AA flew a non-ETOPS A321S LAX-HNL on Aug 31; Oops!

[nycbusdriver]

Nothing regulatory would prevent the company from operating a flight under FAR 91 as long as there is no revenue onboard.  They could fill it with non-revs and launch (but not any non-revs that might have paid a service fee of any kind, i.e. companion pass riders, ZED fare riders, etc.)  No revenue allowed in the cargo holds, either.
 
Typically, though, all flights are dispatched under FAR 121 simply because the system is setup to do it that way, everybody involved is familiar with the rules and it is jus easier to get it moving rather than trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. 

 

[jimntx]

Thanks, nycbusdriver.  All I ever knew was that if I was working a flight with (now I know...paying) passengers on it, it had to be FAR, Part 121.  In the F/A manual at AA, I don't think I've ever seen an FAR quote (and there are several), that wasn't Part 121.  

 

[robbedagain]

what kind of punishment could there be  given that this plane flew to Hawaii being non ETOPS

 

[nycbusdriver]

what kind of punishment could there be  given that this plane flew to Hawaii being non ETOPS

 
CEO has to leave the country club while he's still sober.

 

[Overspeed]

nycbusdriver,
That was good

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

what kind of punishment could there be  given that this plane flew to Hawaii being non ETOPS

 

CEO has to leave the country club while he's still sober.

 
Hopefully on appeal the punishment will be reduced to CEO has to leave the country club just with a little buzz.

 

[robbedagain]

excellent responses     we can only dream  right???????

 

[FWAAA]

On a serious note, I'd guess that the "punishment" from the FAA will consist mostly of promises by AA to develop new procedures that, if followed, will make it much more difficult for AA to dispatch a non-ETOPS aircraft on a mission that requires an ETOPS aircraft. There are a variety of methods, and perhaps several redundant procedures will be agreed-upon. A computer program change that locks out non-ETOPS tail numbers from being assigned an ETOPS flight, and/or painting "ETOPS" on the aircraft (eg nosewheel), a cabin-mounted "ETOPS" sign to remind the FAs (like the old MRTC signs near the 1L door) and perhaps a dashboard-mounted sign that indicates ETOPS for the flight crew. No doubt there are many others.

And perhaps a slap-on-the-wrist fine. AA was just fined $20k by DOT for violating the IDB rules, so maybe this is worth $50k or $100k.

Yesterday on Flyertalk, someone reported hearing an LAX gate agent announce that "boarding (to HNL) would begin in about 10 minutes once they had completed the ETOPS check." Great sense of humour by the agent!

 

[Kev3188]

 
CEO has to leave the country club while he's still sober.

^Win^