Air Carrier Regulation http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-391-FAR.shtml General Aviation Regulation http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-533-FAR.shtml Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryant Petitt" <skyshirts@xxxxxxxxx> To: "The Airline List" <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Allan9" <exatc@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 10:22 AM Subject: Re: no traffic rights/airline staff right (was fifth freedom rights) > ...Thanks Al, > > As far as I remember, there were only about 8 PAX > onboard. Interesting. Had they been revenue PAX, would > an FA been required! I guess not, PAX are PAX. > > Bryant Petitt > Cumming, GA > --- Allan9 <exatc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Bryant > > Normally that flight would have been operated under > > FAR Part 91 rather than > > FAR Part 121 (Normal Air Carrier FAR). Under FAR > > 121 as I understand it if > > there were more than 25-30 passengers (rev or > > non-rev) flight attendents > > would be required. It may have been an insurance > > requirement that the > > passengers were asked the question. > > Al > > . > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bryant Petitt" <skyshirts@xxxxxxxxx> > > To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 8:55 AM > > Subject: Re: no traffic rights/airline staff right > > (was fifth freedom > > rights) > > > > > > > ...This is kinda off the topic, but one time as a > > gate > > > agent for DL, I helped dispatch a Ferry flight > > that > > > had DL non-revs on it (no revenue PAX). No Flight > > > Attendants, but someone had to come on before the > > > flight was dispatched, and as I remember they all > > had > > > to say that they were aware of the Emergency > > > Procedures, etc. > > > > > > I don't know if this followed the rules or not, > > but > > > the plane sure was dispatched without F/A's. > > > > > > Interesting, and that was the only instance I was > > > involved in that particular scenario..... > > > > > > Bryant Petitt > > > Cumming, GA > > > > > > --- Mike Tobin <mtobin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I thought an airline couldn't even carry > > staff > > > > if they didn't have > > > > > > traffic rights? > > > > > > > > > yes I thinks JAL,KAL and Singapore have > > flights > > > > NYC to Anchorage > > > > > (ANC)-Tokyo /Singapore/Seoul > > > > > (depending on which airline we are talking > > about > > > > > and I belive all of them have a crew based in > > ANC > > > > > > > > JAL used to have pax flights between NYC and > > Tokyo > > > > that stopped in ANC. No local traffic rights > > between > > > > ANC and JFK, but non-revs could fly it. Great > > > > nonstop service. Now JAL flight numbers 5 and 6 > > fly > > > > overhead ANC nonstop between the two bigger > > cities. > > > > Korean at times has had pax flights from ANC to > > the > > > > east or midwest that non-revs could board. > > Singapore > > > > just has freighters through ANC so no pax > > > > opportunities. All 3 have major freighter > > operations > > > > via ANC where crew changes occur, but as far as > > I > > > > know, Singapore doesn't base any in ANC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >