AMI Jet Charter/TAG 135 certificate revoked

[oiltycoon]

Yesterday (10/13) the FAA revoked AMI's air carrier certificate, which supersedes the emergency suspension from the previous week. AMI's ability to resume charter operations is now a long term project.

The BoDs are in talks with two very large and prominent management/charter companies to transition to their certificate with (hopefully) modified conformity procedures.

 

[ruhroa]

i guess a question to ask is .................... when will they get to Jet Aviation and PrivateAir? they are pretty much the same in their setup/relationship.........

what a catastrophic blow................

do I understand you to be saying that all the aircraft management accounts that TAG have who need to be on a part 135 certificate for tax reasons or supplemental income from charter are now up for grabs from other certificate holders???? i think i know the answer ..................unbelievable

 

[FlyFlyFly]

As long as Jet and Privateair do not have any Arabs with large stakes in their company, they should be OK. My understanding is this was all about investors with ties to terrorism, and TAG thought the gov't was bluffing.

 

[ruhroa]

really this is the first i heard of that where can i read more?

 

[jonjuan]

http://www.ainonline.com/news/singl...-135-certificate/?no_cache=1&cHash=61b839ea8c

 

[CubanSmoker]

Crap... It's true..










FAA Revokes
Operating Certificate
Of AMI Jet Charter

[FONT=times new roman,times,serif][FONT=times new roman,times,serif]By ANDY PASZTOR
October 12, 2007 7:42 p.m.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
LOS ANGELES -- U.S. air safety regulators have issued an unusual "emergency revocation" order stripping AMI Jet Charter Inc., one of the country's leading providers of chartered business jets, of authority to operate roughly 80 such aircraft.
Many of the top-of-the-line business jets are owned by blue-chip companies and celebrities, but are flown on charter trips when their owners weren't using them.
The latest move highlights the FAA's drive to enhance enforcement of rules concerning which companies have control of chartered business jets and have direct responsibility for flight safety.
The order, which was issued earlier Friday, says that AMI, based in Burlingame, Calif., and TAG Aviation USA, which manages the affected aircraft for their owners, "willfully engaged in a scheme and/or deceptive practice" over nearly a decade about which company controlled the planes during charter flights. Tag Aviation Holdings S.A, of Switzerland, owns 49% of AMI, but as foreign-controlled companies, neither TAG Aviation Holdings nor its U.S. unit have FAA authority to fly charter trips.
The FAA's 17-page order says that the companies schemed to "make it appear" to federal regulators that AMI, rather than TAG Aviation's U.S. unit, "exercised control of passenger-carrying flights ostensibly operated under the authority of AMI's air carrier certificate." The FAA concluded, among other things, that TAG officers controlled AMI's spending and held the insurance policy for AMI's fleet of aircraft and that employees were "interchangeable to the point where TAG paid the salaries of the majority of AMI employees."
Spokesmen for AMI, which was appealing an earlier FAA suspension of its operating certificate, didn't have any immediate comment.
Write to Andy Pasztor at [email protected]

 

[G100driver]

As long as Jet and Privateair do not have any Arabs with large stakes in their company, they should be OK. My understanding is this was all about investors with ties to terrorism, and TAG thought the gov't was bluffing.

The terrorist state know as Swizterland? Do tell.

 

[Choppy]

I don't think it has anything to do with the location of the company. I think FLYFLYFLY is stating that there are investors and or company officials doing business with the wrong kind of people.

 

[G100driver]

hhmmmm .... sounds like a good novel.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

I thought this had to do with all the bizjets accidents recently, culminating in the TEB overrun accident.

The FAA has been cracking down on this mess where I call a "charter" company who calls some other company, who calls another company, etc., etc.

I think I am flying a plane owned by Charter X, while it is really owned and managed by God knows who, and in the meantime, no one has operational control, knows if the crew is properly trained or rested, or if the appropriate MX has been done on the aircraft.

I saw an ad in an airport for a charter company with several jets in the photo. I walked in to talk to them about flying their jets, and found out they didn't even HAVE any. They just advertised to the public that they had them, and they would set up the charters using someone else's aircraft, and pretend they operate the jets.

The local FSDOs and POIs have let this situation go on for years, even though it is against the FAA's regs. After the latest rash of crashes, the FAA is cracking down, and a number of Regional Offices and/or FSDOs and/or POIs are in trouble because they have allowed these operational practices to exist, even though it violates FAA's regs.

I would be very, very nervous if I worked for one of the above operators.

cliff
ABQ

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

Cliff, the emphasis needs to be on the corrupt POIs that allow this situation to persist. Even there in ABQ, I gotta tell ya, there is an amazing amount of tolerance for pitifully maintained airplanes. You'd see that the POIs are driving some pretty nice cars. Coincidence?

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Never thought of the corruption angle. Just thought each FSDO interpreted the rules the way they wanted to, since they are in charge and mother FAA doesn't (usually) take an interest.

cliff
ABQ

 

[FlyFlyFly]

Interesting that it was not AMI's home FSDO that put he suspension and revocation in on them. I can say that there will most likely be a move against one or two other operators to legitimize the action on AMI.

I read that AMI gave the FAA everything they wanted, only it wasn't immediately available at the locations where the aircraft were BASED. Anyone flying for a management company at an outstation might want to keep this in mind.

 

[svcta]

I'm pretty far removed personally, but the story that I got on Thursday(disclaimer could have been Wed. or maybe even Friday...I was up late last night) was that their cert. was pulled for foreign ownership. This from a work partner of my dad's who works(or worked) with TAG a great deal.

 

[ackattacker]

I saw an ad in an airport for a charter company with several jets in the photo. I walked in to talk to them about flying their jets, and found out they didn't even HAVE any. They just advertised to the public that they had them, and they would set up the charters using someone else's aircraft, and pretend they operate the jets.

The local FSDOs and POIs have let this situation go on for years, even though it is against the FAA's regs. After the latest rash of crashes, the FAA is cracking down, and a number of Regional Offices and/or FSDOs and/or POIs are in trouble because they have allowed these operational practices to exist, even though it violates FAA's regs.

I think you are close to the mark, but missing it slightly. The problem is not the marketing of charter services... that's just a charter broker and has long been OK. The situation you describe, while it seems hokey, is perfectly legal. Really the FAA doesn't care if you pretend to the customer that someone else's jet is yours. They do care if you pretend to the FAA that someone else's jet is yours.

The problem really is when ABC company is managing the aircraft and XYZ company holds the charter certificate. The FAA requires that the certificate holder have full operational control. What the FAA is saying is that if you are actively managing an aircraft, then you should have your own charter certificate. If you want to use someone else's certificate, then you have to hand the full operation and day to day management of the aircraft over to them.

 

[IFLYHI]

I think you are close to the mark, but missing it slightly. The problem is not the marketing of charter services... that's just a charter broker and has long been OK. The situation you describe, while it seems hokey, is perfectly legal. Really the FAA doesn't care if you pretend to the customer that someone else's jet is yours. They do care if you pretend to the FAA that someone else's jet is yours.

I think you'll find that the FAA does care about the customers perception of who is "operating" the aircraft. I know of an aircraft that had napkins and cups onboard with the aircraft owners company logo on them. The FAA told the pilots to remove them, as they might confuse the passengers. The aircraft is on a management companys 135 certificate.

 

[ackattacker]

I think you'll find that the FAA does care about the customers perception of who is "operating" the aircraft. I know of an aircraft that had napkins and cups onboard with the aircraft owners company logo on them. The FAA told the pilots to remove them, as they might confuse the passengers. The aircraft is on a management companys 135 certificate.

If so, this is a change I haven't heard of. That might be just one POI's interpretation. It's been a while since I dealt with the charter stuff, but back in the day all you needed was the certificate # displayed near the door and that's it. All the small charter companies use each others' aircraft, just taking their 10% off the top for booking the customer.

Also, note that in the example you gave the FAA was concerned about the relationship of owner company to management company, not the relationship among various charter companies marketing for each other.

 

[Publishers]

There are several issues here, one dealing with foreign ownership of a Part 135, secondly dealing with operational control of the aircraft.
The main complaint here is that TAG, a foreign company, is using AMI as a subterfuge for getting around the restrictions of foreign ownership when it is obvious that TAG controls the purse strings and the relationship with the owners and in many cases the crews. Therefore you have two major violations. This is exactly the reason they changed the ops specs in the first place.
I think that companies like EJM and Delta Air Elite may have problems as well. The main problem is that the crews for the most part have been hired by and are paid by a different employer, mainly one who owns the aircraft, and has, despite differnet agent relationships or employment contracts, from their standpoint operational control.

 

[ackattacker]

Publishers has hit the nail on the head.

 

[t-bone]

I can verify that the FAA is interested in who the passengers believe is operating the flight. I was ramped in VNY just a 3 days ago, and after asking who the certificate holder was and who I worked for, the inspectors asked the passengers as they were deplaning who operated the trip. I think the fact that our pax got that answer correct set the tone for the rest of the inspection, which was over with in less then 10 minutes.