So long Bimini Island Air

SurferLucas

SurferLucas

Southern Gentleman
From what I've heard, they ran a very shady operation...thankfully the FAA put a stop to it...

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=12908

WASHINGTON – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has revoked the operating certificate of Bimini Island Air (BIA) of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., an on-demand operator. The FAA issued the emergency order of revocation on June 27 and it took effect immediately.
The FAA alleged BIA advertised and operated 15 scheduled flights between Fort Lauderdale and the Bahamas in March and April, 2011, using a 30-seat Saab 340-A twin-turboprop aircraft. BIA is not authorized to use a 30-seat aircraft for scheduled flights.
The FAA also alleged BIA offered and advertised scheduled flights on the 30-seat plane, including the departure location and time and arrival location. The FAA said BIA operated as a scheduled airline rather than as an on-demand service when it provided those flights.
Scheduled airlines are governed by rules different than those for charter operators or on-demand services.
Bimini Island Air petitioned for review of the emergency nature of the order of revocation, June 30, which also serves as an appeal of the merits of the order. Both the petition and the appeal will be heard by the National Transportation Safety Board. BIA surrendered its operating certificate to the FAA July 1.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting. On-demand, by it's own name, is simply that. . . and their website contradicts the on-demand status. Not smart.
 
I swear I saw an add for this company on Climbto350.com a couple of weeks ago. Good riddance I suppose...
 
Wow, I am familiar with this company though I don't know anyone that works there. Theres probably too many island hopping "134 and a half" operators down here... well one less now anyways.
 
HVYMETALDRVR said:
Wow, I am familiar with this company though I don't know anyone that works there. Theres probably too many island hopping "134 and a half" operators down here... well one less now anyways.
Click to expand...

Technically, wouldn't this be a one twenty one and a half operation? :)
 
It would be interesting to know what was REALLY going on there. Often in a case like this there is a LOT more going on than just, say, operating scheduled flights on a non-sched certificate, but that is just what the FAA is able to prove and so it's what they use to nail the company to the wall. For example, when the Feds shut down LAB up here, a lot of the reasons listed in the order of certificate revocation were stuff like worn-out brake discs and unauthorized shims on brakes-stuff no reasonable FAA inspector would look at on a ramp check, much less shut down an entire airline for. However what was really going on (among other things) and what the FAA had a hard time proving, was that airplanes were being parked on a healing line when inspections were due, towed inside for a quickie oil change, and sent back out sans legitimate inspection. Like I said, the Feds had a hard time proving that was going on, so they found concrete evidence of other violations and crucified the company for those.
 
134.5 (and 120.5 now I guess) issues run rampant down in south Florida. I'd guess that despite what ever other MX or paperwork issues BIA had, the scheduled service issue was why the Feds went after them. Places like GIA and other legitimate 121 operations to the Islands have been complaining about BIA and places like them for years.
 
ATA used to be a charter operator that ran "scheduled" flights. They had ticket counters, flights that left every day at certain times from the same gates and what not.

There are some sticky wickets in the on-demand/public charter vs. scheduled service definitions.
 
If you are talking about the Hawaii flights that ATA ran on the L1011, Pleasant Hawaiin Holidays was the group that chartered the aircraft. They sold the tickects and wanted daily service from LAX/SFO to the islands. Since ATA was also doing scheduled service from those cities to IND/MDW it made sense just to use the assests that were already in place
 
The loophole 135 on demand operators use is to create a different company and use that company to charter and sell the tickets for the main airline. This is what IBC Airways does with IBC Travel. IBC Travel sells the tickets and charters the airplanes and IBC Airways flies the airplanes. For all intents and purposes they are the same company, but technically IBC is not breaking any laws because they are not running scheduled service, IBC Travel is chartering them to fly the trips.

I would imagine that BIA was doing something similar.
 
3enginejock said:
The loophole 135 on demand operators use is to create a different company and use that company to charter and sell the tickets for the main airline. This is what IBC Airways does with IBC Travel. IBC Travel sells the tickets and charters the airplanes and IBC Airways flies the airplanes. For all intents and purposes they are the same company, but technically IBC is not breaking any laws because they are not running scheduled service, IBC Travel is chartering them to fly the trips.

I would imagine that BIA was doing something similar.
Click to expand...

IBC is probably crapping their pants in that case...

Oh well... play by the rules and you have nothing to worry about. :)
 
F9DXER said:
If you are talking about the Hawaii flights that ATA ran on the L1011, Pleasant Hawaiin Holidays was the group that chartered the aircraft. They sold the tickects and wanted daily service from LAX/SFO to the islands. Since ATA was also doing scheduled service from those cities to IND/MDW it made sense just to use the assests that were already in place
Click to expand...

No, there was, of course the daily service to FL. I remember back when they became a "scheduled" airline. I was working in the terminal in IND at the time and don't remember seeing any difference from the surface. Of course Ambassadair (sp?) and Pleasant Hawaiian Holidays were still running. From the view of a company outsider, but an airline/sked 121 "insider" and customer, I really saw little difference.
 
Keep in mind that a 121 supplemental operator may be authorized to operate more then just non-sched. (charter) operations. We have approval to operate both Domestic scheduled and flag operations. We even have two chapters dedicated to all things flag and domestic scheduled in our GOM. However, to date, I've never operated a flight fell into either category.

If my company ever decides to start operating domestic sched./flag, the framework and approval is already there.
 
BIA..it is a good thing that the FAA took their certificate. I worked there for a couple years. It is about time that something was done, I think they broke every rule in the book...
 
3enginejock said:
The loophole 135 on demand operators use is to create a different company and use that company to charter and sell the tickets for the main airline. This is what IBC Airways does with IBC Travel. IBC Travel sells the tickets and charters the airplanes and IBC Airways flies the airplanes. For all intents and purposes they are the same company, but technically IBC is not breaking any laws because they are not running scheduled service, IBC Travel is chartering them to fly the trips.

I would imagine that BIA was doing something similar.
Click to expand...
You can also sell seat fares
That's another "gray' area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top