Regional Airline Association - Exemption/Rulemaking
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Regional Airline Association - Exemption/Rulemaking
- Posted
- May 29, 2026
- Comment period
- May 29, 2026 – ?
- Topics
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Stance breakdown
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Choose up to five.
| Organization | Installation and stowage safety |
|---|---|
SkyWest InFlight Association UnionSupport The SkyWest InFlight Association, representing 4,800 flight attendants, supports the Regional Airline Association's peti |
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
- 1 comment from the past week
One comment matches your current view and arrived in the last week. Read this week's comments with stance, commenter type, and AI summaries on the paid plan.
- Jul 21, 2026SkyWestOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed requirement for a secondary barrier, arguing that it is unsafe and inefficient without hands-on training. They suggest using existing methods like secondary doors or full-size carts as safer alternatives.
Read comment → - Jul 16, 2026SkyWest InFlight AssociationSupportUnion📎 Attachment
The SkyWest InFlight Association, representing 4,800 flight attendants, supports the Regional Airline Association's petition for an exemption from specific flight deck secondary barrier requirements for Embraer ERJ170/175 aircraft. They argue that the currently certified design poses significant safety, human factors, and operational risks to crew members and passengers.
Read comment → - Jul 17, 2026Kim BOpposeIndividual
A regional flight attendant opposes the proposed barrier, arguing that it is cumbersome, time-consuming, and unsafe for use on the ERJ 175. The commenter requests an extension to allow for the development of a better, more efficient alternative.
Read comment → - Jul 16, 2026Lori IrwinOpposeOtherRead comment →
- Jul 15, 2026J DOpposeOtherRead comment →
- Jul 15, 2026Melissa PetersOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed secondary barrier on ERJ aircraft, arguing that it restricts movement for flight attendants and could hinder emergency evacuations or access to the flight deck. They suggest that any approved design should prioritize maintaining security without creating safety hazards or delaying emergency responses.
Read comment → - Jul 15, 2026A BuieSupportIndividual
An individual commenter is requesting an extension on the requirement for regional airlines to install secondary barrier screens on ERJ 170/175 aircraft. They argue that the current screen installation time poses a safety risk and that the manufacturer is currently seeking certification for a faster-deploying slide door.
Read comment → - Jul 15, 2026Kyle MinceyOpposeIndividual
A commercial airline captain opposes the proposed action, arguing that the design of the new requirements could delay emergency response times and negatively impact pilot concentration and safety. The commenter suggests that the current risks do not justify the proposed changes and calls for a more proper solution.
Read comment → - Jul 14, 2026Comment from Skywest AirlinesOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jun 19, 2026Kristi MorleySupportIndividual
The commenter expresses strong agreement with the Regional Airline Association's request to extend the exemption for the Embraer IPSB. They argue that the current design creates significant safety hazards by obstructing flight attendants' access to emergency equipment and the rear of the cabin.
Read comment →
