FARE Act: FAA Must Keep Commercial Flights Running During Government Shutdowns, Even If Private Jets Are Grounded

If you’re one of the millions of people who relies on commercial air travel—whether for work or that long-awaited family vacation—you know the pain of a government shutdown. Suddenly, essential services slow down, and there’s always the threat that air traffic control (ATC) staffing issues could lead to flight reductions or even full groundings. The Fair Aviation in Restrictions and Emergencies Act (FARE Act) aims to fix that headache, but it introduces a fascinating trade-off.

Simply put, the FARE Act prevents the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from stopping or reducing scheduled commercial flights (those operated by carriers subject to Part 121, like your standard airline) during a government funding lapse—unless the FAA also stops all private aircraft flights (specifically, those jet-engine, non-scheduled flights) in that same geographic area for the same time period. Essentially, the FAA can’t choose to ground the commercial carriers while letting the private jets fly high.

The 'No Chopping Block' Rule for Commercial Flights

This provision is a direct response to the operational uncertainty caused by funding lapses. For everyday travelers and the massive logistics industry that relies on regular airline schedules, this is a clear win for continuity. If the government shuts down, your flight is statutorily protected from being the first thing on the chopping block. The FAA can only restrict commercial operations if the situation is severe enough to warrant grounding the entire private jet sector in that region as well. This aims to keep the economic engine of commercial air travel running, ensuring that workers can get to their jobs and goods can move across the country, even when Congress is fighting over the budget.

Private Jets and the Loophole List

However, the bill immediately complicates things by carving out a significant list of exceptions where private jet flights can continue, even if commercial flights are protected. The FARE Act defines a private aircraft flight as any non-scheduled flight using a jet-equipped aircraft. While the main rule says the FAA must ground these private jets if they ground commercial flights, Section 3 then lists six scenarios where the FAA can allow a private flight to continue, regardless of what happens to the commercial carriers. These exceptions include flights for:

• Public safety or government/military business.
• Medical or agricultural purposes.
• Meteorological or scientific purposes.
• Humanitarian, nutritional, or emergency relief (like disaster aid).
• Carrying cargo.

This means that during a shutdown, the FAA could be forced to keep commercial flights running, while simultaneously allowing certain private jets to fly under one of these broad exceptions. The FAA retains the power to enforce this new rule, using civil penalties or filing a civil action in District Court against any air carrier that violates the section.

The Safety vs. Continuity Tightrope

This is where the rubber meets the runway, and the potential impact on safety oversight becomes a concern. While the goal of the FARE Act is admirable—protecting consumers and business from shutdown disruptions—it fundamentally ties the FAA’s hands during a funding lapse. If a shutdown forces the furlough of essential safety inspectors or air traffic controllers, the FAA might feel compelled to keep commercial flights running to comply with the FARE Act, even if the reduced staffing levels increase operational risk. They can’t just say, “We don’t have enough staff for safe operations, so we’re cutting commercial flights,” unless they are also willing and able to ground nearly all private jet traffic in the same area (with the exception of the listed emergency/cargo flights).

For the FAA staff responsible for safety, this creates a significant pressure point. They are forced to prioritize operational continuity over the ability to scale back operations for safety reasons during a crisis. While the bill provides certainty for travelers, the cost might be placing a heavier burden on the already strained air traffic control and safety systems during a government funding crisis.