BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

------------------------------------------------------------

:

In the matter of :

:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for :

Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest : Docket No. FAA-2009-1093

Requirements :

:

--------------------------------------------------------

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.

REPLY TO AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL’S RESOPNSE TO 

PETITION TO CONSIDER LATE-FILED COMMENTS BASED ON 

NEWLY-AVAILABLE INFORMATION

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

David A. Berg

Vice President & General Counsel

Douglas K. Mullen

Senior Attorney

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

dberg@airlines.org

dmullen@airlines.org

October 26, 2011
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

------------------------------------------------------------

:

In the matter of :

:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for :

Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest : Docket No. FAA-2009-1093

Requirements :

:

--------------------------------------------------------

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.

REPLY TO AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL’S RESOPNSE TO 

PETITION TO CONSIDER LATE-FILED COMMENTS BASED ON

NEWLY-AVAILABLE INFORMATION

The Air Transport Association of America, Inc. (“ATA”) petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (“FAA”) to accept a filing with important newly-available information, statistics, 

and analysis regarding the proposed rule in this matter that will substantially assist the agency in 

its deliberations to formulate a final rule. On October 4, 2011, the Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (“ALPA”) submitted a response to ATA’s submission disputing the accuracy of the 

jobs impact analysis we submitted, although ALPA did not expressly oppose ATA’s filing. ATA 

respectfully submits this brief reply to correct ALPA’s distortions: (a) regarding the accuracy of 

ATA’s jobs impact analysis, and (b) regarding the accidents relevant to this inquiry. 

1. ALPA Understated Job Loss by Half; The Proposed Rule Would 

Create Structural Cost Increases

As the attached Oliver Wyman report makes clear, ALPA’s contorted effort to put ATA’s 

jobs impact analysis “in perspective” fails because airline employment decisions do not respond 

immediately to cost increases, particularly volatile costs like fuel price spikes where the amount 

and duration of such cost increases necessarily is uncertain. When the job loss record for 
Reply of the Air Transport Association of America, Inc.

Page 2

scheduled passenger carriers following the 2008 fuel cost spike is put in the proper context, 

43,500, or 10.4 percent of full time employees (or equivalents), lost their jobs – nearly double 

ALPA’s estimate of 5.5 percent. In addition, a sharp distinction can be drawn between the 

uncertainty of a spike in input prices such as the cost of jet fuel, and the certainty of structural, 

permanent cost increases associated with new operational rules such as the proposed rule here. 

As the attached report explains, the data demonstrate the severe impact on airlines from definite 

structural changes.

2. The Relevant Accidents are Few and Rare

ALPA’s submission intentionally tries to confuse the FAA regarding the accidents 

relevant to this rulemaking, suggesting 17 accidents should be considered and attaching a list of 

those accidents. That list is misleading and a side-show distraction. For example, several were 

non-scheduled operations and would not be covered by this proposed rule, one was a general 

aviation accident and another involved a business jet. More importantly, in the majority of those 

accidents, the NTSB found that fatigue was neither a probable cause nor a contributing factor. 

ALPA’s submission, in the face of the authoritative study by the National Research Council of 

the National Academies (“NRC”), which found nine relevant accidents, is disappointing and 

does little more than reflect ALPA’s own self-interest in this rulemaking. In addition, no party in 

this rulemaking has developed an effective argument that the FAA proposal directly addresses 

the factors identified in the accidents identified by the NRC.

Finally, we also that ALPA asserts the FAA cost/benefit analyses concluded the proposed 

rule’s benefits would outweigh its costs. This is factually incorrect. While we disagree with the 

FAA’s regulatory analysis in that it severely understates the costs and overstates the benefits, it 
Reply of the Air Transport Association of America, Inc.

Page 3

nevertheless estimated the costs would exceed the benefits.1

For the reasons set forth above and in the attached report, ALPA’s submission should not 

be given any weight and ATA’s petition should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF 

AMERICA, INC.

_________________________________

David A. Berg

Senior Vice President, General Counsel & 

Secretary

dberg@airlines.org

__________________________________

Douglas K. Mullen

Senior Attorney

dmullen@airlines.org

October 26, 2011

 

1

$1.25 billion in costs compared to $659 million in benefits, over ten years. Docket Number FAA-2009-1093-0019.
October 2011

Jobs Impact Analysis

ALPA cites BTS airline employment figures for periods immediately following industry fuel cost increases

to argue that the Oliver Wyman jobs impact analysis is inflated. As illustrated below, however, airline 

employment levels usually do not adjust immediately following a cost increase, but may take several 

years. What the chart and table below show is that the number of jobs lost at the scheduled passenger 

carriers following the fuel cost increase of 2008 is approximately 43,500, or 10.4%, which is double the 

figure cited by ALPA. Although the ALPA analysis understates the number of jobs lost as a result of cost 

increases borne by the airlines, it highlights the importance of this issue and the need for thoughtful 

analysis. 

Source: BTS Scheduled Passenger Carrier Employees by Quarter (FTEs)

Date Jobs % Change 

from Dec 

2007

Job Change

Dec 2007 419,712

Apr 2010 376,204 -10.4% -43,508

Source: BTS Scheduled Passenger Carrier Employees by Quarter (FTEs)

Although long-term fuel price increases have the same effect as other long term cost increases, an

important distinction between the fuel price increase of 2008 and the estimated cost increase resulting

from the proposed Flight Duty Time (FDT) rule is that both the ultimate amount and duration of the 

2008 fuel price increase were unknown. In 2008, airline executives and planners struggled to decide 

how much capacity to cut to offset a spike in fuel prices, but didn’t want to cut too much in case the 

spike proved to be for only a short period. Although both involve cost increases and therefore capacity 

544,400

403,287

419,712

376,204

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Scheduled Passenger Carrier 

Employees (FTEs) 
Response to ALPA October 2011

cuts, industry reactions to increases in highly volatile fuel prices are somewhat more complex than 

dealing with a known permanent cost increase, such as caused by the FTD rule.

The structural cost increase that will result from the FTD rule is more closely analogous to that of the 

structural revenue/cost changes confronted by the network carriers in the 2000-2005 period, as legacy 

carriers were forced to reduce costs and capacity when confronted with fare reductions caused by low 

cost carrier market entry. Those cost and capacity cuts resulted in the reduction of passenger carrier 

employment from 544,000 in May 2001 to 403,287 in July 2006 – a loss of over 141,000 jobs or nearly 

26% of passenger carrier employees.

Date Jobs

% Change 

from May

2001

Job Change

May-01 544,400

Jul-06 403,287 -25.9% -141,113

Jul-11 387,038 -28.9% -157,362

In an industry where passenger carriers have lost over 157,000 jobs or nearly 29% of the work force over 

the past ten years, the job impacts of new rules must be carefully considered.

Finally, we note that job loss estimates are produced on the assumption that other factors, most 

importantly, underlying demand, remain constant. In an economic environment of strengthening 

demand, job losses may be less than projected, while in an economic environment of weakening 

demand, job losses may be greater than projected. With turmoil in the euro zone and slow economic 

growth in developed countries, the demand forecast is cautious.

1

 

1

“Tough times ahead as air traffic weakens; declines in freight markets accelerate in Aug-2011: IATA,” 5 October 

2011, http://www.centreforaviation.com/analysis/tough-times-ahead-as-traffic-weakens-declines-in-freightmarkets-accelerate-in-aug-2011-iata-59927.