Bushjeppy - EXACTLY! Is there really a place in today's world for a Part 91 operator, operating only to Part 91 standards, to be out there competing for contract work with certificated Part 135 operators? Why should any government or non-governmental agency contract with ASI who then (at reduced safety margins and increased cost to the end user) goes out and sub-contracts for the services to be provided by a properly certificated operator, who then has to put up with being directed by sometimes worthless and incompetent field managers? What a waste.
If USAID or some other group (or individuals) wanted to fully fund the organization to be in a position to respond to natural disasters and such, fine, there's certainly a place, and a need for such an organization in today's world.
Let ASI re-establish themselves somewhere as a certificated operator (even a non-profit one) and be audited and approved by UNHAS to bid for humanitarian or peacekeeping contracts. Unfortunately for them, that can't happen in the US as they don't operate there, so the FAA won't certificate them.
Short of the above possibilities, why not just close shop? When ASI broke off from MAF some twenty-odd years ago it was a different landscape. Things have changed.
People like Mr. Carney (i.e. 1sapo77) aren't bad folks, but I think the fact that they are currently making their living from this sinking ship might, just might, blur their vision a bit. Sometimes bad leadership, which ASI has suffered from for years, just takes an organization too far down to ever come back up again.
The above opinion comes from having spent years in the organization, then a number of years outside of it working in the real world.