AOC Question..?
 

Hi all...Tonite i'm writing here a question that maybe some could consider it a lil bit stupid, however i've discussed it already with other aviation fellows, and maybe it could have some sense in it, and not so meaningless as some could think.

Ok, lets go straight to it, using invented examples/names/facts:

The normal and usual procedure »»» We have an operator/company named ABC Wings that started their tasks and flights as private under NO AOC. After some months, weeks, years, etc, they goes to the CAA of its country and apply for an Air Operator Certificate, leaving the private issues, and now applying for the commercial transport.
Ok, they present all the docs, operations, manuals, etc, etc, passed the CAA audithories, success...bla, bla, bla...and few moons later ABC Wings are flying under an AOC. Period.

And now the situation that brings me here...the reverse/opposite of the situation before...can does it can happen?
I explain it better:
Imagine we have an Operator/Airline named XYZ Aviation already flying under an AOC, so, an AOC Holder for public transport/commercial operations.
On a sunny morning, the CEO and Big Boss, after spending the entire night doing some calculations, writing future company policies, bla, bla, bla, he comes to the conclusion that he wants to change/revert the philosophy of his Company, and wants to turn it to Private/General operations, under "NO AOC", but mantaining the same name/brand as XYZ Aviation.

Is This Possible?
Is it Allowed?
Could an operator already flying under an AOC, aplly for a change and restart as a non-AOC holder ops, as fully private, under the same name as used on the AOC period?
Or at least he must change the name of the company?
Did it already happen in the past, any examples?
Or is this question totally senseless and it never could happen?
Etc, etc...


Many tanx for your kind attention...Kindly waiting for your opinions...JF

You could do it, but it would be an odd thing to do as you've paid for an AOC. From my limited experience an operator that steps back like this generally has to through voluntary suspension or threat of having it pulled.

The difference between the two would be if you retain an AOC you can clearly chose between private or commercial ops, benefit from fuel tax discounts and undoubtedly attract new aircraft by having one - for both fuel tax and safety standard reasons.

There's a big cost implication here also. No AOC means no expensive postholders.

AOC's typically remain valid until revoked by the regulator or voluntarily rescinded by the holder. I'm not aware of an example of this happening before but it should, in theory, be possible and permissible provided it is all done above board.

If they own the name/brand then it doesn't matter whether they go private or not.

The big question that comes to my mind is - what kind of private operation will they undertake that allows them to operate as a revenue generating business without having an AOC? It constitutes a big shift in business model I'm guessing.

It's definitely a strange one.

Tanx for your inputs guys :ok:

desertopsguy: quite a few private a/c fly under an AOC purely for tax / fuel reasons, with no paying pax, as you must know. Depending on the mission profile and bases operated to, this may make sense at one time and not another. The Danish authorities in particular are flexible about taking a/c off an AOC temporarily for purely private flights... for less flexible authorities, I can see why it makes sense to remove an a/c permanently from it.
Removing an AOC from a whole company is pretty unusual I guess, but I can imagine a scenario where it would make sense, for example if the company is small, or there's not much charter business.
Not qualified at all to judge on whether it's possible or not, but I can't see why it wouldn't be!