This paper will explore the issues encountered when multiple users and/or entities purchase or sell an aircraft for business or personal use, which commonly involve the navigation of and compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations and accompanying federal statutes. This paper will also address the ownership of aircraft by multiple individuals and/or entities, and then operations under various ownership structures. Where multiple aircraft owners are involved, the utilization of dry leases, time sharing agreements, interchange agreements, and co-owner/joint-ownership agreements may be used to navigate FAA and IRS regulations and rules. Also, co-owning an aircraft, but not actually having “ownership” of the aircraft, through another company (an off balance sheet entity for example) will be addressed. Aircraft owned through an owner trust can also provide anonymity, ownership advantages, and can help navigate ownership registration issues. This paper will also address the U.S. Eastern District Federal Court Criminal Organized Crime and Drug Task Force Enforcement prosecution case against an aviation escrow, title, and trust company; along with the principals of those companies, which involved aircraft registration, sale, and ownership issues.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) increased emphasis on investigating improper leasing/illegal charter presents a challenge for aircraft operators. Understanding the regulatory requirements related to aircraft leasing is critical for operators to ensure their aircraft operations are compliant. Equally important is the need for aircraft operators to understand how the FAA exercises its oversight when it investigates alleged improper leasing/illegal charter operations, the consequences to which an aircraft operator may be subject in the event of non-compliance, and how an operator who is the target of such an investigation may respond to and/or work with the FAA to successfully resolve the investigation.

In its relatively short history, public air travel has seen its fair share of airline pilot shortages. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the industry was facing yet another. There was virtually no part of the airline industry untouched by the pandemic, and pilot supply was no exception. As an attempt to mitigate profit loss, airlines offered pilots early retirement packages. When air travel returned to pre-pandemic numbers earlier than expected, airlines struggled to fill cockpit seats, which was a major factor in causing the extensive flight cancellations and delays in 2022.

Legislators sought to alleviate the issue by raising the federally mandated retirement age. In 2022, a bill was introduced to raise the age to from sixty-five to sixty-seven. The lawmakers behind the bill provided one reason for this change: to relieve the pilot shortage. They blamed the pilot shortage on the demographic; the majority of airline pilots are baby boomers nearing retirement.

There are a few issues with this proposal. The first is the discriminatory nature of the law itself. Raising the age by two years is a step in the right direction, but it is just as arbitrary as the Age Sixty-Five Rule. The second issue is the lack of impact it would have on the pilot supply. The two-year increase is not going to achieve the lawmakers’ purpose because it does not incentivize pilots to keep working. The third issue is that the proposal does not confront the larger cause for the pilot shortage: the excessive training requirements for pilots to earn their commercial pilot’s license.

This Article first examines the legality of the airline pilot age limit and the court challenges it has overcome. It confronts the superfluousness of the mandatory retirement age, arguing that an age limit is superseded by the regular aircraft simulator trainings and medical examinations airline pilots are required to pass in order to keep flying. This Article then critiques the 1,500 Hour Rule and assesses other causes of the pilot shortage. Finally, it argues that there are other, better ways to bolster the pilot supply in the United States.

This article discusses the role and influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in civil aviation. These organizations represent a way for united citizens to realize some of their global (national) interests, that is, to realize their ideals. NGOs participate in the work of international institutions and cooperate with specialized UN agencies. For the consideration of civil aviation NGOs, which have global coverage, the relationship and influence they achieve in relation to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as a specialized agency of the UN is important. The participation of certain NGOs in the work of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) as one of the key bodies of ICAO is particularly important. The diversity among all considered NGOs is quite large in terms of membership, setting goals, and organizing work.

However, regardless of the differences, there are also numerous similarities that unite them on many issues and enable them to act together. The work of NGOs to create industrial standards in civil aviation has led to changes in certain aviation regulations, and to the introduction of certain standards thanks to the expert work of NGOs. The interaction of NGOs with the work of the aviation industry is reflected in several segments through safety standards, counseling, the creation of instructions, the exploitation of equipment and devices, ergonomics, and more.

Cooperation with official institutions can sometimes be through forms that are not formal, and the intertwining of activities between NGOs and trade unions as a broader category of non-state actors is neither rare nor unusual in civil aviation. Although the work of NGOs in civil aviation and the influence they have on decision-makers is often criticized, this work should not be underestimated or overestimated.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant delays and cancellation of airline tickets without proper refunds to consumers by U.S. airlines. In response to an unprecedented number of consumer complaints, in August 2022, the Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) proposed new rules regarding airline ticket refunds and consumer protections.Does this rule go far enough?

This article provides a summary of the events and policy changes leading up to the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) of 1978 and challenges the scope of federal preemption over the field of airline regulation that has created a boon to air carriers while essentially eliminating consumers as a market influencer. A review of court opinions since the enactment of the ADA shows an ongoing struggle with the scope of preemption and tenuous carve-outs for private rights of action. The role and effectiveness of DOT is evaluated in light of airlines refusal to comply with DOT requirements to provide ticket refunds for cancelled flights during COVID. This article also suggests ways to increase airline accountability for compliance with airline refund policies and increase protection of consumer rights by empowering consumers to bring private actions against airlines.

Recent Developments in Aviation Law addresses developments in aviation law from January 2022 through December 2022. This submission focuses on certain cases in the area of aviation law that are expected to have a significant impact upon, and ramifications for, the industry going forward such as: (1) the Federal Aviation Act and Federal Aviation Regulations; (2) the Air Carrier Access Act; (3) the General Aviation Revitalization Act; (4) the Airline Deregulation Act; (5) the Montreal and Warsaw Conventions; (6) the Federal Tort Claims Act; and (7) the Death on the High Seas Act. Finally, this submission also discusses recent developments relating to the Federal Aviation Administration’s regulations for unmanned aircraft, as well as the potential impact of recent developments in the application of the Feres Doctrine.

Texas is unconstitutionally infringing upon the First Amendment in the form of its overly restrictive drone regulations. While the state originally set out to create a robust privacy law providing maximum protection to its citizens, its overbroad statute instead produced the latest constitutional conflict between two of our nation’s oldest and most sacred rights. For almost a decade, Texas drone law stood unchallenged, garnering the state a reputation as arguably the least friendly jurisdiction for drone journalism. These regulations, however, have never been more vulnerable. There is a constitutional challenge unfolding in federal district court that, if successful, will redefine the scope of freedom of the press in Texas. While the state’s goal of safeguarding Texans’ privacy is admirable, there are better ways to accomplish that goal than what is currently employed. The First Amendment protects perhaps the most inalienable right of American citizens. If that is to remain the case, Texas drone law must be changed.

Since the deregulation of the airline industry, flight attendants have become the friendly faces and hallmark of airline brands across the globe. However, airlines went to unconstitutional heights to ensure that flight attendants looked, behaved, and acted in compliance with conservative and outdated notions about gender and sexuality. Piece by piece, the airline industry’s strict and misogynist policies that regulated female flight attendants’ appearance were declared a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; however, the sexist policies and attitudes maintain a pervasive and insidious presence in the modern airline industry.

Moreover, the airline industry’s dress and appearance policies aim to reinforce traditional and binary gender distinctions. Although Title VII has provided legal protection against workplace discrimination based on sex, courts and legislatures were divided on Title VII’s application to individuals who diverged from traditional and binary gender distinctions. However, the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County ended this split by interpreting Title VII to protect employees against discrimination based on sexuality and gender identity. When paired with society’s increasing acceptance of gender fluidity and individual autonomy, Bostock has the potential to render gendered dress codes obsolete and unconstitutional.

The airline industry’s sexist history paired with its strict, traditional, and gendered dress and appearance policies makes it a prime defendant in a Title VII suit to test the applicability of Bostock to gendered employment policies.