Airlines will shrink, jobs will go if FAA implements pilot rule

The U.S. airlines are very supportive of recent initiatives led by President Obama to eliminate unnecessary, unproductive and costly regulation. The FAA-proposed rule that seeks to change how airlines schedule pilots is a classic and very troubling example of an ill-conceived regulation with a good intent that fails to meet its objective and will result in significant unintended consequences, including job losses.

We fully support revisions to this outdated rule that would actually improve safety. Unfortunately, the rule as proposed is not science-based nor is it supported by any data or research that would indicate it would improve what is in fact the safest form of transportation in the United States.
 
Leading experts in fatigue management agree that the rule is flawed in several ways and will not make air travel safer, especially in areas concerning schedule reliability, flight-time limits and strict limits on extensions of duty periods.
 
Some aspects of the proposal could even reduce safety. In addition, this proposal does not address the very different working environments of cargo and charter airlines compared with passenger airlines and if implemented, would put our carriers at a serious competitive disadvantage with their international counterparts for global business.

Rules like this, developed for the airline industry, that lack an appropriate degree of business insight and day-to-day operational expertise from those responsible for rule implementation can cause a huge disconnect.

This proposed rule will impact thousands of jobs and service to small communities.

According to industry estimates and an Oliver Wyman analysis submitted to the White House, the rule could eliminate between 12,000 and 27,000 direct U.S. airline jobs, and has the potential of eliminating up to 400,000 related industry jobs. This potential loss of jobs is staggering and particularly troublesome at a time when unemployment persists above 9 percent and job creation is at the top of the agenda for the President and Congress.
 
Airlines will not be able to pass along the estimated $2 billion in annual costs that the revised rule would impose. As related costs soar, airlines will be forced to cut capacity in the hopes of maintaining profitability. In particular, service to less profitable small and rural communities that depend on air transportation to connect to the rest of the country and world would be impacted.
 
Reduced capacity and service means fewer employees and fewer choices for consumers.
 
ATA and its members are eager to work with the U.S. government to update any rule to make U.S. air transportation safer, based on science, research and operational data. The FAA proposal, as it stands, does not meet its safety objective.
 
Nicholas E. Calio is president and chief executive officer of the Air Transport Association of America.

---