Originally Posted by
RAT 5
I had always thought the XAA's had a dual remit. One was to ensure the correct compliance of all aviation regulations, and to oversee the financial viability of the companies. If they believed an airline was trading in such a way as to be at great risk of failing in its obligations to transport its pax they could pull its AOC. ....
I seem to remember an accident in USA where it became clear the FAA had a conflict of interest over the company and had been lax in oversight of it for alleged financial viability concerns. I thought the outcome, certainly the NTSB recommendation, was that the FAA financial oversight and operational/safety oversight be separated completely.
The FAA does not have any involvement in the financial aspects of airlines. In the Days of the Civil Aeronautic Board, and regulation of airline service, routs, schedules and fares were all tightly contrarily by government regulations. The CAB and economic control of airlines was phased out in the late 1970's-early 80's
I believe the accident you are thinking of was the Valu-jet crash in the Everglades. The NTSB did cite insufficient FAA oversight as a contributing factor to the accident. However, I have never seen anyone (other than you) suggest that the leak of oversight was purposeful due to a concern for the airline's financial viability. A lot of ink was spilled about how absurd it was that the FAA had a "dual mandate" to both ensure safety and promote aviation (that was part of the FAA's original charter when it was formed in 1958) People were shocked to discover that the two aspects of mandate could seemingly be at odds. They didn't stop to think that it was that way intentionally, and for good reason. It was designed that way, so that there was a mandate to regulate for safety, but not in such a heavy handed way that it kills aviation. If you're not follwing the logic there, it's pretty simple. If you give me a mandate to make aviation absolutely safe, with absolutely no other considerations, I can do that very simply and easily. I merely ground all airplanes. When no airplanes fly, there are no aviation accidents. Bingo, I have just achieved perfect aviation safety. Of course, I've destroyed aviation in the process, but that's not my concern. But, if my mandate is to promote aviation safety, and to ensure that aviation remains viable, it becomes a balancing act. I can no longer institute regulation without concern for the fact that my heavy handed regulation is crushing aviation.
The people who were unable to reason their way through this won, in the end, and the FAA's dual mandate was removed.