J ONATHAN B. H ILL

M EMBER

D 202/776-2725 E JHILL @ DOWLOHNES

. COM

F 202/776-4725

February 4, 2013

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Avenue, SW RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION Washington, DC 20591

Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-10)-Exemption 8099- Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2003-15446

Dear Ladies/Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulation (“FAR”) § 11.63, JetBlue Airways Corporation (“JetBlue”), a Part 121 air carrier, petitions the Administrator for a renewal of the referenced exemption from FAR § 121.434, initially issued July 22, 2003 (hereinafter “Exemption”) to the extent necessary to continue to permit an a ppropriately qualified and FAA-authorized check airman to observe (and, when necessary, substitu te for the observation by an FAA inspector) a qualifying pilot in command (“PIC”), who is completing the initial training specified in FAR § 121.424. The fourth renewal of the Exempti on expires, unless renewed, on July 31, 2013.

Impacted Sections of the FAR

Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) (Opera ting Experience, Operating Cy cles, and Consolidation of Knowledge and Skills) reads in pertinent part:

In addition, if a qualifying pilo t in command is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424, be observed in the perfor mance of prescribed duties by an FAA inspector during at least one flight leg which includes a takeoff and a landing.

Exemption Granted

By letter dated July 2, 2003, the Acting Direct or of Flight Standard s granted JetBlue the Exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to permit JetB lue to substitute a qualified an d authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualified pilot in command (PIC) who is copiloting initial or upgr ade training specified in § 121.42 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. The ex emption was renewed by letters dated May 4, 2005, April 9, 2007, July 30, 2009, and Ap ril 12, 2011 (Exhibits 1, 2, 3, & 4).Federal Aviation Administration February 4, 2013 Page 2

Discussion

The original intent of 121.434(c )(1)(ii), issued in 1970, was to validate the training a pilot received in a flight simulator. Since that rule was adopted, the airline industry has had decades of experience with visual simulators followe d by nearly two decades experience with highly

advanced simulation. Domestic airlines have su ccessfully trained thous ands of pilots using sophisticated advanced simulators. The combin ed experience of the airline industry and the FAA, using advanced simulation, has made the present rule partially obsolete.

The FAA has the authority to observe any pilo t at any time it wishes; and indeed the FAA does so routinely. However, the FAA conducts these routine observations on a schedule the

local office sets without the burde n of having to observe a particular pilot on specific flights necessitated by the airline’s tr aining and service schedule. Relieving FAA inspectors from 121.434(c)(1)(ii) will allow the FAA to focus its efforts on higher priority safety concerns.

Costly delays in qualifying a PIC for line opera tions results when the airline is forced to wait until the FAA can observe the qualifying PIC. In some instances, the FAA inspector may not be qualified on the airplane type being flown. By allowing a company check airman who is highly qualified in the airplane, and approved by the FAA for that duty, to complete the observation, a greater le vel of scrutiny and objectiveness woul d be provided for the qualifying

PIC.

Public Interest

Granting this renewal exemption would:

a. Be wholly consistent with previous ex emptions granted in similar circumstances and the renewals already granted to JetBlue;

b. Allow the FAA greater flexibility and be tter use of its inspector force by focusing on higher priority safety functions;

c. Allow the use of qualified pilots immediately after completing operating experience;

d. Allow significantly increased use of qualif ied pilots and improve JetBlue’s ability to provide dependable, on-tim e air service to the public;

e. Reduce the unnecessary cost of wages and lost productivity for those qualified pilots awaiting FAA observation.

f. Allow the traveling public access to Je tBlue’s new low cost service at a pace consistent with the delivery of its new A-320 and E-190 aircraft; allow fullFederal Aviation Administration February 4, 2013 Page 3

utilization of the aircraft fleet by insuring adequate qualified pilots; allow

increased service to heretofore underserved markets.

Safety Will Not Be Impacted

a. The authorized check airman will be highly trained and experienced with the particular aircraft type and will be approved by the FAA;

b. The check airman will only be used to fulfill 121.434(c)(1)(ii) when a qualified FAA inspector is not available; and,

c. The FAA maintains the authority to observe any pilot any time during line

observations.

In summary, the requested exemption focu ses on the timely and competent completion of the observation flight and better utiliza tion of qualifying pilots in command.

Request for Waiver of Public ation in Federal Register

For good cause shown, JetBlue requests immediat e action be taken to grant this renewal exemption. Good cause exists for such action in th at the grant of this ex emption is consistent with prior exemptions and provides an equivalent level of safety. JetBlue is a low cost carrier operating out of JFK in a highly competitive East coast market. The need for qualified pilots to operate the aircraft with the frequency calle d for in the carrier’s business plan, without encountering delays occasioned by the understand able unavailability of FAA personnel, is essential to the economic well being of the carrier.

In addition, pursuant to FAR 11.87 JetBlue re quests that publication of this exemption request in the Federal Register be waived becau se the grant of this exemption would not be precedent setting; the reason for and conditions pr oposed are identical to exemptions already granted; similar petitions have been published in Federal Register with no comment received.

If publication is re quired, pursuant to FA R 11.81(f), a summary of this petition is set forth immediately below:

SUMMARY

JetBlue Airways Corporation Petition fo r an Exemption to FAR 121.434(c)(1)(ii).

“JetBlue Airways Corporation petitions fo r the renewal of an exemption from Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) to permit JetBlue to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for a FAA inspector to observe a qualified pilo t in command who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in specified in FAR 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.”Federal Aviation Administration February 4, 2013 Page 4

If you have any questions or require furt her information, please call me at (202) 776-

2725.

Sincerely yours,

Jonathan B. Hill

Counsel for JetBlue Airways Corporation

Encls.

cc: Brandon Nelson

Robert LandAFS-05-302-E May 4, 2005

Exemption No. 8099A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2003-15446

Jonathan B. Hill, Esq. Counsel for JetBlue Airways Corporation Dow, Lohnes, and Albertson, PLLC 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Hill:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8099. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 14, 2005, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of JetBlue Airways Corporation (JetBl ue) for an extension of Exemption No. 8099. That exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows JetBlue to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at l east one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to JetBlue.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8099 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition

The Effect of our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8099 to July 31, 2007, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8099 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8099.

Sincerely,

//s// James J. Ballough Director, Flight Standards ServiceApril 9, 2007 Exemption No. 8099B Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2003-15446

Jonathan B. Hill, Esq. Counsel for JetBlue Airways Corporation Dow, Lohnes, and Albertson, PLLC 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Hill:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8099, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect and lists the revised

conditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

On March 20, 2007, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of JetBlue Airways Corporation (JetBlue) for an extension of Exemption No. 8099, as amended. That exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows JetBlue to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at l east one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to JetBlue.

E-2007-04492

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8099, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the revised conditions and

limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. A JetBlue check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector when––

a. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation of a qualifying PIC candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal to the FAA in each case. JetBlue, therefore, must contact an appropriate FAA office, in each instance, before substituting that check airman or aircrew program designee.

b. The qualifying PIC candidate has completed no less than 10 hours of supervised operating experience (OE) and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and landings; and

c. The qualifying PIC candidate is performing PIC duties during a complete flight leg, including flightdeck preparation, before starting engines checklist, taxi, takeoff, all other flight phases, landing, taxi, and securing checklist.

2. Each JetBlue check airman or aircrew program designee conducting a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector must––

a. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation,

b. Have served as a check airman or aircrew program designee JetBlue for no less than 6 months, and

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the initial line check for the qualifying PIC candidate being observed.

3. JetBlue must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this exemption.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8099, as amended, to July 31, 2009, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of Exemption No. 8099.

Sincerely,

/s/ James J. Ballough Director, Flight Standards ServiceAFS-09-330-E July 30, 2009 Exemption No. 8099C Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2003-15446

Jonathan B. Hill, Esq. Counsel for JetBlue Airways Corporation Dow, Lohnes, and Albertson, PLLC 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Hill:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8099, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the

conditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 23, 2009, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of JetBlue Airways Corporation (JetBlue) for an extension of Exemption No. 8099, as amended. That exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows JetBlue to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to JetBlue.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8099, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions

and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. A JetBlue check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector when––

a. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation of a qualifying PIC candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal to the FAA in each case. JetBlue, therefore, must contact an appropriate FAA office, in each instance, before substituting that check airman or aircrew program designee;

b. The qualifying PIC candidate has completed no less than 10 hours of supervised operating experience (OE) and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and landings; and

c. The qualifying PIC candidate is performing PIC duties during a complete flight leg, including flightdeck preparation, before starting engines checklist, taxi, takeoff, all other flight phases, landing, taxi, and securing checklist.

2. Each JetBlue check airman or aircrew program designee conducting a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector must––

a. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation;

b. Have served as a check airman or aircrew program designee for JetBlue for no less than 6 months; and

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the initial line check for the qualifying PIC candidate being observed.

3. JetBlue must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this exemption.3

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8099, as amended, to July 31, 2011, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8099, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8099.

Sincerely,

/s/ Chester D. Dalbey Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service4

Project No.: AFS-09-330

Project Officer: _______________

ARM-105:TTHOMAS:07/22/09:Doc# 29007

ARM-1/100/104:AFS-200

JONATHAN B. HILL, ESQ

COUNSEL FOR JETBLUE AI RWAYS CORPORATION

DOW LOHNES AND ALBERTSON PLLC

1200 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE NW SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20036AFS-11-215-E April 12, 2011

Exemption No. 8099D Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2003-15446

Jonathan B. Hill, Esq. Counsel for JetBlue Airways Corporation Dow Lohnes, PLLC 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Hill:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8099, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the

conditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 9, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of JetBlue Airways Corporation (JetBlue) for an extension of Exemption No. 8099, as amended. That exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows JetBlue to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to JetBlue.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8099, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions

and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. A JetBlue check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector when––

a. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation of a qualifying PIC candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal to the FAA in each case. JetBlue, therefore, must contact an appropriate FAA office, in each instance, before substituting that check airman or aircrew program designee;

b. The qualifying PIC candidate has completed no less than 10 hours of supervised operating experience (OE) and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and landings; and

c. The qualifying PIC candidate is performing PIC duties during a complete flight leg, including flightdeck preparation, before starting engines checklist, taxi, takeoff, all other flight phases, landing, taxi, and securing checklist.

2. Each JetBlue check airman or aircrew program designee conducting a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector must––

a. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation;

b. Have served as a check airman or aircrew program designee for JetBlue for no less than 6 months; and

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the initial line check for the qualifying PIC candidate being observed.

3. JetBlue must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this exemption.3

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 8099, as amended, to July 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8099, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8099.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service