NJE Public Transport Or Not?

[High Viz Vest]

Somone asked me this the other day, "are Net Jets flights public transport flights or private?"

I have to admit not ever worked for NJE I havent got a clue. I am guessing they are not as they operate out of shorter strips than a UK based charter company can.

If this is the case, does it mean that the person 'hiring' the aircraft has to fly in the aircraft he has actually got a share in? By that I mean if I bought a 1/8 share do I get to know what the registration of that aircraft is?

Anyone clear this up?

[leonbrumsack]

High Viz, you don't buy a share of a physical aircraft - so you couldn't say "I own 1/8 of CS-DFW", for example. What you buy is a set number of hours per year on a particular aircraft type. I believe it is possible to opt to travel on smaller or larger aircraft type, but 'upgrading' to a larger aircraft type would cost you more hours, whereas opting for a smaller type you'd be getting more 'flying hours' for your the number of hours you pay for. I believe this is the case, but not 100% sure...

Leon

[silverhawk]

public transport or not?

I suspect not

[RoboAlbert]

Interesting....

'I am guessing they are not as they operate out of shorter strips than a UK based charter company can.'

can you give any examples?

[Daifly]

All flights operate under the Portuguese AOC.

Whether that makes them public transport like the rest of us endure is anyone's guess!?

[Le Tirer]

A Netjets Citation diverted to BOH on Tuesday night because the wet runway at SOU was outside limits for a commercial flight. It seems it was deemed to be so as it had filed using a 'NJE' flight number, even though it was only a positioning flight with no pax.

It then flew BOH-SOU as a private flight using its 'CS-' registration as callsign.

Does this answer the question? Whatever, it seems they were making sure the rules were followed to the letter.

[srs what?]

They always require a licenced airport when carrying passengers.

[Daifly]

Wouldn't have thought a Citation would have a performance issue at BOH or SOU.

(Edited now I've read the above post again) - I'm surprised that they did that to be honest. Going on their past efforts, if a runway's too wet for commercial operations then they would have a very, very hard time justifying to the UK and Portugese CAA how they were then able to operate privately (had they gone off the end).

Although private Operations do sort of give you more slack, you have to work on the principle that JAR set limits which they deem to be good enough for safe operation, anything less than that is, by definition, not as safe. You as an operator have to stand up in court at the end of the day and defend your decision... I'd have thought the decision to land commercially, then transfer to private, smacks a little of corporate pressure? It doesn't really sound like a quality Aircrew decision to me.

If you own an aircraft, or a piece of that aircraft, and flying privately then that's fair. If you own a share of an aircraft but you always get a similar one, not the one of which you own a proportion (i.e. Netjets) then that is, to my mind, a charter and should therefore be operated as such. Knowing the CAA I would imagine it would be difficult to argue it any other way sensibly.

However having trebled (-ish) the Portugese national aviation fleet they probably have a bit more clout with their CAA to operate in exactly the way they wish to!

[LRdriver II]

Some countries allow AOC holders to jump between pvt and commercial status.

On the Lear60 we take a HUUGE penalty on landing commercially on wet runways. We dont have the luxury of going private at our leisure so have to say no to flights or look very carefully at the numbers to make them work.
Due to the 60% rule added to JAROPS defined "best available data +15%"(wet runway addons), you can see that the JAR regs are very conservative and landing an airplane by the book numbers(pvt) is safe and can be easily justified.

[scambuster]

you'll find that the max landing weight at SOU for a Bravo, wet, using jar ops figures is a little bit less than 12500lbs, at 15c and no wind.
SOU can indeed be limiting, as can a lot of places.

[Daifly]

Thanks for the info on the Bravo Scambuster.

If we were chartered to do a SOU flight and ended up in BOH because of weather we could not position privately back to SOU as we've been paid to do it - i.e. it's a public transport flight and not in any way private. The same MUST apply to NJE as you are not flying on your own aircraft - your share is of an aircraft, but not the one you're flying on. As you're paying for that flying, I understand that it's deemed public transport under JAR.

If NJE operate under their AOC on this work then they should abide by the same laws as the rest of us. Otherwise they're flouting competition laws if nothing else! This is the kind of thing that the CAA and DoT should help UK operators with, ensuring that we have a level playing field.

It would be interesting to know the CAA's views on the above operation.

Can't have one rule for one and one rule for another. It's not cricket!

[dicksynormous]

You are all assuming the position back to sou was with the pax.
maybe the pax transited to sou and the aircraft positioned as a cs empty or lighter and privately. If you dont know the details or the allowed operating rules for this aircaft aoc then dont cast aspersions. Either way the rules (safety and perf) as laid down and available to the crew were followed. Thats a good thing. to hint that it may be otherwise is ignorant. Performance despatch is far more limiting than performance in flight and if your aoc provides for different methods of operation then whats the problem. PD for revenue needs almost twice the runway for PI , or PD for non revenue(read private).

As for saying the max ldg weight would be 12500 for the conditions, i think the correct way to calculate is ldr ,factored for the weight you are at. Unless you are always at 12500 before during and after the flight???

Sounds like a few wannabe sour grapes by some people on here.

[Daifly]

No dicksynormous - I'm not.

Under JAR fractional is treated, as far as we can find out, as charter (though with a few grey areas) - hence why NJE has a Portuguese AOC - therefore if someone is paying for a flight then that is a Public Transport movement (even if there are no passengers and it's a positioning sector) and the aircraft can't just land and change callsign and miraculously rid itself of any of the constraints that come with P/T Operations.

This isn't a safety issue, to me it's an issue regarding competition - if a foreign operator can come to the UK and do this, when I know we'd be hauled over the coals by the CAA, then that gives them a clear advantage.

As for the comment on sour grapes, maybe there's a hint of that, but only if we can't compete because we're having to abide by the rules - and bear in mind that NJE do operate charter flights for one off clients who aren't share owners.

(Edited for spellink)

[dicksynormous]

If its an issue of competition then its not the fault of the flight crew then is it ? Two thirds ofCRM refers to "resource management "not just crew. This is then a resource avalable to the crew to complete their mission. They are not accountable for one sided agreements, aoc's, jar loopholes etc. The whole industry is unfair from fed ex in bru thru to jar validations for dodgy foreign licences because this country is on its arse , lubricated and waiting for further penetration, by member sates that dont share our sense of fair play old bean.

A couple of posters alluded to the crews actions/decisions as bring below par. They were well within their aoc, agreements and real perf. So lets kep the discusion to the merits of jar, aoc,s and competition , not he action of the crew.

[Astra driver]

I'm afraid it's true, Net jets do operate as a "private operator",
It is a source of much friction in the US, since net jets competes directly with conventional charter companies that have to operate under part 135 of the FAR's and are constrained by flight time limits, duty time limits, 60% runway rules, etc. Net jets, which operates under part 91 of the regs does not have to observe these rules, although it claims to abide by them and is working with the FAA to create a new set of regs that would apply to fractional operators.
A classic example of the double standards can be seen at Santa Monica (KSMO) with a 4,987 ft runway where part 135 charter operators cannot practically operate GIV's due to the 60% rule but net jets can.

[RoboAlbert]

Astra driver

I think it worth noting that the company in question in the first post is NetJets Transportes Aereos, the European version of the stateside fractional ownership company. Your remarks about the US Company may be correct but they are not valid with regard to NetJets Transportes Aereos.

Regards

RA

[High Viz Vest]

Hi again sorry for the delay in responding to the question (which airports) One example would be Gamston.

I would have thought, and I am probably wrong that 1200m is quite restrictive if you apply public transport factors to the take off figures. I understand that Oxford wasnt long enough to fly Ultra's out of for public transport and that is the same legnth as Gamston where NJE land to pick up from time to time.

Talking of and unfair 'advantage' some guys were discussing the fact that NJE can land at London City at heavier weights than UK operators becasue the runway is grooved and therefore can be considered dry even when its wet. Apparently the CAA have a 'wet weight' and a 'dry weight'.

Once again I am no expert on any of this and I may have my 'facts' wrong.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Just my £0.02 worth. When you buy a share in Netjets, I'm almost certain that you the customer do actually buy a share in a particular aircraft with a registration. Netjets Ops do try I understand to ensure fair usage and keep the monthly utilisation for all aircraft more or less the same.

Certainly Citation Shares (The american version of Netjets) co owned by Cesna & TAG, definetely make their Pilots do part 135 checkrides.

Netjets do have a Portugese AOC.

[LRdriver II]

Quote:
"Talking of and unfair 'advantage' some guys were discussing the fact that NJE can land at London City at heavier weights than UK operators becasue the runway is grooved and therefore can be considered dry even when its wet. Apparently the CAA have a 'wet weight' and a 'dry weight'"

If thats the case then your CAA is not playing by the rules either. According to JAR definitions a grooved runway can be considered dry/damp so you can use dry numbers.

JAR-OPS 1.480 (4) is what you need..

we are playing by the rules thats all..