The FAA's "rubber stamp" , in order to still "promote air transportation"-in lieu of safety-is probably behind a different version of this from the "back door". This would never be allowed without approval of "our friends" at the FAA, with your families' safety always at the forefront
. There might easily have been pressure from the ATA-the US airline lobby group- directly on the FAA (all top cabinet members are White House appointees-don't forget...). The motive? $$ . It can mean dispatching many flights with about 2-4,000 lbs less fuel, reducing operating costs. Next winter might prove interesting.
There are new changes for the required forecast or observed ceiling/visibility at the destination, determining whether an alternate airport (domestic) is needed with the resulting increase in dispatch fuel load. This quite often reduces payload/revenue. These new rules require alternates to be planned in fewer cases than existed for decades. This is for Part 121 aircraft, whether the CRJ, B-737 or B744 etc.
For many years, +/- 1 hour, less than 2,000' ceiling or 3 miles required a suitable alternate (1-2-3 rule).
Months ago they reduced these, if the crew/aircraft and approach at the destination are qualified for Cat 2 (currency, Notams, MELs etc).
Recently there is a second change, to 1,000' and 3 miles if the destination has a Cat 1 approach etc, and I'll double check when I go back to work.
Does anybody else smell some federal rats (no-not just the ATF/KGB..)?
Just wait-this is only the beginning.