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