This is a bit more likely scenario. I fly to a business meeting in an aircraft in which I hold a share. I am reimbursed the cost of the flight £60 per hour plus two landing fees by my company. I charge the client travel of 4 hours (2 there and two back) at £x per hour. Is that lawful?
Arguably it is not, as "... valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight" (ANO article 130(1)(a)), the purpose of the flight being to get me to a meeting with my client. My client is actually better off as had I gone by road it would have taken 4 hours each way, but that is irrelevent.
Coming back to the helicopter and the celebrity, any flight which results in a "profit or benefit" is aerial work. So, the business man on his business trip may well fall under article 130, whether he directly charges his client for travel time or not. If he thereby secures a deal or contract then he has certainly derived a 'benefit'. The only get out is that the benefit is not "undertaken pursuant to an agreement" where there is not deal or contract in place when the flight is made - though there may be on the way back
70% of the balloons in the UK are sponsored. Now, with your ship paid for, that's most definitely a damn good consideration. Are they all CPLs?
Here valuable consideration is not given "in respect of the flight", since the sponsorship would be independent of any particular flight. It might be otherwise if the payment was on a per flight basis or there were particular or enhanced payments for particular flights, say at particular events.