While it is probably not the primary (or maybe even a relevant) legal consideration, i cannot help but be baffled by the notion that a company that operates in space (where there quite literally is no "air") could possibly, as a matter of physics alone, be considered an "air carrier."
But to get to the vacuum, they have to fly through the air. I have no love for either SpaceX or the RLA, but this argument doesn't strike me as entirely frivolous - and is certainly less contemptuous of Congress, precedent, and workers than their parallel attempts to invalidate the very existence of the NLRB.
No doubt, and if I were a union pursuing a ULP against SpaceX or seeking representation under the NLRA, I'd make that argument - that the air travel is incidental, and that SpaceX is functionally a common carrier by *space,* rather than air. I'd also explore whether SpaceX is in reality a common carrier for the purposes of the statute, or if its accessibility is limited to certain clients; moreover, my recollection (I am decidedly not a transportation lawyer) is that common carriers definitionally have regular schedules, which isn't how space launches work.
Nevertheless, the question of whether laws governing air transit can/should be expanded to space transit probably isn't entirely settled, and doesn't seem to be ridiculous on its face. The more I think about it, tho, I think that the "SpaceX isn't a common carrier" approach may be a simpler attack on the company's position than arguing the air/space question.
On that, we are certainly in agreement; to reiterate my initial observation, this is hardly the main issue here, more just me being irrationally irritated by what seems to be something of a legal fiction.
While it is probably not the primary (or maybe even a relevant) legal consideration, i cannot help but be baffled by the notion that a company that operates in space (where there quite literally is no "air") could possibly, as a matter of physics alone, be considered an "air carrier."
But to get to the vacuum, they have to fly through the air. I have no love for either SpaceX or the RLA, but this argument doesn't strike me as entirely frivolous - and is certainly less contemptuous of Congress, precedent, and workers than their parallel attempts to invalidate the very existence of the NLRB.
To get into the air, planes have to taxi across the ground. That doesn't make them "ground transportation."
No doubt, and if I were a union pursuing a ULP against SpaceX or seeking representation under the NLRA, I'd make that argument - that the air travel is incidental, and that SpaceX is functionally a common carrier by *space,* rather than air. I'd also explore whether SpaceX is in reality a common carrier for the purposes of the statute, or if its accessibility is limited to certain clients; moreover, my recollection (I am decidedly not a transportation lawyer) is that common carriers definitionally have regular schedules, which isn't how space launches work.
Nevertheless, the question of whether laws governing air transit can/should be expanded to space transit probably isn't entirely settled, and doesn't seem to be ridiculous on its face. The more I think about it, tho, I think that the "SpaceX isn't a common carrier" approach may be a simpler attack on the company's position than arguing the air/space question.
On that, we are certainly in agreement; to reiterate my initial observation, this is hardly the main issue here, more just me being irrationally irritated by what seems to be something of a legal fiction.
Trains also transit through some air when they're on earth xp. Though I'm sure there's some arcane definition of "air" somewhere