Surley an AOC is needed for this....
 

Just came across this....Home - Private Jet Share . Surely you would need an AOC for this at the least, and probably an ATOL?

It doesn't matter what the aircraft is. If you sell individual seats you need an ATOL and AOC, and if you are offering charters you need an AOC. Have I got the wrong end of the stick on this one?

If you were to read the advertising spiel on their website it does say they are selling empty seats on private jet CHARTERS. Presumably the aircraft has been chartered from an AOC holder already and the client wants to fill seats to offset the total charter cost?
Interesting idea but I fail to see how it would work. Say I want to go to Milan on Friday? What are the chances of a private jet going from somewhere close to me on Friday to Milan with empty seats and have signed up for this? Not great!
And don't call me Surley. :p

But that is exactly what a travel agent does for, say, a skiing charter. It sells empty seats on an aircraft chartered for a specific flight - which requires someone in the chain to be ATOL registered.

Shouldn't matter whether it's a 6 seat Citation or a 180 seat Airbus.

But this is a private club. Pretty sure that makes a difference as the general public are not invited. It is a lttle grey though.

I thought an ATOL was used to protect purchasers of packages which included accommodation so if they were to add a hotel booking to the seat reservation then the ATOL licence could be required.

My question would be is the AOC holder licensed or insured to carry what would in fact be ‘scheduled’ passengers?

From the CAA web site:

Commercial Aviation

Commercial Aviation or public transport activities are those for which passengers pay a fare, or payment is made for cargo to be carried. If a passenger is asked to contribute in any way towards the costs of a flight, “valuable consideration”, the flight is likely to be for the purpose of public transport.

Some exceptions to this rule are:

* Some flights conducted to raise money for charities,

* Some flights where costs are shared between the pilot and up to three passengers,

* Some flights where the passengers are joint owners of the aircraft.

Please Note: The term “valuable consideration” can include methods of payment other than money, for example: free advertising or payment in kind.

Companies or individuals wishing to carry fare-paying passengers must hold an Air Operator Certificate (AOC).

An AOC is required for any public transport/commercial air transport flight.

This needs an ATOL because they re-sell seats. The operator of the aircraft needs an AOC and the flight has to be flown on public transport, even if the owner is flying in it too.

Out of interest:

in Germany the Authority considers advertising as one of the elements of being "commercial". Does the CAA handle this the same way?

I take it without looking at the site it is a UK registered company limited by shares? If so, an ATOL is required, however on a different ATOL angle, an ATOL only provides protection for flights paid for from a UK account which depart from the UK...

Well I just had a quick look at the website and saw nothing to indicate that the service providers were not legitimate AOC holders. Seems to me it is just a shot in the dark to try and reduce costs. I like it, in these hard times anything that increases (legal) aircraft usage is good for us.

If they were covered under an AOC, I would have thought they would at least mention it. It is an accreditation that AOC holders are proud of, and from a marketing point of view, legitimises your service. I can't imagine that anyone would advertise the fact that they DON'T have an AOC when offering charter flights.

I think this is more about ATOL than AOC, assuming that all aircraft utilised are EU registered and AOC'd.

Agreed.

They aren't operating the aircraft themselves, simply selling space on operators' aircraft who should have their own AOCs.

Assuming each operator doesn't have an ATOL (unlikely in the case of smaller jets), then I would have thought that this company required one.

"We are a network of jet users who share a passion for private aviation"
Seems to me they are legitimate chaterers just looking for potential pax who wish to travel on an existing charter to lower the overall cost, if thats the case, where's the problem. If you charter a jet there is no law against each individual paying their way.

No AOC is required, they are just a broker and do not operate their own aircraft. No ATOL is required as the aircraft operated have 19 seats or less as per offical record series 3.

Some over 19 seat operators can apply for exemption, as Shell, Ford and the now defunct Citylink, among others have done as I recall as long as they do not hold themselves out as charter operators.

Yes there is. It then doesn't become a sole use charter. The person (s) then selling the seats becomes a) tour operator or b) travel agent. In other words, lets say they took your £1000 for a flight to Nice, and then they went bust, you would have no recourse to get your money back. You may also find that the underwriters would not cover any 3rd party costs regarding the pax in the event of an accident, if legally they weren't supposed to be on board.

This isn't even a legal loophole, it's just a lack of knowledge and research into the legislation.

Don Coyote explained it all very simply with the extract from the CAA web page. If people decide to ignore the basic rules then I guess anything is possible. It will only be a problem when something goes wrong.......which it will.

Paylater, you are veering away from your own question. You started the thread:

You say it doesn't matter what the aircraft is, however if you do your research as you yourself so strongly suggest you will find that an ATOL is not required on aircraft under 19 seat, furthermore this company is a reseller, a broker, and therefor does not require an AOC as it most likely does not operate its own aircraft. The underlying operator will probably require one, however we cannot determine that as we do not know the individual circumstances.

The CAA have always been very clear on this, the question is who is the operator, not who is selling the seats.

flynowpaylater (thinknever)
I dont know if I am supposed to laugh or what. There is a huge percentage of charters where the individuals have clubbed together to pay for it. It becomes a sole charter when an individual makes the contract and pays. The laws governing this were never designed to prevent this, and how could they. Without splitting hairs, folks that do this are not commiting a heinous crime, they are simply trying to economise, this helps keep pilots and all others in aviation employed. What do you find unacceptale about a group of people all contributing to the charter of an aircraft? Some friends of mine do it every year to get to the F1 and back by helicopter.

Nuname - point taken.

The question of an AOC remains though - and the webpage doesn't suggest at all that they are a broker, more looking to sell the empty seats on corporate/private flights.

I got the idea that they were just looking for possible pax that needed to go to the same destination as they did. I took it that they were chartering from a legitimate AOC holder and just wanted to spread the cost, I could be wrong though, but if this were the case I don't see anything wrong. :ok: