AMI Jet Charter/TAG 135 certificate revoked

[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.