you spent to get it is irrelevant; that was your choice in attempting to secure privilege.

Whether it's ridiculous to you doesn't change a thing, nor does it turn a privilege into a right. Holding pilot certification is a privilege, not a right. That you spent money to get the ATP is your choice, but does not become a right simply because you chose to shell out a few dollars to obtain ATP privileges on your pilot certificate. Your privileges can be suspended or revoked. The amount of time it took you to get from zero to ATP is likewise irrelevant. That time does not change your privilege to a right, because airman privileges are not rights.

This is jurisdictional, but is also a lie. Driving is a privilege. You may drive a car on your private property without a license. You do not have a right to drive on another's private property, or on public property. To drive on someone else's property, or on public property (eg, roadways, etc), you are required to be licensed as your jurisdiction may stipulate. On someone else's property, you might have permission to drive, and in that case, you may not be required to hold a driver license, if authorized to drive on that property without a license. You do not have a right to drive, but it is a privilege accorded you so long as you obey the traffic and vehicle laws, and act in a safe manner. Public roads are government roads, and are regulated by the government.

All of this is getting far afield. The topic is a notice of proposed rule making, and the FAA's comment period. The FAA i s not out to get JSX. The regulation is not about JSX, but about removing an exemption that was created for operations of a much smaller scope and scale. JSX (et al) has outgrown the intent and purpose of the exemption, and the FAA proposes to alter or end the exemption, placing those operating under that exemption under Part 121, instead of under Part 135.

If you don't like it, there's a comment period. Don't waffle on about nutty fringe ideas, however. The sovereign citizen notion won't buy you much traction. You have privileges, not a right. The operating certificate held by JSX is a privilege, not a right, and certainly not an inalienable right.

One may start out as a single pilot 135 operator, but upon growing, one becomes subject to relevant regulation; one can't simply continue operator certification as a one-man band. As an operation grows, the operations to which it is beholden change. This is no less true for JSX.

There are essentially four different broad classifications of operators ("airlines") under Part 121. Not all of those who will move to 121, from exemption 380, will be under the same classification.