Part 91/Part135

K

Kalikiano

New Member
Company X wants to start a flight department. Company X creates company Y as the flight department. Would that be usable under part 91. Company Y would be an on demand air carrier but only for company X.
 
What about if company X & Y want to form company Z to be the flight department for both companies?
Company X and Y both "own" company Z which is who then operates and flies to airplane, but only for companies X and Y?
 
Thought you were on vacay in the unabomber cabin at an undisclosed location? :)
 
If anyone needs the Walh Groomsmen Trimmer, it's gotta be good old Ted!
 
particlem86 said:
What about if company X & Y want to form company Z to be the flight department for both companies?
Company X and Y both "own" company Z which is who then operates and flies to airplane, but only for companies X and Y?
Click to expand...

OldTownPilot said:
91 K
Click to expand...

Not exactly. This is exactly how our flight department is set up. Company A & B decide to buy an aircraft jointly. They set up Company C to "own" the aircraft. They then set up Company D to employ the pilots. Company C leases the aircraft to both A and B. This lease is filed with the FAA before the first flight under the new lease. Company D has a contract with Company C to manage/crew the aircraft.

Clear as mud?
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
Not exactly. This is exactly how our flight department is set up. Company A & B decide to buy an aircraft jointly. They set up Company C to "own" the aircraft. They then set up Company D to employ the pilots. Company C leases the aircraft to both A and B. This lease is filed with the FAA before the first flight under the new lease. Company D has a contract with Company C to manage/crew the aircraft.

Clear as mud?
Click to expand...
Sounds about right to me.

Keep things as separate as possible. There's no reason for company A to lose it's ass in the lawsuit when the plane breaks someone's corn field, house, car, etc. when you can simply (as you've done) have company C (which "owns" the plane) lose its ass and not effect company A or B.

-mini
 
minitour said:
Sounds about right to me.

Keep things as separate as possible. There's no reason for company A to lose it's ass in the lawsuit when the plane breaks someone's corn field, house, car, etc. when you can simply (as you've done) have company C (which "owns" the plane) lose its ass and not effect company A or B.

-mini
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't like it either, but that's the way it was set up even before I got here. Unfortunately in this game, its all about rich folk using every trick in the book to distance themselves from liability.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
The more complex a scheme, the more chances for a determined prosecution lawyer to find a mis-worded contract in the aftermath.
Click to expand...
I'm sure your company's legal department has that covered. The law isn't about truth or justice...it's about how much money you can pump into it. The more "unlimited" the resources, the more the law works in your favor.

-mini
 
minitour said:
I'm sure your company's legal department has that covered.
Click to expand...

I spent 6 months trying to convince them that we needed a written contract between the pilot company and the flight department. They insisted they didn't.

Then we hired a gray haired 65 year old guy, he told them we needed one, and they had it ready the next day.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
I spent 6 months trying to convince them that we needed a written contract between the pilot company and the flight department. They insisted they didn't.

Then we hired a gray haired 65 year old guy, he told them we needed one, and they had it ready the next day.
Click to expand...


Solution - dye your hair gray.

-mini
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top