Is this part 91 or 135?

[dhc8fo]

Being pretty new to 135 (just now reading up on the regs) from the 121 world, can you guys answer a question?

If a company owns a plane and flies potential customers to its location each week (I should add that there are alot of repeat potential customers flying up each week, but they do vary), is this 135 or part 91???

I don't know why this seems so complicated to me.....

Thanks

 

[Dangerkitty]

Being pretty new to 135 (just now reading up on the regs) from the 121 world, can you guys answer a question?

If a company owns a plane and flies potential customers to its location each week (I should add that there are alot of repeat potential customers flying up each week, but they do vary), is this 135 or part 91???

I don't know why this seems so complicated to me.....

Thanks

With the info you have provided it sounds like Part 91 to me. I am guessing that the passengers are being transported to a location to do business with said company?

 

[MrPink1911]

Studying 135 myself a bit these days, if there is money exchanging hands based strictly on the flight then it should be 135.

 

[dhc8fo]

well, see if this makes any difference...

The company liquidates manufacturing plants and inventories on a regular basis and dealers come up each week to the headquarters to look at what is for sale. If they like, they buy. If not, they don't.

Sometimes the same dealers come up over and over and sometimes there are new guys. The company owner was asking me about flying these guys in since most of them drive.

I believe the owner sees it as an incentive to get more dealers to come up. I have no idea how it does or doesn't contribute to actual sales made.

Does that help?

Thanks again....

 

[CapnVegetto]

Sounds to me like 91. They're not paying for the plane to take them to a destination of their choosing, they're riding in a company plane on company business. That's 91.

At least I think so.

 

[Dangerkitty]

well, see if this makes any difference...

The company liquidates manufacturing plants and inventories on a regular basis and dealers come up each week to the headquarters to look at what is for sale. If they like, they buy. If not, they don't.

Sometimes the same dealers come up over and over and sometimes there are new guys. The company owner was asking me about flying these guys in since most of them drive.

I believe the owner sees it as an incentive to get more dealers to come up. I have no idea how it does or doesn't contribute to actual sales made.

Does that help?

Thanks again....

It's Part 91

 

[AgDownUnder]

Being pretty new to 135 (just now reading up on the regs) from the 121 world, can you guys answer a question?

If a company owns a plane and flies potential customers to its location each week (I should add that there are alot of repeat potential customers flying up each week, but they do vary), is this 135 or part 91???

I don't know why this seems so complicated to me.....

Thanks

If the company is flying them in on their own dime for some business related purpose other than the business of flying them in (product inspection, contract negotiations...) then it is 91. If they are recouping the costs directly, it is 135.

 

[AgDownUnder]

well, see if this makes any difference...

The company liquidates manufacturing plants and inventories on a regular basis and dealers come up each week to the headquarters to look at what is for sale. If they like, they buy. If not, they don't.

Sometimes the same dealers come up over and over and sometimes there are new guys. The company owner was asking me about flying these guys in since most of them drive.

I believe the owner sees it as an incentive to get more dealers to come up. I have no idea how it does or doesn't contribute to actual sales made.

Does that help?

Thanks again....

If he isn't charging them for the ride, it's 91.

 

[climbhappy]

as a former certificate holder, i can relate the following;

i was moved to get one when i bought this old Aztec. I started flying my brother and his associate on business trips and charged them an hourly.

i used 91.593 (or some number) which said you can charge other pax a fee based on two times fuel, parking, fees, etc.

i didn't hold out to the public, didn't fly others using the same formula, o got tired of accusations of 134.5 , so i applied for and got the cert.

i did end up advertising, flew some, spent alot of money on repairs.

lesson learned: don't ever do it again!

 

[AngelKing]

I remember reading about a case a number of years ago about a Lear operator. I will try to dig it up. He had flown certain paying clients under 135 many times. One particular trip the scheduled copilot could not make the trip so he grabbed a copilot who was current in Lears but was not 135 qualified. He made the trip, but did not charge the customers. The original copilot went to the FAA and the owner/Captain was found in violation of operating under 91 when it should have 135 because he expected to obtain future revenues from these clients. Like I said, I will try to dig this case up and post it.

AngelKing

 

[Hung Start]

Well, that case is a bit different than the example of owning the plane and flying potential customers to a site to let them see what you may have to sell at that site.
The Lear guy was expressly in the business of charter. He had no need to go where he took those "customers" He had normally charged them in the past. He did not charge them for that "particular" flight only for the purpose of evading the 135 requirements.
It is kind of like the tax law. Tax avoidence is legal. Tax evasion is not.

He could have gotten out of it if he had done some homework. The "customers" should have had a written lease for the plane. Then, he could have provided pilot services under another contract. He still would have raised eyebrows at the Feds, but it is legal and he would have gotten paid.
As it was, he lost revenue, and his ability to be in business, plus all the expense of legal fees, etc.

It was legal then, not sure if the loophole has closed, i recall there was a movement afoot at the FAA to stop that stuff.
Hope this helps.

Hung

 

[AngelKing]

I was just using that case as an example that it is not always black or white, even from FISDO to FISDO which everyone knows. In this case(I posted) I think the feds stretched it a bit. But, the guy lost.


AK

 

[Hung Start]

I understand. The humorous thing is FSDO stands for Flight Standards District Office. The one thing that is missing is the "Standards". Like the car companies say, "your mileage may vary". Same holds true with the different offices.

 

[lonelyguy]

dhc8fo

Being pretty new to 135 (just now reading up on the regs) from the 121 world, can you guys answer a question?

If a company owns a plane and flies potential customers to its location each week (I should add that there are alot of repeat potential customers flying up each week, but they do vary), is this 135 or part 91???

I don't know why this seems so complicated to me.....

Thanks

This is part 91 not 135,because the flights are for company business.

 

[climbhappy]

angelking,

i would think the lear operator would have been violated for having a crewmember not authorized to fly in the seat , than speculative revenues.

the fed 's lawyers would have a hard time proving the amount of future revenues. i realize you may just be relating a relevent case here

 

[MauleSkinner]

As our local Feds are fond of saying, 135 has nothing to do with whether money changes hands or not...it's "holding out" that makes the difference.

There was a guy around our area a number of years back that got his pilot certificate revoked because he was flying people around for free, apparently so he could build some time. Yee-ha!

David

 

[AngelKing]

angelking,

i would think the lear operator would have been violated for having a crewmember not authorized to fly in the seat , than speculative revenues.

the fed 's lawyers would have a hard time proving the amount of future revenues. i realize you may just be relating a relevent case here

Yes, you would think, but from my memory he was gigged for the "speculative revenues"

AK