Due to a lack of pilots, major airlines have left scores of small markets. And the biggest airlines have virtually indistinguishable operations, offering seats with basically the same layout (same width, same legroom within a couple of inches) and very similar service levels.
The largest airports are congested. In some cases this is due to government slot restrictions. In other cases it’s how government-owned airports manage their gates, keeping new entrants out. Either way, it’s difficult for new carriers to break in.
In response to this, new airlines have started – or are trying to start – using rules that were laid out by the FAA.
- Use planes with no more than 30 seats, and you can have co-pilots with 250 hours of flight experience paired with 1,500 hour captains (similar rules to what was permitted at major carriers before 2010, and that many senior pilots flying today started their careers under).
- This can mean taking 50 seat regional jets and outfitting them with just 30 seats, as JSX does. That means ‘everyone flies first class’. JSX offers free snacks, free drinks, free checked bags and StarLink internet which performs better than what any major airline offers because the satellites are in a lower orbit (signals don’t have to travel as far).
- And even these operations can even fly out of private terminals offering greater convenience.
- Regional carrier SkyWest has proposed an operation, entirely legal under current rules, that would follow the JSX model to provide service to small communities that can’t sustain service with large aircraft and $200,000+ per year pilots.
There hasn’t been a single safety issue identified with Part 380 carriers complying with the rules applicable to Part 121 operations. In fact, the rulemaking even notes that “the FAA has adjusted its oversight of these increased operations” and has not expressed a concern about JSX or similar carriers.
The only reason the agency cites for potentially banning their operation is they’ve grown, but that is literally what the rules – and the Department of Transportation – are designed for. According to the government, they’re proceeding “in light of recent high-volume operations” but:
- They step into a breach created by abdication of markets and product offerings of major airlines
- The DOT is supposed to support abundant, safe, and efficient air travel.
There’s no logical reason for this proceeding, at this time, other than that the Air Line Pilots Association doesn’t like to see more co-pilots flying with fewer than 1,500 hours of training because it provides a paid path towards more commercial pilots, helping to address the pilot shortage which gives them leverage in negotiations.
The rule does nothing to promote safety since the hours can be racked up with the same clear air single engine takeoffs and landings from the same airports, rinse repeat. Hours can even be racked up in a hot air balloon. The balloon can even be tethered. The rule is just about creating a barrier of time and cost to become a pilot.
- The Department of Transportation and NTSB have both said they see no correlation between co-pilot flight hours and safety.
- Europe has maintained just as safe an operating environment as the U.S. without adopting a similar rule.
- What the U.S. did at the same time as legislate the 1,500 hour rule for commercial airline co-pilots is also institute stricter pilot rest requirements that do, in fact, matter. Pilot fatigue is a real issue for safety.
While at JSX they have 30,000 hour captains mentoring sub-1,500 hour co-pilots. Their operations call for different experience than is needed to fly transoceanic in a widebody aircraft with hundreds of passengers. They’re flying 30 seat regional jets on largely one and two hour flights in and out of the same airports. You don’t need co-pilots relieving captains for hours at a time. These flights have among the most experience up front among domestic operations. And since 90% of their flights overnight at base, pilots mostly sleep in their own beds – far better for fatigue than at nearly all Part 121 carriers.
American Airlines joined ALPA (and other unions) in calling for JSX to be banned. They don’t like having a premium airline based in their home city of Dallas, employing many of their own retired senior captains and providing a competing product. I chose to fly JSX to Dallas even while I was an American Airlines ConciergeKey member because of the product they offer which I’ve found to be usually cheaper than American’s own premium fares.
JSX has been popular, and they’ve grown. That attracted the attention of ALPA and American Airlines, and the government now proposes to ban them for no other reason than this growth. They do not have safety concerns. It’s purely about changing regulatory definitions to eliminate flying that could serve small markets, and eliminate competition for a major airline. They want to shoot JSX (and by extension SkyWest Charter) dead because they offer too much value to passengers.
This effort is worthwhile to ALPA and American because,
- They may kill a competitor
- Even if they don’t, they distract the airline and cause it to burn cash on lawyers and lobbyists
- And slow down growth, because facing uncertainty new capital expenses likely makes less sense – why spend millions converting planes they may not be allowed to continue operating?
The FAA is making clear that airlines are a cartel and that’s how they’re going to stay. That’s regulatory capture, by the major airlines and by the largest pilot union. And we shouldn’t put up with that in this country. The FAA is taking public comment and is legally required to consider what you have to say.
Aha! You’re on Alex’s payroll…!!! Finally understood who’s sponsoring View From The Wing.
Crony Capitalism at its finest.
Rather than everyone just complaining, please follow the link in Gary’s post and leave a comment.
In almost every city that has had essential air services or where the federal or local government put up subsidies or operating credits, as soon as the free money goes, so does the service.
Wish JetX was in the local market here. On Delta to ATL, you may get water but often no service.
Go comment or the lobbyist wins. They may win anyway, but you can comment and write a congressman. Amazing how much effect that has sometimes.
Why would I want to fly AA or any other airline besides JSX, if I had the opportunity to fly JSX? Fewer passengers, more space and better service, and it may actually be cheaper.
I wonder why we keep doing things like this to ourselves, protecting poor performers from “losing” to superior ones? I’m pro-union because I believe workers uniting to more powerfully advocate for themselves against their corporate employers is a good thing; but it seems these organizations are more frequently over-reaching beyond their mandates and stifling innovation for the sake of protecting their underperforming membership. Can’t be good for the country, and certainly not for consumers.
Part 135 or 380? Might want to double check that.
In all honesty I never knew how JSX got away with operating as a 135 when they clearly market as a 121. I figured they were rule bending a bit.
Let’s not forget that AA tried for years to keep WN out of DFW and do all possible to limit the size of Love Field – and have largely succeeded.
But that chain around WN falls off in just a couple years and WN will be free to expand wherever in N. Texas it wants.
It is a given that they won’t stay just at Love Field.
As for the comment about only getting water on DL, let me know if they filed anything to support the shutdown of JSX.
There is an article on Skywest on another site today which discusses their strategies that include trying to serve small cities dependent in part on FAA regulations. You should be able to google news on Skywest and find it.
Amen, Gary.
Love JSX. We could benefit from more like them, not the opposite.
Thank you, Gary, for the link to comment in your article. JSX is the only airline that would allow my 40-pound non-service dog to travel with me between Los Angeles and the Bay Area. Perhaps my comment to the FAA will at least be heard.
You would be singing a different tune if a major accident resulted from this loophole. I can already hear it now: “why didn’t govt regulators do more?”
How much are JSX paying you for this repetitive shilling?
The FAA is highly biased.
“My name is Gary Leff and I hate pilots.”
Yeah, we get it . . . Over and over again.
Gary should get his own jet and hire his own 250 hour pilots to fly it with unlimited leg room and services. Or start his own airline for himself and rack up points on Gary Air.
To all not in the industry …. Do not look to a points and miles blogger for ANY kind of accurate view points. I don’t agree with suppressing the media ever … it’s what makes America aweome but don’t be fooled by this guy. He’s off his hinges.
When I snag a really nice table at a restaurant (JSX), I don’t presuppose I know the rigor of the kitchen inspections or health standards of the chef that night. As any experienced 121 Captain will tell you, training a fresh F/O, though rewarding, can be a huge distraction in frequently demanding circumstances. Experience and repetition matters…even in a single propellor plane on a sunny day. The current US rule (the country with unmatched airline safety) was formed on blood lost, not overarching unionism.
If they’re operating as a scheduled carrier..they need to follow the same rules as everyone else. Otherwise, if you’re really interested in competition, you would be arguing for all carries to be able to operate Part 135… Not just your favorite one.
Here’s how it works:
FAA assigns risk assumed to people.
1. People on the ground assume zero risk and are therefore provided maximum protection.
2. Passengers of airlines assume some risk (we all know flying is done at speed and altitude) but not a lot… passengers assume it’s safe.
3. Passengers on a charter assume even more risk and as a result get less protection from the FAA.
3. Pilots flying cargo get even less protection… 121 supplemental need I say more?
4 pilots flying themselves or their boss? Very little protection from the FAA.
Part 121 : scheduled airlines. The airline picks the destination.
Part 135: charter. The passenger picks the destination.
Part 91: private. The passenger picks AND operates
So…
Airlines have most regulations as they protect the passengers the most.
Charter has some regulations but not as many as they somewhat protect the passenger but acknowledge the passenger assumes some risk.
Private has few regulations as the FAA is mostly protecting people on the ground at that point. “91..get’er done” is a real saying.
So you have a charter outfit trying to use charter rules to run scheduled operations. That breaks the mold. Who’s picking the airports? The passenger or the airline? If you want to be an airline and pick the cities then your operating under part 121 and if you try to weasel out under charter (reduced) rules then you’re cheating.
@SMR
Curious why are you reading and commenting on this “off the hinges “ blog?
@Walter – to be absolutely 100% clear I have not taken a dime from JSX, from SkyWest Charter, or any other airline.
@1KBrad – I think pilots overall do a fantastic job. I also think special interests going to the government to limit competition is generally a bad thing.
@John – Nope.
@SMR Rather than just saying he’s “off his hinges”, can you enlighten us as to how he’s incorrect? Gary has had plenty of posts with useful information and plenty of posts that I just don’t agree with in the slightest – one does not invalidate the other. So he’s given his information, what is your information as to how that’s wrong?
I was a very very early user of SurfAir, Jetsmarter and Jetsuit before the rebranded to JSX. I’ve personally seen corporations going after these smaller ( by comparison) companies and trying to bully them out of existence for the sake of a pseudo monopoly. So all this information rings very true. Moreover I’ve talked with pilots of companies like this outside of their professional hours and the majority were pleased with the option of working for something like JSX.
Again, noone is infallible, I’ve disagreed with him before on other things but he’s given decent information and linked to the official site. What is wrong with what he’s said? How is it bad for pilots? From my perspective how does eliminating competition help pilots or consumers?
@Walter @Omar the same goes for you, if you all have Information that’s counter to the accident record of JSX type entities or how they are maligning pilots please share.
I mean this with sincerity, looking for factual information not a mud slinging match or schoolyard insult spree.
Typo: ban them for now other reason than this growth <— now/no
E
Can someone please explain why a certain level of “safety” is acceptable for a flight when passengers are from a group, but is life-threatening when a similarly sized group of passengers are not related?
Apparently the FAA is okay with a dangerous flying as long as all the seats are taken by the same entity.
Either the rule has nothing to do with safety, or the FAA is grossly negligent in its regulation of charters.
The 1,500 hour rule has nothing whatsoever to do with safety. FAA and NTSB have said there is no correlation between pilot training hours and safety outcomes. Pilots develop bad habits in the quest for these hours that have to be trained out of them. They can build the hours IN BALLOONS. THAT ARE TETHERED.
The purpose of this rule is to make it costly and time consuming to become a pilot, so that there are fewer pilots, and pilot unions have greater leverage in negotiations. That is all.
There were other changes made at the same time that did have value – pilot rest rules – fatigue is a real issue. Don’t confuse real safety issues with naked self-interest couched as safety.
All of the commenters who attack me, or dismiss me, but offer no argument whatsoever about why what I have written is wrong — they reveal the bankruptcy of their position. Sad.
THIS EFFORT BY ALPA (and American) IS WRONG, and I’m willing to say so.
New airlines and business models should be encouraged as this benefits consumers. JSX should be allowed to operate and expand.
Regarding building time toward the 1,500 hour rule in a balloon, I’ll say this. None of the time sitting in your tethered balloon will help you meet the various cross country & instrument requirements. Few balloons can help with the night flight time either. To actually log the flight time, you can’t sit in a lawn chair tied to some helium balloons. The balloon would need to be certificated and the pilot would need to be rated to fly it. The argument is rather ludicrous, because any airline hiring board would flesh out a candidate who built his time “tethered” and likely disqualify them as they were not conducted in a powered aircraft. A glider pilot would have similar issues though of a different nature.
Where I said, powered “aircraft”, I intended to say “airplane”. This is a distinction with a difference as the two terms are completely different in the eyes of the FAA and this rule.
Per CFR 14 1.1
“Aircraft” means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air. (like a balloon)
“Airplane” means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings. (no balloons here)
This has the making of another 737-MAX8 disaster — slippery slope at its best. So many company shills told us it was safe after the first crash because “There hadn’t been a single safety issue identified” with it and therefore it was the (non-white) pilots’ fault they crashed.
Right.
Hopefully the FAA is no longer in the hands of lobbyists and won’t cave like it did in 2019, when it dragged its feet grounding that flawed plane.
>”legally required to consider what you have to say.”
They ain’t gonna consider shit.
Wow, some really angry posters aiming at the author of this article. Why so mad? Whats with the hate of JSX? I mean, the airline has pretty much been growing and maintaining its own business, not bothering anyone else. I have heard plenty of positive reviews on JSX. They provide a quality product, run on time for the most part, and have a pretty good safety record. Is there some jealousy going on?
The carve out that JSX is using was designed for an aircraft that was far less capable than the aircraft JSX is using. The regulations were designed long ago before the 50 seat regional jet entered the market. Self imposing seat and cargo restrictions does not meet the intent of the regulations. This is the problem.
Hmmm, neither JSX or SkyWest are union airlines.
@Don – this is false, the Bombardier CRJ predates 14 CFR Part 380
@Tim – you can do 500 of the 1,500 hours in a balloon (not all of the time)
Difference with Skywest is that they want to operate scheduled codeshare flights for United with 30 seaters. It’s not simply “charters” like JSX. If they weren’t trying to game the system I don’t think the feds would be looking to alter the regulations.
We need JSX free market is the name of the game. Service is so bad lately its borderline abuse. Something needs to change
The current FAA rules that moved the hours required from 250 to 1500 was pure BS and a political move not supported by any science. It was a reaction to The Colgan crash and when the FAA sent teams to the major carriers (at least the meetings I put together in Atlanta) they were advised NOT to just raise the limit as it would cause the shortages we are seeing now. They had to “do something” also of the 5 person ream. They sent to gather comment only one was a pilot and the PM had lost her husband on a GA crash 2 years prior. Go figure. Government oversight ain’t always 20/20.
Gary,
you, far more than any other blogger, take on controversial issues and you take polarizing positions. It is not a surprise that there are people that mercilessly attack you while others defend you. That is the nature of the US and many western countries.
Some bloggers deal w/ other controversial issues but don’t take a position while others basically just report news.
I genuinely appreciate the “flavor” of this site in informing readers about challenging topics in aviation and facilitating discussion.
I far prefer these types of articles to the anecdotal airline customer service failure or bad customer story. Like 1000X prefer.
carry on.
I thought the issue was, as per the FAA RFQ, that these airlines “appear to be offered to the public as essentially indistinguishable from flights conducted by air carriers as supplemental or domestic operations” and thereby blurs the line between a “public charter” vs. a commercial airline. As such, the companies operating as a public charter should be required to operate under the same rules as a commercial airline.
Two criteria that appear to be material is: (1) the number of passengers on the aircraft and (2) the flying experience required by the pilots.
From your article, it seems that pairing a very experienced pilot with a very junior pilot is typical in these scenarios. It’s worth noting that disparity in experience that leads to the junior pilot taking a subservient role in the cockpit has led to multiple incidents involving fatalities.
Regardless, the article seems to focus more on the ulterior motives of various organizations. It also seems the push is not to “ban” JSX but rather if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, perhaps it should follow the same rules that all ducks go by? Whether those rules should apply to a duck should likely be discussed distinctly.
Thank you for posting the link. I am opposed to this operation.
You mention that JSX will have paired 30,000 hour Captains with less experienced First Officers. First of all that is not required or guaranteed. And maybe some of these 30,000 hour Captains like myself are not as sharp as they once were. For all your statements about how low hours doesn’t matter, you always mention that it’s okay because there will be someone with experience. You can’t have it both ways. Is it safe for two 250 hour pilots to fly you around?
JSX operation currently allows a 250 hour First Officer to be paired with a 1500 hour Captain. And there are no hour requirements in aircraft type.
And if the FAA allows the security system to remain for JSX operations, all airlines/airports should be able to operate with the same criteria.
@DA Pilit – “maybe some of these 30,000 hour Captains like myself are not as sharp as they once were.”
Oh, you mean more hours doesn’t mean safer?
You stated “They do not have safety concerns”. Is this based on SMS data or just your opinion? Have you ever flown with a 250 hour pilot? Do you even know why Part 121 regulations were changed so that 250 hour pilots could no longer qualify? That used to be the rule, but it changed for a very good reason. Do you know what that reason is? These senior pilots you speak of. Are they 68 and above? And flying with pilots with little to no experience? This article is simply an advertisement for JSX. I would suggest doing more research into aviation safety and the history of operations like this before posting something with little to no factual arguments.
The while 1500h rule does nothing to promote safety. All the rest of the world allowes pilots with just 250h and targeted airline training to fly in the right seat of an airliner, and many of those markets are safer than the US.
Get rid of the stupid 1500h rule and align with the rest of the world and the peoblem is solved.
DA Pilit,
I’d love for you to explain how aircraft accidents happen involving pilots that were relatively new to their airplane – such as the UA 767 landing incident at IAH and maybe the DL 767 MXP hail incident. Should pilots not be allowed to do anything new even if they are experienced and meet other requirements?
and how is it that the majority of aircraft accidents that are labeled as pilot error are actually done by pilots that meet the 1500 rule – and then some – and have experience in their own aircraft?
You do understand that part 380 only applies to unscheduled flights… Let’s tell the whole story here…
Your reporting of this matter has grown more concise as your reportage continues. Kudos.
I’ll offer one seemingly pedantic correction – The SkyWest Charters proposal actually came to the attention of ALPA first due to the potential of having ‘B’ scale pilot wages under the same roof at SkyWest.
The ‘B’ scale issue in and of itself wasn’t going to garner much attention beyond internecine bickering between ALPA & SkyWest. ALPA lobbying found a “partner” in American Airlines to “legitimize by stigmatiz(ation)” with introducing a stalking horse in the form of an alleged safety deficiency.
Being based in Dallas, JSX was the unfortunate victim of the crossfire between the FAA, ALPA and SkyWest.
Nevertheless, we’re at the current point in the matter. That said, in addition to JSX and SkyWest Charters, there are a handful of other carriers I managed to identify operating under the 135/380 model that will be impacted by potential FAA revisions to 380 rules:
Advanced Air
Aero
Boutique Air
Contour Air (previously mentioned)
IBC Air
Surf Air (previously mentioned)
Tradewind
XO Jet/XO Jet Aviation
Three of these carriers operate Essential Air Service routes. Two of the carriers offer international service to areas that receive limited air service. Two of the carriers offer the only scheduled service at certain alternate airports in major U.S. metropolitan areas. One carrier operates as a scheduled corporate charter.
All of this carnage as a result of politics stemming from a potential pay dispute.
It’s a good article for those who are involved but not steeped in the topic. From past articles on the subject, the narrative pertaining to Part 380 is definitely meant to sway public opinion, as in, ‘it is an unsafe option’ for the flying public. This article definitely challenges that idea. Prior to covid, the regional-legacy business model was running like a well-oiled machine. Now, not so much. Regional options are drying up. It makes sense that some pilot unions or organizations are trying to guard their leverage when dealing with their respective employers/carriers. At the same time, regional airports and their prospective passengers (including the business community) deserve to to be able to access air travel without commuting 1-4 hours in order to reach a specific hub. Deregulation in the airline industry was supposed to free up carriers and promote competition. It did the exact opposite and the consumer is left with fewer choices, less service, higher prices, and interrupted travel which is becoming the norm.