As the FAA and the TSA mull changes to Part 380 safety and security requirements, those proposals and a recent bill calling for heightened security for the public charter operations are underscoring the ongoing divisiveness of the issue, even within the private aviation sector.
Joel Thomas, CEO of charter broker Stratos Jets, embraced the Safer Skies Act announced in early August. Thomas acknowledged it could make the shared-seat model carriers use under Part 380 more difficult, but contended it will benefit business travelers and the safety of flying private.
“Personally, I’ve never been a big fan of the shared seat model for safety reasons, and it competes for aircraft availability, driving up the costs of private travel for those who need it as a valuable tool for business, not just luxury, travel,” said Thomas, a former chairman of the Air Charter Association of North America.
“Part 380 can be great when the passengers know each other or have an affinity to one another, but when they don’t problems can and do arise in the air and not having physical TSA screenings could put passengers at risk,” he continued.
Meanwhile, Josh Kimbrell, a Republican South Carolina state senator and operator of Part 135 firm Exodus Aircraft, published an opinion piece with the nascent U.S. Private Aviation Association calling for a “regulatory ground stop.” Kimbrell referenced the FAA’s proposals to change the definitions of charter operators under Part 380, as well as the TSA's proposed security changes.
Noting Part 380s will serve Essential Air Service markets where airlines have pulled out, he said the FAA and Department of Transportation “seem to be taking aim at Part 135 operators who are filling the gap in service.”
Kimbrell added: “If the proposed changes to DOT 380, TSA’s Twelve-Five Standard Security Program, and new charter regulations are ever adopted, the result will mirror what occurred in the financial sector. Regulations will favor larger corporations, driving up costs for smaller businesses, leaving consumers with fewer choices and limited access.”
These are among the many that have weighed in on the issue. Groups such as NBAA and NATA have expressed concerns that these proposals are economically driven by the airlines, who are fighting what they believe is an unfair advantage but cloaking it in safety and security concerns. They argue that the safety record does not justify the changes. As for the Safer Skies Act, they note that the TSA has already proposed security changes.