Studio 88 Aviation
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: pretoria
Age: 47
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the question difficult?
Bussboy, you seem just as clueless as propellerpilot, that is the problem with a lot on this forum, your delusion that your brainfart posted on the forum has the slightest impact nor value to the topic at hand, or the universe in general.
Now, some pertinent points were raised, and the legality of what Studio 88 is doing was brought into question, there is no proof that what they currently do is LEGAL.
The page on their website, shows set departure times, to set destinations, open to the public, most importantly, selling individual tickets, not the whole flight, conforming to the basic rules of a scedule.
Even if you SAY it is not a schedule on the website, it is still a schedule, and the operators do not hold the required legal permissions to operate said flights, these are the facts.
Now, may we have answers, proving it is a legal operation, or will CAASA and SACAA Legal and 121 Flight Ops be called in to help with said questions?
Now, some pertinent points were raised, and the legality of what Studio 88 is doing was brought into question, there is no proof that what they currently do is LEGAL.
The page on their website, shows set departure times, to set destinations, open to the public, most importantly, selling individual tickets, not the whole flight, conforming to the basic rules of a scedule.
Even if you SAY it is not a schedule on the website, it is still a schedule, and the operators do not hold the required legal permissions to operate said flights, these are the facts.
Now, may we have answers, proving it is a legal operation, or will CAASA and SACAA Legal and 121 Flight Ops be called in to help with said questions?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@diegrootwitbeen - I wonder why of all people you feel addressed by my comment and that it makes you indulge, what is your case ? I do apologize if my comment offended you so personally.
You actually do not have a clue what my opinion about this subject is - so please don't judge me - why do you even care? If you would, then you would have asked me and remedied your ignorance. My comment purely refers to the tone of argument some people are striking here - and while I do actually agree on what you are saying content wise about this subject, with your way of replying, you put yourself into the exactly same category of people that I have "brainfarted" on. Congratulations. Who are you actually to comment ? Do you have some kind of divinity that makes your post more justified or relevant than others ?
Now in fairness to those people that actually do care about a personal opinion and maybe some other people would think likewise - for it does not take much for a bystander like myself to realize this: (and I am very well aware of my own limited legal knowledge of aviation law) it strikes me to read about a situation, where operations like NAC, TAB etc that have operated professionally for decades or at least a few years would be so seemingly ignorant of the boundaries their kind of operation entail and what their liabilities would be and that they would educate their so-called seat-broker accordingly. Either they would be incompetent (which is unlikely) or are they knowingly and purposefully doing this - legally or illegally. That is the first question I would ask myself. Not such a big loss I guess if the thing itself just gets shut down, worst case however: is it responsible and worth risking the whole or part of the AOC and reputation if they are illegal ? Either they have the permission, privileges to conduct the operation or they don't - there can't be an in-between and if there is, we come to my second question:
If the whole thing would be out of bounds - where is the SACAA ? The CAA has the objective to support the demands of civil aviation within its boundaries and if certain feasible routes are neglected, they should be in support of filling those gaps with an appropriate operator that complies and has the resources and provide them with an AOC with schedule operations and BE LEGAL. If other schedule operators have objections, then they would have the obligation to feed the routes themselves - if they can't deliver - there is no reason why the CAA should reject a call for new scheduled operators - that is in the interest of the market and the economy. I am aware that that is the way we probably all expect it to ideally work - but in reality it is a very different thing altogether and clocks tick differently in some high places and there are conflicts of interests in opening the market. The CAA is responsible to independently provide the privileges for an appropriate operator to conduct their operations legally and enforce their regulations (safety etc) on that operator. An operator not holding those privileges may not conduct the operation - period.
If Studio88 is just or unjust is not in my competence to judge and that is why I would not comment on the subject itself but rather on some peoples method of communicating - it is rude and a real shame and shows a real lack of manners. We are all in the same industry and we all want to make a living out of this and move forward - maybe even the critics could benefit from this endeavor in the long run when things are finally resolved or maybe everything will always stay the same - which I doubt.
It is the job of the CAA to clarify this and all of those voicing their objection, should not bash other people on PPRUNE (chauvinistically and threateningly) but go to the proper institution where this matter can be dealt with in the proper way.
That is what I expect mature grown up people to do. If you post a thing like this on PPRUNE you will get a whole lot of personal opinions, including mine, which in the end mean nothing. That is why I wrote my first post in this thread consisting of two words and even if you call that a "brainfart" I see nothing so far that would prove the contrary.
You actually do not have a clue what my opinion about this subject is - so please don't judge me - why do you even care? If you would, then you would have asked me and remedied your ignorance. My comment purely refers to the tone of argument some people are striking here - and while I do actually agree on what you are saying content wise about this subject, with your way of replying, you put yourself into the exactly same category of people that I have "brainfarted" on. Congratulations. Who are you actually to comment ? Do you have some kind of divinity that makes your post more justified or relevant than others ?
Now in fairness to those people that actually do care about a personal opinion and maybe some other people would think likewise - for it does not take much for a bystander like myself to realize this: (and I am very well aware of my own limited legal knowledge of aviation law) it strikes me to read about a situation, where operations like NAC, TAB etc that have operated professionally for decades or at least a few years would be so seemingly ignorant of the boundaries their kind of operation entail and what their liabilities would be and that they would educate their so-called seat-broker accordingly. Either they would be incompetent (which is unlikely) or are they knowingly and purposefully doing this - legally or illegally. That is the first question I would ask myself. Not such a big loss I guess if the thing itself just gets shut down, worst case however: is it responsible and worth risking the whole or part of the AOC and reputation if they are illegal ? Either they have the permission, privileges to conduct the operation or they don't - there can't be an in-between and if there is, we come to my second question:
If the whole thing would be out of bounds - where is the SACAA ? The CAA has the objective to support the demands of civil aviation within its boundaries and if certain feasible routes are neglected, they should be in support of filling those gaps with an appropriate operator that complies and has the resources and provide them with an AOC with schedule operations and BE LEGAL. If other schedule operators have objections, then they would have the obligation to feed the routes themselves - if they can't deliver - there is no reason why the CAA should reject a call for new scheduled operators - that is in the interest of the market and the economy. I am aware that that is the way we probably all expect it to ideally work - but in reality it is a very different thing altogether and clocks tick differently in some high places and there are conflicts of interests in opening the market. The CAA is responsible to independently provide the privileges for an appropriate operator to conduct their operations legally and enforce their regulations (safety etc) on that operator. An operator not holding those privileges may not conduct the operation - period.
If Studio88 is just or unjust is not in my competence to judge and that is why I would not comment on the subject itself but rather on some peoples method of communicating - it is rude and a real shame and shows a real lack of manners. We are all in the same industry and we all want to make a living out of this and move forward - maybe even the critics could benefit from this endeavor in the long run when things are finally resolved or maybe everything will always stay the same - which I doubt.
It is the job of the CAA to clarify this and all of those voicing their objection, should not bash other people on PPRUNE (chauvinistically and threateningly) but go to the proper institution where this matter can be dealt with in the proper way.
That is what I expect mature grown up people to do. If you post a thing like this on PPRUNE you will get a whole lot of personal opinions, including mine, which in the end mean nothing. That is why I wrote my first post in this thread consisting of two words and even if you call that a "brainfart" I see nothing so far that would prove the contrary.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pretoria
Age: 52
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proppilot
If you think NAC is so competent try dealing with them. You have a surprise in your future.
As you say, you aren't strong on Av Law. As a pilot, you probably should be.
As you say, you aren't strong on Av Law. As a pilot, you probably should be.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Whiner - you are right in what you are saying that a pilot needs to know the law - I am quite humble when it comes to certain things that do not tax me on a day to day basis - at least I do not claim to know everything like so many other people do. Could you please elaborate how you derive to your conclusion, as I am always willing to learn - if you pass judgment on my general knowledge of Av-Law by such few things that I have said, I think I deserve the right to know. As this has nothing to do with the thread you are welcome to send me a PM.
I have not dealt with NAC personally, what I am saying is that I would expect a company such as theirs and every other company for that matter to know what they legally can do and what they can't. Wouldn't you ?
I do not think that I have voiced a personal stance to any of the companies involved here. Neither have I taken sides to this discussion.
I have not dealt with NAC personally, what I am saying is that I would expect a company such as theirs and every other company for that matter to know what they legally can do and what they can't. Wouldn't you ?
I do not think that I have voiced a personal stance to any of the companies involved here. Neither have I taken sides to this discussion.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pretoria
Age: 52
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say what?
(and I am very well aware of my own limited legal knowledge of aviation law)
Companies should follow the law, totally agreed.
The scope of this operation is clear enough, and I included the legal definition of a schedule flight in a previous post which comes from the regs. The 2 charter companies only have non-scheduled licenses and thats common cause. But the question remain unanswered, how does a charter (by NAC/TAB) become a legal schedule flight by passing through a intermediary broker (Studio 88) who is not a licensee.
We have heard from Studio 88 and people close to it. The question is clear enough, how hard can it be to answer?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok - you derived your answer from what I said - understandable - but it was more a rhetorical sentence I utilized to exclude divergence into that aspect of the legal aspect conversation because I can not speak or give you the answer that you are seeking as I am simply not involved. I do not have Butterworths in front of me right now and if you say the law is very clear on that - believe me I am the last person to question you or anybody else in that matter. I doubt that anybody else here on PPRune actually can, except maybe Goffel or the CAA themselves provide fast answers - they have a forum at avcon. I am sure somebody will be in a position to post the outcome of this issue sooner or later though - just a question of time.
And my reference to Kinder Garten was aimed a two things: firstly because those people that should know (i.e. some operators) might be failing to understand what the law means and interpreting it to suit their needs without probably consulting the authority (the latter would be speculation as we do not know who they might of consulted) and starting an operation without the relevant permissions and mainly secondly because people are flaming each other in a forum with irrelevant stuff because they have nothing to really contribute until someone comes with a definite statement that would satisfy people concerned - who cares if that chick is HOT or who deals with the catering??? That is just waffle BS.
Looking at it from the outside it is clear that people have big issues with each other and maybe themselves - probably nothing new but it is just unprofessional and this has sadly been demonstrated here. I regret posting here and joining the conversation but the reactions have in a way proven my point.
And my reference to Kinder Garten was aimed a two things: firstly because those people that should know (i.e. some operators) might be failing to understand what the law means and interpreting it to suit their needs without probably consulting the authority (the latter would be speculation as we do not know who they might of consulted) and starting an operation without the relevant permissions and mainly secondly because people are flaming each other in a forum with irrelevant stuff because they have nothing to really contribute until someone comes with a definite statement that would satisfy people concerned - who cares if that chick is HOT or who deals with the catering??? That is just waffle BS.
Looking at it from the outside it is clear that people have big issues with each other and maybe themselves - probably nothing new but it is just unprofessional and this has sadly been demonstrated here. I regret posting here and joining the conversation but the reactions have in a way proven my point.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"opinions" again!!
Was going to bite on this one...looked at the personal attacks going on and decided I'm out before I was ever in! As I leave this thread for ever think I'll leave one comment and that is opinions are like @rsholes, everyone has one! Cheers!!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: pretoria
Age: 47
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glenne....Dont go......
We are in desperate need of new talent here...
Now, I will attempt a factual response, I have been censored as this has now turned into a hornets nest, And a few will be stung along the way.
“scheduled public air transport service”
means a public air transport service in connection with which flights are undertaken
(i) between the same two or more points; or
(ii) with such a slight variation from the same two or more points that each flight can reasonably be regarded as being between the same two or more points
(b) (i) according to a published timetable
(ii) with such a degree of regulatory and frequency that they constitute a recognisable systematic series.
(c) in such a manner that each flight is open to use by members of the public.
12. Operating of air service
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall operate or attempt to operate an air service, unless it is or is to be operated under and in accordance with the terms and subject to the conditions of an air service licence issued to that person in terms of this Act or deemed to have been so issued.
Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla BlaBlaBlaBla
For those of you that actually read this, the Act is pretty clear cut, and Studio 88 might be in a spot here, word of advice, start reading the Aviation Act, including the Offences bit, as this is not a speeding ticket if you are proved to be in contravension.
Now, I will attempt a factual response, I have been censored as this has now turned into a hornets nest, And a few will be stung along the way.
“scheduled public air transport service”
means a public air transport service in connection with which flights are undertaken
(i) between the same two or more points; or
(ii) with such a slight variation from the same two or more points that each flight can reasonably be regarded as being between the same two or more points
(b) (i) according to a published timetable
(ii) with such a degree of regulatory and frequency that they constitute a recognisable systematic series.
(c) in such a manner that each flight is open to use by members of the public.
12. Operating of air service
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall operate or attempt to operate an air service, unless it is or is to be operated under and in accordance with the terms and subject to the conditions of an air service licence issued to that person in terms of this Act or deemed to have been so issued.
Bla Bla Bla Bla
Bla BlaBlaBlaBlaFor those of you that actually read this, the Act is pretty clear cut, and Studio 88 might be in a spot here, word of advice, start reading the Aviation Act, including the Offences bit, as this is not a speeding ticket if you are proved to be in contravension.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the above, I do not understand why a moratorium has not been passed with immediate effect. Thanks for quoting the law.
Clearly a case for the authority unless they are processing, cooking the bureaucratic paperwork and have been granted an exemption which has not been published - maybe that is what they are waiting for (someone mentioned that there was something in process), as it is the only joker they could still wave in your face.
Whatever the case - just shows the clock at the CAA ticks veeerrryyy slow in matters like this.
Clearly a case for the authority unless they are processing, cooking the bureaucratic paperwork and have been granted an exemption which has not been published - maybe that is what they are waiting for (someone mentioned that there was something in process), as it is the only joker they could still wave in your face.
Whatever the case - just shows the clock at the CAA ticks veeerrryyy slow in matters like this.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Soweto
Age: 54
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta say that this thread should be canned. Let the CAA investigate if need be. Until then, Studio 88 is stimulating the Aviation Economy and giving pilots and companies hours and money in their pockets. They have seen a gap that needs filling.
Sitting on the fence and trying to berate this operation which keeps some pilots in jobs and gaining experience is my main objection. Until the CAA has acted (if indeed 88 is found to be in contravention) why not get back to your MFS instead of throwing mud.
And no, I have no affiliation whatsoever to Studio 88.
Sitting on the fence and trying to berate this operation which keeps some pilots in jobs and gaining experience is my main objection. Until the CAA has acted (if indeed 88 is found to be in contravention) why not get back to your MFS instead of throwing mud.
And no, I have no affiliation whatsoever to Studio 88.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I absolutely agree with gautengflyboy and hope that the outcome will be a true benefit for aviation - which is in our interest and that of the public sector. Make it legal and let the endeavor continue !
The law exists to serve the public and not for competitors to shoot the competition down.
The law exists to serve the public and not for competitors to shoot the competition down.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SA
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Studio88 had been encroaching on existing routes then maybe there would be a case but seeing as how as they are looking at "routes" that are not currently served, who is going to be hurt in the process? Why is it necessary to shoot down a company that is employing people and bringing much needed work into the industry. Is it sour grapes that they have taken the bull by the udder and tried something revolutionary? Why not focus on bigger and more important issues that are going to cause the demise of GA in this country.
Oh by the way....... she is hot
Oh by the way....... she is hot
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: pretoria
Age: 47
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.i.c.t.u.r.e.s.
...
Sslut, I think you are missing the point, great on them for breaking ground into new routes, the whole debate is not what they are doing, but how...
Not one person seems to know this answer, everyone has an opinion, but the lack of knowledge as far as the CARS are concerned is showing with each response.
read my previous post, think, go read up the CARS, and tell me you disagree, factually.
DGWB
Sslut, I think you are missing the point, great on them for breaking ground into new routes, the whole debate is not what they are doing, but how...
Not one person seems to know this answer, everyone has an opinion, but the lack of knowledge as far as the CARS are concerned is showing with each response.
read my previous post, think, go read up the CARS, and tell me you disagree, factually.
DGWB
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pretoria
Age: 52
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they want to try out something new, great, just do it within the rules. Like everyone else, go and get the correct license and put everything in place but you have to do it BEFORE you start. They don't have to like the rules or even agree with the rules, but they do have to follow the rules.
And to all those that condone breaking the rules in support of employment and economic benefit, you are no better than people that buy stolen property. Everytime that thing takes off there are fare paying passengers in the back that have the right to believe that they have been sold a legitimate ticket on a legitimate flight and that all processes are in place to assure their safety. However they are being conned, its just another Lanseria scam.
I see they have pulled the stickers with there name off the aircraft, must be because they have nothing to hide. Crooks.
And to all those that condone breaking the rules in support of employment and economic benefit, you are no better than people that buy stolen property. Everytime that thing takes off there are fare paying passengers in the back that have the right to believe that they have been sold a legitimate ticket on a legitimate flight and that all processes are in place to assure their safety. However they are being conned, its just another Lanseria scam.
I see they have pulled the stickers with there name off the aircraft, must be because they have nothing to hide. Crooks.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SA
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disclaimer!!! I dont work for them!!
However if they managed to find a loophole or reinterprete the law and are legal, which I assume they are or the CAA would have been on them like a rash on a baby's bum, then good for them. We have seen many times in the past when a new interpretation of a law exposes an area no-one has thought of before that the company/person concerned has been branded a "lawbreaker" until everyone else wipes the dust out of their eyes and follows suit. The only way CAA can stop them will be to redefine their laws and we all know how long this can take. I know they have been under the scrutiny of certain CAA officials who have not been able to find any transgressions so good luck to them. There are way bigger criminals in the industry that remain unchallenged and get away with real criminal acts on a daily basis that need to be squashed like the cockroaches they are.
However if they managed to find a loophole or reinterprete the law and are legal, which I assume they are or the CAA would have been on them like a rash on a baby's bum, then good for them. We have seen many times in the past when a new interpretation of a law exposes an area no-one has thought of before that the company/person concerned has been branded a "lawbreaker" until everyone else wipes the dust out of their eyes and follows suit. The only way CAA can stop them will be to redefine their laws and we all know how long this can take. I know they have been under the scrutiny of certain CAA officials who have not been able to find any transgressions so good luck to them. There are way bigger criminals in the industry that remain unchallenged and get away with real criminal acts on a daily basis that need to be squashed like the cockroaches they are.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: underworld
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SPLAT....
OK,
With this super legal ground breaking way of jumping all the loopholes in the 121 CARS, and deflecting the blows from "jealous" operatorors who might or might not know how to interpret law written in fairly plain english looking at DGWB's post,
1. Why has the Studio 88 Aviation livery been removed off the aircraft ?
2. Why has N.A.C. hoofed them off the A.O.C. after spending "millions" with them ?
Does NAC want to be at arms lenth when the **** hits the fan.... yes sir
The other operator has a director married to a lawer, they might want to look into the CARS, have it interpreted by a few other experts, and reconsider, as they are the only one "operating" for 88, on flights open to the public, between the same destinations.... smells like a schedule, T.A.B. does not have a schedule license
K
With this super legal ground breaking way of jumping all the loopholes in the 121 CARS, and deflecting the blows from "jealous" operatorors who might or might not know how to interpret law written in fairly plain english looking at DGWB's post,
1. Why has the Studio 88 Aviation livery been removed off the aircraft ?
2. Why has N.A.C. hoofed them off the A.O.C. after spending "millions" with them ?
Does NAC want to be at arms lenth when the **** hits the fan.... yes sir
The other operator has a director married to a lawer, they might want to look into the CARS, have it interpreted by a few other experts, and reconsider, as they are the only one "operating" for 88, on flights open to the public, between the same destinations.... smells like a schedule, T.A.B. does not have a schedule license
K