Home | Search | Help
OST by Number | OST by Order | OST by Carrier | OST by Subject | OST by Day
OIA by Carrier/Subject | OIA by Day | FAA by Number | FAA by Subject | FAA by Day
Carrier Financials | Charter Office | Answer/Reply Calendar
Updated:
OST-2007-27057 - Consumer Information Regarding On-Demand Air Taxi Operations
|
Consumer Information Regarding On-Demand Air Taxi Operations Published in Federal Register January 26, 2007 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking The Department of Transportation is seeking input from interested parties on the recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board that customers of ondemand air taxi services be advised, at the time they contract for a flight, of: (1) The name of the company with operational control of the flight; (2) any ‘‘doing business as’’ names contained in such company’s Operations Specifications; (3) the name of the aircraft owner; and (4) the name of any broker involved in arranging the flight. The NTSB has also recommended that customers be updated thereafter in the event such information changes. The Department will evaluate the comments to determine what, if any, changes to its economic rules applicable to on-demand air taxi operators should be made. Comments should be received by March 27, 2007. By: Jonathan Dols
Published in Federal Register January 26, 2007 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking The Department of Transportation is seeking input from interested parties on the recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board that customers of on-demand air taxi services be advised, at the time they contract for a flight, of: (1) The name of the company with operational control of the flight; (2) any ‘‘doing business as’’ names contained in such company’s Operations Specifications; (3) the name of the aircraft owner; and (4) the name of any broker involved in arranging the flight. The NTSB has also recommended that customers be updated thereafter in the event such information changes. The Department will evaluate the comments to determine what, if any, changes to its economic rules applicable to on-demand air taxi operators should be made. Comments should be received by March 27, 2007. By: Jonathan Dols
March 23, 2007 Comments of Airline Dispatchers Federation | Word ADF believes access to information is the necessary starting point for learning and making choices concerning efficiency, safety and accountability. As the demand for an alternative to the traditional Part 121 scheduled air carrier continues to grow, the availability of standardized information concerning the travel being considered will result in the traveler and his/her agent becoming more educated about the pros and cons of the various options. Likewise, ADF believes that enforcement begins with a clear and understandable regulation. Requiring a clear, standardized statement be provided at least at the point of contract/purchase, at anytime the information changes from time of purchase to departure, and again at time of departure for each leg provides a clear expectation to the passenger and a sound basis for enforcement. Hopefully, implementation of a standardized statement of information would be a stepping stone to development of privately or publicly maintained data bases with statistics concerning safety and reliability similar to current statistics maintained for Part 121 scheduled air carriers. To that end, ADF not only supports the NTSB recommendation but also proposes that the same standardized statement be required for all air transportation not provided by a Part 121 scheduled air carrier or a Part 135 scheduled commuter carrier. The intent is that the same information be provided in generally the same fashion for all Part 135 Air Taxi and Charter operations and for all Part 121 and Part 125 Charter and Indirect Air Carrier operations. Looking forward to the numerous “open skies” initiatives, the requirement should apply as well to any foreign air carrier or operator departing from a United States airport. By: Norman Joseph
March 23, 2007 Comments of Corporate Flight Management | Word In a perfect world, there would be certificated charter operators, charter brokers and non certificated or illegal operators. Instead of adding more regulations to certificated operators, more time should be spent eliminating the non certificated or illegal charter operators. If these operations were eliminated, then only certificated operators and charter brokers would be left. If this were the case, then the suggestion for a requirement for a charter broker to notify their customer who they have contracted a flight with could be valid. If the certificated operator is doing its job, the passenger should be aware of who is operating the aircraft when they board the aircraft. Of course in most cases what information does the customer really have? If they are unfamiliar with the operator, they only have a name. If they are familiar with the operator and everything goes well on the flight, they will contact the broker again to set up their next charter flight and hopefully request the same company again to operate the flight. Everyone is happy. If something goes wrong, who really has what responsibility? The operator and its insurance company will bear the majority if not all of the responsibility and the charter broker, little or none. Referencing the unfortunate accident on November 28, 2004 listed in this Docket; if the passengers of this flight knew the operator; would it have changed the outcome of the flight? The answer is no. If the passengers did not know who the operator was, most likely they would have arrived at the airport, located the crew flying the aircraft type they had scheduled to the destination they were scheduled to go to, and the outcome would have been the same. With all due respect to the NTSB and their recommendation concerning this issue, this may be an issue better suited for the Better Business Bureau or Consumer Reports. By: Dwayne McMurry
March 23, 2007 How might customers and passengers benefit from the information covered by the NTSB recommendation in making their air-taxi service purchase decisions? There will be no benefit to passengers or customers unless the operator does not have the crew on there staff and payroll. If the owner of the aircraft is paying the crew for most of their salary I feel operational control is lost by the operator. The ops specs leave too much of a loop whole. The FAA has not closed the door. Typical and then we still have a problem. What are the practical problems in requiring notice to individual passengers of an on-demand air taxi? Would any notice requirement be sufficient if provided to the person contracting for the flight, e.g., the customer's broker/agent, a corporation's travel department or an executive's assistant who arranged the flight? Read this question yourself. Do you not see the complications you are creating here. Read all eight of the questions. I don't even know where to begin to answer. I am trying to run what was a simple charter operation and now has turned into a monster with all this about operational control which was not enforced and now is being readjusted. I don't even know what I am saying. What a mess. By: Aero Charter, Robert Thomas
March 26, 2007 Comments of the National Air Transportation Association The association is very concerned with the timing the NTSB seeks for their recommended disclosures. The NTSB recommendation reads that “customers of on-demand air taxi services be advised at the time they contract for a flight” of the details discussed above (emphasis added). Due to the ever-changing nature of the on-demand charter industry, especially when flights are arranged using a broker, disclosing these details at the time a customer contracts for a flight is not optimal or, in most cases, even practical. An ad-hoc or membership-based broker might not know which operator will be completing the flight when the customer originally contracts for it. An air taxi operator will not know of the need to broker a flight for mechanical reasons or other scheduling concerns at the time of contract. Therefore, NATA suggests that the air taxi operator completing the flight must advise the customer of the entity with operational control (itself) at any time prior to engine start. NATA further recommends that this disclosure would be an affirmative action by the air carrier (and/or its representatives), not passive. By this, NATA intends that there be an explicit communicative act required of the operator as opposed to the posting of a sign bearing the operator’s name somewhere within the aircraft. NATA believes that the DOT should establish this as a minimum requirement and allow air taxi operators to determine how they can best accomplish this task. Though not specifically addressed in the ANPRM, the association strongly encourages the DOT and FAA to coordinate on the establishment of a consumer-friendly database of licensed on-demand air charter operators. The database should allow a user to enter the operator’s name, and review their certificate number, location, and other of the air carrier’s details. Existing databases are almost impossible for the average consumer to locate and the existing search functions are cumbersome and confusing for the typical member of the public to utilize effectively. A robust, up-to-date, searchable database would accomplish much to ensure that consumers have a choice in air transportation and can easily obtain the information necessary to make educated decisions. By: NATA, James Coyne
March 26, 2007 AMI Jet Charter endorses the NATA suggestion that the air taxi operator completing the flight (here, AMI Jet Charter) be the party responsible for advising the customer that it has operational control and that this disclosure should be made at any time prior to engine start. AMI Jet Charter believes the notification should be accomplished through an express communication. AMI Jet Charter believes this should be established as the minimum requirement and allow air taxi operators to determine how they can best accomplish this task, including notification by the air taxi's appointed agent. By: AMI, Charles McLeran
March 26, 2007 TAG USA endorses the NATA suggestion that the air taxi operator completing the flight be the party responsible for advising the customer of the entity with operational control (itself) at any time prior to engine start. TAG USA believes the notification should be accomplished through an express communication. TAG USA believes this should be established as the minimum requirement and allow air taxi operators to determine how they can best accomplish this task, including notification by the air taxi's appointed agent. By: TAG USA, J.W.P. Cartwright
March 27, 2007 Comments of Association of Air Medical Services The Association of Air Medical Services writes to you today to regarding the practice of informing passengers on Part 135 flights of the name of the company with operational control of the flight and any subsequent “doing business as” prior to the departure of the flight. While AAMS understands the need for this type of information in establishing the name of the flight’s operator, AAMS would like to recommend that the Department of Transportation exempt air medical services from any requirements of this type. Air medical service aircraft transport critically ill and injured patients; these patients are often the only passengers on air medicals service aircraft, and, due to their medical condition, would not be able to take advantage of this information. AAMS also believes that taking time to provide this information to patients in this condition in emergency medical situations may distract air medical services crews from their primary medical and aviation missions. By: AAMS, Edward Eroe, 703-836-8732
March 27, 2007 Comments of National Business Aviation Association There may be a benefit to charter customers and passengers if the charter customer is informed of who is providing the air transportation. NBAA agrees with the Department that adequate information is essential in order that consumers be afforded the opportunity to make informed decisions about their flight choices. However, even with basic information, such as the name of the air carrier, the burden is then on the customer to research the entity that will be conducting the flight, to ensure the operator meets the customer’s safety requirements and expectations. During a series of meetings with the Federal Aviation Administration to discuss in detail operational control of Part 135 air charter flights, NBAA advocated for the FAA to initiate rulemaking that would require Part 135 air carriers to brief passengers on operational control, including the name of the entity that has operational control for the particular flight. This is a required briefing for fractional aircraft operated under FAR Part 91, Subpart K. If the passenger arrives for the flight and the entity conducting the flight is different than the company researched by the customer, this would raise a “red flag” for the passenger, prompting further investigation prior to departure. By: NBAA, Douglas Carr, 202-331-8364
March 27, 2007 Comments of Sentient Jet | Word While it is difficult to argue that more disclosure to the customer rather than less is better, we fundamentally wonder what disclosure is trying to achieve and how best to do it? If the objective is to improve safety, we would argue that disclosure will not affect safety. The primary way to affect safety would be to conduct more rigorous enforcement of the existing rules that govern air carrier operations. If the objective is to inform the customer, then this begs the question “inform the customer of what and to what purpose?” In both cases, safety and informing the customer, we believe that disclosure can provide some but limited value, but more importantly may actually create a false sense of security. Our experience shows that most customers are completely unaware of and ambivalent toward the current “brokering” debate going on within the industry and the various federal agencies. Customers assume that whoever arranges their flight (broker or an operator), does so with a safe, legal and reputable air carrier. Customers also expect that if the entity arranging or booking their flight is not the air carrier itself, that the arranging entity conducts proper and robust due diligence over the selection of an alternate safe, legal and reputable air carrier. Customers expect this because they have limited means readily available to them to validate if an operator is safe, legal and reliable- a function that they view as quite important. The information and resources required to properly verify that an air carrier is safe, legal and reliable are complex, proprietary and are well beyond the means available to the public. Additionally, due to resource constraints, limited FAA oversight of certificated operations has resulted in a situation where merely having a 135 Certificate does not ensure that all flight operations are conducted with qualified and properly trained crews or with qualified aircraft (e.g. Teterboro Challenger accident) . Simply informing the customer of who the air carrier is does not ensure that the flight will be safe, legal or reliable nor does it provide the customer with the information required to ascertain that the flight will safe, legal or reliable. Informing the customer of who the aircraft owner is or of any brokers involved, does not provide any additional value in determining if the flight is safe, legal or reliable and is therefore not helpful and potentially confusing to the customer. By: Sentient, Steven Hankin
March 28, 2007 Almost all the components/information that this potential rulemaking contemplates is available from government databases; you need to know where to look, and look regularly. Without marketing hyperbole, our company will have a system available by the end of April which would meet and exceed the principle requirements of this rulemaking. Prior to each trip, the consumer, broker, or operator can generate a PASS (Pilot & Aircraft Safety Survey) which generates a one page form, identifying the operator, their DBAs, the broker, the itinerary details, along with related safety information. What the DOT has done to this point; severely curtailing brokers and others from 'holding out', has gone a long way to clarifying the role of the broker and the operator. At the time of signing the contract, there should be guidelines in place as to what will occur next. If it is a broker, the contract should clearly state that they do not operate the aircraft. But for a number of reasons, the exact aircraft or operator may not be known at contract signing (certainly is the case in card programs, fractionals etc.). Even operators with large fleets often procure supplemental lift at the last minute. Before the passenger boards the aircraft (a day, x hours ?), the information should be provided which makes the flight compliant with the rulemaking (this implies that the notification can me made more than once, as modifications are made to the aircraft, operator etc). There are practical problems without a database as described. The information is tedious to procure, and often not accurate, and outdated. The system as developed here enables a PASS to be printed locally, or emailed immediately; and available to all. By: CharterX, Jim Betlyon, 609-671-9300, jim@charterx.com
April 2, 2007 It is in the public’s interest to know who the Company (certificate holder) is who is operating an air taxi flight. This level of transparency is good for the industry as a whole and for the consumer. The timing and method for communicating this information must be carefully considered. For example, if an air taxi operator (or broker) encounters a mechanical issue with an aircraft an hour before flight time and then arranges for a second operator to conduct the flight, how and when would this information be effectively communicated? The passengers are likely to be en route to the airport rendering fax or email impractical in this type of situation. Knowing the individual name or company name of the actual aircraft owner is of little use to the air taxi consumer. Since the air taxi operator is the entity with operational control, this is the entity that matters. By: OneSky, 603-663-1066 |
|||