More regulation will almost certainly not solve the problems.

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I think we need to end the airline cartel, not strengthen it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/flying-delays-cancellations-passenger-airlines-air-travel-rights-refunds-fees-2024-8

 

[rotorwrench]

I think we need to end the airline cartel, not strengthen it.

Interesting. Since it was the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 that created these "cartels", how would you solve the problem without regulation or oversight?

However, I don't think the use of "cartel" is appropriate given its current definition. A better explanation would be along the lines of a free-market run amuck or closer to the wild-west without a sheriff in town.

While the 1978 Act did lower fare prices and increase competition, it did set the stage for what was mentioned in the article and the loss of other aviation consumer "protections" to include other aviation services outside the airline portion of the industry.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I think the cartelization was created long before. Remember how the CAB actually set rates and controlled who could fly which routes?

The 1978 act was a step in the right direction, but did not go far enough. Whenever an industry is heavily regulated, that favors large players and inhibits competition. This is a rather well established result and I see no reason to think the aviation business is some exception to it.

 

[rotorwrench]

The 1978 act was a step in the right direction, but did not go far enough.

Interesting. So to follow your OP article’s byline: “Flying has never been worse…” how does that square with your comment it was the right direction? Same with why does the US now need a law to guarantee Essential Air Services to certain small municipalities requiring 100s of millions in taxpayer subsidies? Or the requirement of other small cities to guarantee a “minimum revenue” to air carriers in order to keep airline service at their airport? Neither of these two issues or a number of other airline service issues were present or needed when the CAB regulated operations? Perhaps the 1978 Act actually went too far?

Whenever an industry is heavily regulated, that favors large players and inhibits competition.

Except after the 1978 deregulation and the dissolving of the CAB, we now have four airlines that control 80+% of the airline business (11 prior to dereg) and the number of new competitive airlines entering the scene can be counted on one hand and timed by decades.

This is a rather well established result and I see no reason to think the aviation business is some exception to it.

As I’ve mentioned in other discussions, the aviation industry is the red-headed stepchild of the international business world. Few if any “normal” business structures work within aviation for a myriad of reasons. But I would be interested to hear what your solution(s) would be to correct these current issues, especially if you believe new regulations or oversight are not the answer.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Interesting. So to follow your OP article’s byline: “Flying has never been worse…” how does that square with your comment it was the right direction?

I think a blanket statement like in that article is of course going to be an over-generalization. Nearly any new regulation will have its desired and intended outcomes and the unintended consequences. Certainly there were pluses to the pre 78 regulations and the CAB. The question is always - were they worth the cost?

Here is how I would note the major contrasts between pre 1978 and today as regards commercial aviation:

Pluses - Much better service and more comfortable seating. More baseline service to small towns. Much less intrusive security screening.
Minuses - Considerably higher costs of air travel in real dollars and consequent lower mobility for the vast majority of the middle class. Lower safety per mile flown.

As I’ve mentioned in other discussions, the aviation industry is the red-headed stepchild of the international business world. Few if any “normal” business structures work within aviation for a myriad of reasons. But I would be interested to hear what your solution(s) would be to correct these current issues, especially if you believe new regulations or oversight are not the answer.

Given the above clearly the objectives to optimized matter. For me with respect to government actions, I am always looking to increase human freedom and minimize aggressive violence.

Are you looking for my views on practical current steps or ultimate goals and solutions?

 

[rotorwrench]

Certainly there were pluses to the pre 78 regulations and the CAB. The question is always - were they worth the cost?

I think that answer is very subjective to what specific part of the 78 Act you are looking at. For example, on fare cost, it was worth it. But if you look at the collateral damage side, it allows a HEMS operator to charge $60K for a 30 minute flight for a broken finger and the consumer as zero recourse. So it depends on who paid the cost.

Are you looking for my views on practical current steps or ultimate goals and solutions?

Both. What’s the point of having practical steps unless the ultimate goal is to permanently fix the problem? Or, are you planning to run for office this election cycle and don’t want to associate those two items?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Both. What’s the point of having practical steps unless the ultimate goal is to permanently fix the problem? Or, are you planning to run for office this election cycle and don’t want to associate those two items?

Haha, not likely.

In terms of long term goals I would want to get the government completely out of the aviation business except for items that involve force or fraud. So prosecuting air piracy - yes. Regulating who can fly where on what sort of equipment - no.

If it were up to me, one of the first items to go would be repeal the "Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act". Make airlines responsible for all liability due to the operation of their equipment and business. They can then work out appropriate procedures with their insurers.

Next step would be to repeal all regulations which restrict who can fly for compensation or hire. This would have some knock on effects in terms of pilot certification at least in terms of restrictions on their operations.

Doing those things in one step will introduce some chaos as the marketplace readjusts. So do it at the start of the summer so at least one has a period of better weather which can help with adjusting for mistakes.

I imagine commercial airlines would continue operating as they do in the short term. They would start to have a lot more competition for shorter routes and flights with smaller numbers of passengers. It would take a while for consumers to grasp that you can't just trust that because Joe Pilot says he can fly you to Podunk IA for less than the larger operators it is a good idea to take him up on that.

 

[rotorwrench]

I would want to get the government completely out of the aviation business except for items that involve force or fraud. So prosecuting air piracy - yes. Regulating who can fly where on what sort of equipment - no.

Next step would be to repeal all regulations which restrict who can fly for compensation or hire. This would have some knock on effects in terms of pilot certification at least in terms of restrictions on their operations.

Interesting. Starting with your 2 actions above, what will be your plans to mitigate the results of those actions as itemized below?

1) The stoppage of all US N-registered aircraft flights outside the borders of the US and their territories?

2) The stoppage of all incoming aircraft flights, regardless of country, to the US and their territories?

3) The grounding of 1000s of N-registered aircraft currenting domiciled outside the US and their territories?

4) The revocation of airman certificates, outside the US, that are based on a US FAA certification process?

5) The loss all international certifications on aircraft parts and supplies existing outside the US and subsequent loss of the international market for those products and articles on the US domestic aviation industry?

And so on….

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Is there anything in my proposal which would prevent carriers who wish to fly internationally from voluntarily complying with other countries regulations or international standards? Or even forming their own agency for certification to such standards if they wish to do so?

The big advantage would be that domestic flights would not have to bear such expenses. And perhaps other countries would decide to also go on a similar path if they wished.

A free market can provide needed standards, inspections, etc. There is no need to use threats of violence and violence, which is inherent in government action, to achieve this.

 

[rotorwrench]

Is there anything in my proposal which would prevent carriers who wish to fly internationally from voluntarily complying with other countries regulations or international standards?

Yes, cost. By removing the government from the aviation industry, you would break every aviation-related treaty and agreement the US is signatory to. In a nutshell, the US aviation industry would implode on itself leaving little left to voluntarily reestablish those agreements with over 80 individual countries. Nobody would have any money left to do that.

My guess is you may not know the size or financial impact of the domestic aviation industry and the percentages that industry receives from international operations. The loss of such a large and influential industry would cause a huge ripple in the entire domestic economy to point it may simply collapse all together.

And for what? Cheaper domestic tickets and a passenger bill of rights? But that's only provided the industry survived the implosion.

A free market can provide needed standards, inspections, etc.

But the US is already a free market and already has the needed standards, etc. Its actually the “free-est” aviation market on the planet bar none. Rarely do I use the word “every”, but in my experience I can honestly say that the aviation professionals of every country wish their national aviation regulatory system was the same as the US FAA system. Believe it or not.

There is no need to use threats of violence and violence, which is inherent in government action, to achieve this.

I’m not following the context of “violence.” Examples?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I’m not following the context of “violence.” Examples?

Certainly there are a few things to consider in that comment, but let’s start with this one.

Consider what would happen if you started a small commercial flight operation but failed to comply with some of the many FAA regulations covering such operations and simply ignored all attempts at enforcement. Who would eventually show up to deal with you? What would they threaten to do to you?

 

[rotorwrench]

Consider what would happen if you started a small commercial flight operation but failed to comply with some of the many FAA regulations covering such operations and simply ignored all attempts at enforcement. Who would eventually show up to deal with you? What would they threaten to do to you?

I don’t see how that scenario meets the definition of “violence”, ie, physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something? Same with the use of “threaten” in this context, ie., one's intention to take hostile action against someone in retribution. Perhaps you use a different definition of both terms? But to answer your questions:

Who would eventually show up to deal with you?

Depends. If you had gone through the entire FAA enforcement process you probably already received all the civil penalties, certificate actions, and FAA visits you are going to get for that scenario, if a visit was even applicable, in the 1st half of the process vs the last half. However, if during your disregard of regulatory and enforcement compliance, some of your actions were determined to be criminal vs civil, then yes you will be getting additional visits and penalties. But it won’t be from the FAA as all criminal actions are forwarded to the DOT OIG and usually involve violations of USC statues which the FAA does not participate in. Regardless, in the big picture, few FARs can rise to a criminal offense of which I see no “criminal actions” involving your scenario above in its present form.

What would they threaten to do to you?

I don’t see any threat involved. If you violated an FAR or are not in compliance with an enforcement action, the guidance is pretty straight forward and written in various guidance documents. So if you choose, you can look up what the potential certificate action and penalty costs will be even before you violate either one. Now if you have somehow committed a criminal offense during your violation of the FARs, I believe there is also USC guidance or statues that will give you a general idea what could happen to you as well. So IMO its hardly a “threat” if the rules/laws/regs spell out the basic consequences of your misdeeds even before you commit them.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

IMO its hardly a “threat” if the rules/laws/regs spell out the basic consequences of your misdeeds even before you commit them.

So let’s parse that bit a bit further. If the mafia tells you as a store owner that you need to pay their protection demands or they will break your kneecaps and you fail to pay them one month and say they are going to break your kneecaps - then that is not a threat because they clearly told you ahead of time what they would do?

If that is still a threat, than what is the pertinent distinction here?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Returning to the earlier item.

Yes, cost. By removing the government from the aviation industry, you would break every aviation-related treaty and agreement the US is signatory to. In a nutshell, the US aviation industry would implode on itself leaving little left to voluntarily reestablish those agreements with over 80 individual countries. Nobody would have any money left to do that.

Why would this cost any more for a carrier than it already does? The carriers that fly internationally comply with the ICAO items now. So why would them doing so in order to fly internationally increase their costs?

If they were doing so without the government involved that is almost always cheaper. The inefficiencies of nearly anything the government does being well established.

OTOH - the domestic only carriers could drop those items which were not required by their insurers and they did not think served their purposes.

 

[rotorwrench]

If the mafia tells you as a store owner that you need to pay their protection demands or they will break your kneecaps

Ha. Too much. We’ve gone from the FAA enforcing the FARs to the mafia breaking kneecaps. Nah, homie doesn't follow that rabbit-hole…

But if you want to stay on the OP topic, perhaps you can post some actual examples of the FAA using threats and violence to enforce their rules and regs? And we'll parse that topic a bit farther....

Why would this cost any more for a carrier than it already does?

Because there is no cost now due to the US ICAO membership and other bilateral treaties/agreements. Without those agreements, each airline would need a separate national approval/certification from each international country for each aircraft and each crew member to operate in those countries. And those certifications are not cheap and usually must be renewed on a regular basis.

In addition, each airline would be required to pay duties and customs on all aircraft parts and operational supplies they would import into each country which are currently duty-free as the ICAO agreements provide for a “free-zone” at each recognized international entry airport. And so on.

All these additional costs would be further multiplied by the timeframe it takes to comply with these additional country approvals/certifications which in some cases can be measured in months. And if you want an example of what a months long delay would do to the international aviation industry, just look at the results from 9-11 or the covid pandemic.

If they were doing so without the government involved that is almost always cheaper. The inefficiencies of nearly anything the government does being well established.

So, what are some specific examples of governmental inefficiencies with the aviation industry and how it would be cheaper? As I noted, the 78 Dereg Act saved money on one hand but cost more money on the other hand and created a whole new slew of problems unheard of prior to the Act. So I don’t quite follow how things would be cheaper with less government in aviation.

OTOH - the domestic only carriers could drop those items which were not required by their insurers and they did not think served their purposes.

If the US were to drop their ICAO membership and cancel those other agreements, the US domestic only carriers would cease to operate as you know it today. As I mentioned, you don’t seem to fathom how the US aviation industry works and the interconnection between the international side and the domestic side. For example, the effects of 9-11/pandemic were much harsher on the domestic side and would have the same effect, if not worse, as with your plan to cancel ICAO, etc.

Curious. Do you have any personal experience in the Part 135/121 aviation industry?

Or, any personal experience with the Part 13 FAA enforcement process?

Or any personal experience with obtaining other type FAA operating certificates or approvals outside your private pilot or CFI certificates?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Ha. Too much. We’ve gone from the FAA enforcing the FARs to the mafia breaking kneecaps. Nah, homie doesn't follow that rabbit-hole…

But if you want to stay on the OP topic, perhaps you can post some actual examples of the FAA using threats and violence to enforce their rules and regs? And we'll parse that topic a bit farther....

I’m afraid this is a fundamental point.
Unfortunately it influences the evaluation of the underlying policy decisions, because the facts in social sciences are often fairly soft.

But I will try and be more concrete with my initial aviation related example, rather than abstract.

So you are flying your little flight company and you refuse to comply with the demands of the FAA for an inspection.

What will ultimately happen and in the short term.?

First they will send you a letter of some sort, probably demand you appear. So you ignore it. Then they will refer it for prosecution. The prosecutor will then ask a court for a warrant for your arrest or to seize your property. You ignore that. Men with guns will then show up. If you resist them then they will kill you.

So this how the original demand by the FAA is backed by violence and threats of violence. Most people will certainly obey the FAA demands because they don’t want that outcome.

The threats here are less direct than the Mafia, and perhaps it almost never comes to that because pilots and business owners can generally see a bit further ahead. But that does not change the fact that all government regulations and laws are backed by threats of violence or ultimately violence.

Does that make sense?

Sometimes threats and violence are needed, but let’s not pretend that is not what ultimately backs these things.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Because there is no cost now due to the US ICAO membership and other bilateral treaties/agreements. Without those agreements, each airline would need a separate national approval/certification from each international country for each aircraft and each crew member to operate in those countries. And those certifications are not cheap and usually must be renewed on a regular

That seems quite false to me. These costs are paid for by the Federal agencies and by the costs of the enforcement process. They are not zero. They are just hidden and paid for by the taxpayers, many of whom don’t even fly much, and some fees.

 

[rotorwrench]

So you are flying your little flight company and you refuse to comply with the demands of the FAA for an inspection.

First they will send you a letter of some sort, probably demand you appear. So you ignore it. Then they will refer it for prosecution. The prosecutor will then ask a court for a warrant for your arrest or to seize your property. You ignore that. Men with guns will then show up. If you resist them then they will kill you.

Does that make sense?

No.

One, 90+% of FAA violations are settled administratively with only civil penalties and/or certificate suspension/revocation the maximum action needed.

Two, of that 90% about 70% are settled at the FSDO or Regional level.

Three, of the remaining 10%, a little more than half will go before the NTSB board and the remaining 3%-4% will be transferred to the DOT OIG and the local Federal Prosecutor.

Four, of those 3%-4% violators <1% will have an arrest warrant issued if they fail to appear for any court proceedings.

And five, if that <1% violator is that stupid to resist at that time, then he owns it and not the people serving the warrant as he’s usually had months to think about it.

I’ve heard of only one person that stupid who was charged with flying illegal drugs with no pilots certificate in a stolen aircraft. The proverbial trifecta. But if this is the type of person you are championing in your example above, then I misjudged your intentions and I’ll leave it at that.

Bottomline, in my experience, if there are any threats or violence within the FAA enforcement process, it’s the violator who perpetuates them and not the other way around. I’ve assisted a number of consultants and attorneys with FAA enforcement cases and what you portray as “normal” comes across more as simply a lack of knowledge to the facts of the matter than anything else. As I asked, how many enforcement actions have you personally been involved in?

Now does that make sense?

That seems quite false to me. These costs are paid for by the Federal agencies and by the costs of the enforcement process. They are not zero. They are just hidden and paid for by the taxpayers, many of whom don’t even fly much, and some fees.

??? What costs are you referring to? As part of ICAO membership each member country accepts the aircraft and crew certifications of other member countries. Full stop. Without ICAO membership it will cost the airline to certify their aircraft and flight crews to operate in their country, if they even allow it. There are countries today that are not ICAO members that are not permitted to operate over or in a number of countries solely based on that qualification. Been that way for 70+ years.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

No.

One, 90+% of FAA violations are settled administratively with only civil penalties and/or certificate suspension/revocation the maximum action needed.

Two, of that 90% about 70% are settled at the FSDO or Regional level.

Three, of the remaining 10%, a little more than half will go before the NTSB board and the remaining 3%-4% will be transferred to the DOT OIG and the local Federal Prosecutor.

Four, of those 3%-4% violators <1% will have an arrest warrant issued if they fail to appear for any court proceedings.

And five, if that <1% violator is that stupid to resist at that time, then he owns it and not the people serving the warrant as he’s usually had months to think about it.

I’ve heard of only one person that stupid who was charged with flying illegal drugs with no pilots certificate in a stolen aircraft. The proverbial trifecta. But if this is the type of person you are championing in your example above, then I misjudged your intentions and I’ll leave it at that.

Bottomline, in my experience, if there are any threats or violence within the FAA enforcement process, it’s the violator who perpetuates them and not the other way around. I’ve assisted a number of consultants and attorneys with FAA enforcement cases and what you portray as “normal” comes across more as simply a lack of knowledge to the facts of the matter than anything else. As I asked, how many enforcement actions have you personally been involved in?

Now does that make sense?

I believe I understand what you are saying. But I honestly don't understand if you are claiming that there is no threat of violence involved in FAA enforcement, at least implicitly.

The examples you cite demonstrate that occasionally it comes to just that.

Just because most people seek to avoid a punishment by obeying the law, that does not mean the law does not threaten violence if you fail to comply. Making a threat does not require that it is actually ever or frequently carried out. If the statement is made and the listener understands there is a consequence, then there was a threat made.

Do you mean to imply that the average pilot does not understand that if they disobey FAA regulations there will be a consequence which can be enforced by law enforcement if they don't cooperate?

Shall we discuss another example? That is about the only way I can see past this to a mutual understanding. Otherwise what you are saying strikes me as just a complete non-sequitur.

 

[rotorwrench]

I believe I understand what you are saying. But I honestly don't understand if you are claiming that there is no threat of violence involved in FAA enforcement, at least implicitly.

As I've stated, there isn't at the FAA administrative level. However, I think your continued use of "threats" and "violence" in this discussion points more to a belief that governments, in general, should not have the appropriate powers to enforce the laws of the land. If anything were to fall under "complete non-sequitur" it would be that ideal in the context of this conversation and your OP.

Do you mean to imply that the average pilot does not understand that if they disobey FAA regulations there will be a consequence which can be enforced by law enforcement if they don't cooperate?

Not at all. I stated, your average pilot will have their violation dealt with administratively at the FSDO or Regional levels. And in my experience, they fully understand their options in the enforcement process. Those who end up beyond these levels are individuals who wish to excercise their right to appeal, or someone who willfully violated a regulation or statue, or the violation requires a criminal proceeding, or is someone who has a Youtube channel looking to increase their view count.

Shall we discuss another example?

Sure.