Speaking of illegal charter flights

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting grey area - does borrowing an airplane from a friend and paying the expenses constitute a charter? How do you measure “friend”. How do you define “borrow”? Does it matter where the money comes from? Does it matter if there is a business relationship with your friend?

at the surface, this seems legit. But then why does it obtain overtones of illegal once you start answering the questions?
 
bflynn said:
Interesting grey area - does borrowing an airplane from a friend and paying the expenses constitute a charter? How do you measure “friend”. How do you define “borrow”? Does it matter where the money comes from? Does it matter if there is a business relationship with your friend?
Click to expand...

It's not grey.

There is an exemption for political campaigns, but her personal trip doesn't fall under that.

The rest is gateway pundit hackery.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
Interesting grey area - does borrowing an airplane from a friend and paying the expenses constitute a charter? How do you measure “friend”. How do you define “borrow”? Does it matter where the money comes from? Does it matter if there is a business relationship with your friend?

at the surface, this seems legit. But then why does it obtain overtones of illegal once you start answering the questions?
Click to expand...
“Borrowing” a jet is entirely different than borrowing your buddy’s Cherokee. Unless it was borrowed with the provision that “I get to pick the pilots”, it’s a case of “if you provide the airplane and the pilots, it’s 135.”
 
bflynn said:
Interesting grey area - does borrowing an airplane from a friend and paying the expenses constitute a charter?
Click to expand...
No. But providing an airplane and pilot to someone and receiving money* in exchange definitely does.

(*without even getting into the other forms of compensation)
 
There is more to it than just the illegal charter.

This could be discussed openly on the forum That Shall Not Be Named.
 
The link as a bit too partisan. Who among us wouldn’t go to see the parent, especially if we thought they might die.

That said, it’s illegal for the Governor to accept a $27,000 gift. Probably illegal in Michigan for the jet owner to give the gift. And they got caught trying to hid the gift by using a PAC. The FAA rightfully enters for enforcement. The pilots probably are not the subject of investigation.

One in Michigan would think that after the Speaker of the Ohio General Assembly was indicted in a major bribery from a dark money PAC that people would realize the money flows are being watched.
 
Seems like the plane owner had/has reasons ($$$) to keep a good relationship with the State. Funny how that works. $27 k would of bought a lot of 1st class tickets.
 
Clip4 said:
The link as a bit too partisan. Who among us wouldn’t go to see the parent, especially if we thought they might die.

That said, it’s illegal for the Governor to accept a $27,000 gift. Probably illegal in Michigan for the jet owner to give the gift. And they got caught trying to hid the gift by using a PAC. The FAA rightfully enters for enforcement. The pilots probably are not the subject of investigation.

One in Michigan would think that after the Speaker of the Ohio General Assembly was indicted in a major bribery from a dark money PAC that people would realize the money flows are being watched.
Click to expand...

Note that her trip was not to “see a dying parent” (I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic). That story is completely fabricated by her and her staff and the media spun “chronic condition” with “acute condition”. He’s fine; he actually drove himself up in his Tesla shortly after her visit and was seen shopping in Lansing. This is a huge mess for the Governor as she prevent Michiganders from visiting their own family who actually where dying. There are a lot of people, bipartisan, that are ****ed off about this pattern of “do as I say but not as I do” behavior amongst our political leadership. The FAA will barely issue a wee wee slap here.
 
Clip4 said:
The link as a bit too partisan. Who among us wouldn’t go to see the parent, especially if we thought they might die.

That said, it’s illegal for the Governor to accept a $27,000 gift. Probably illegal in Michigan for the jet owner to give the gift. And they got caught trying to hid the gift by using a PAC. The FAA rightfully enters for enforcement. The pilots probably are not the subject of investigation.

One in Michigan would think that after the Speaker of the Ohio General Assembly was indicted in a major bribery from a dark money PAC that people would realize the money flows are being watched.
Click to expand...
The FAA part of this, which has nothing to do with where the money came from or why the trip was made (other than the fact that it didn’t fall under the campaign exception), will quite likely involve the pilots.
 
Last edited:
The way I see it played out, she got called out for "borrowing" a "friend's" jet for her travel. To try to cover their butt, they paid some money and tried to say it wasn't a donated trip, they paid for a charter. That opened a further can of worms considering what the FAA considers a charter.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The FAA part of this, which has nothing to do with where the money came from or why the trip was made (other than the fact that it didn’t fall under the campaign exception), will quite likely involve the pilots.
Click to expand...

I don't know the answers here. I believe the governor is in trouble by the source of the funds, but that is a non aviation topic.

As someone who aspires to have a nice plane that I can share with friends, I'm not sure I understand the aviation issue still. If I let a friend fly it and they pay for the costs but a passenger pays pro rata, is that a charter?
 
sourdough44 said:
Seems like the plane owner had/has reasons ($$$) to keep a good relationship with the State. Funny how that works. $27 k would of bought a lot of 1st class tickets.
Click to expand...

Right, but in this dope filled world, you can't expect her to get into a loong tube with a bunch of demons ;-)
 
bflynn said:
As someone who aspires to have a nice plane that I can share with friends, I'm not sure I understand the aviation issue still. If I let a friend fly it and they pay for the costs but a passenger pays pro rata, is that a charter?
Click to expand...

If your friend flies it: No
If your friends employed or contracted pilot flies it*: No
If your employed or contracted pilot flies it: Yes








* and your friend decides where to fly, when to fly, who is on board
 
I think where she crossed the line is paying $855 for her seat, trying to navigate one law ran her afoul of another. Other than that, if I own a jet, and a friend needs help, I should be able to help them out with my jet.
 
PaulS said:
I think where she crossed the line is paying $855 for her seat, trying to navigate one law ran her afoul of another. Other than that, if I own a jet, and a friend needs help, I should be able to help them out with my jet.
Click to expand...
Her payment and/or the “dark money”...from the FAA’s standpoint, somebody paid for it, making it a charter.

A free ride wouldn’t have been a problem to the FAA, but as you indicated, not paying for it was probably a state law issue.
 
midwestpa24 said:
The way I see it played out, she got called out for "borrowing" a "friend's" jet for her travel. To try to cover their butt, they paid some money and tried to say it wasn't a donated trip, they paid for a charter. That opened a further can of worms considering what the FAA considers a charter.
Click to expand...
Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

The problem is that on several occasions, GW has promulgated draconian rules forbidding behavior which she or her husband disregard. Remember, the "We're all in this together" mantra? Well, we're all in this, but they are not. People can put up with a lot when it's fair and even across the board.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The FAA part of this, which has nothing to do with where the money came from or why the trip was made (other than the fact that it didn’t fall under the campaign exception), will quite likely involve the pilots.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe the pilots will be involved because they had no knowledge of the back door dealings. If they are, we will read about it.
 
And you guys know they knew how? Fly the gov to Florida, they flew the gov to Florida. When people are doing shady **** they don’t tell many.
 
Clip4 said:
And you guys know they knew how? Fly the gov to Florida, they flew the gov to Florida.
Click to expand...
We don’t know, and neither does the FAA until they investigate the pilots.

Clip4 said:
When people are doing shady **** they don’t tell many.
Click to expand...
But when they don’t know the shady **** they’re doing is illegal, they tend to tell the pilots. Or, maybe the pilots are in on the shady ****. That’s why the FAA will likely investigate the pilots...they need to find that out.
 
Last edited:
Who doesn’t know that transferring $27,000 from a PAC to pay for the personal transportation of a Governor isn’t illegal?.
 
YooperMooney said:
Note that her trip was not to “see a dying parent” (I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic). That story is completely fabricated by her and her staff and the media spun “chronic condition” with “acute condition”. He’s fine; he actually drove himself up in his Tesla shortly after her visit and was seen shopping in Lansing. This is a huge mess for the Governor as she prevent Michiganders from visiting their own family who actually where dying. There are a lot of people, bipartisan, that are ****ed off about this pattern of “do as I say but not as I do” behavior amongst our political leadership. The FAA will barely issue a wee wee slap here.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter, people have a short memory. if she runs again they will reelect her
 
Clip4 said:
Who doesn’t know that transferring $27,000 from a PAC to pay for the personal transportation of a Governor isn’t illegal?.
Click to expand...
That’s not the only activity that’s being investigated, and certainly not the one being investigated by the FAA.

...and I thought it was illegal to transfer $27,000 from a PAC to pay for personal transportation, so I guess I’d be one who didn’t know.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, in terms of being directly related to aviation, the reasons she travelled, her politics, her dad's health... none of that has anything to do with the real question at hand.

Was this a charter flight, and what was the pilots' role in the flight (ie, what did they know)?
 
Clip4 said:
Who doesn’t know that transferring $27,000 from a PAC to pay for the personal transportation of a Governor isn’t illegal?.
Click to expand...
Pilots may have had no idea who was funding what.
 
Steve Costello said:
Honestly, in terms of being directly related to aviation, the reasons she travelled, her politics, her dad's health... none of that has anything to do with the real question at hand.

Was this a charter flight, and what was the pilots' role in the flight (ie, what did they know)?
Click to expand...

A pilot should know whether or not they are flying for a place that does or doesn't have a 135 cert.

Just more of her crap though.
 
MauleSkinner said:
But a 135 certificate, or lack thereof, isn’t what determines whether it’s a charter or not.
Click to expand...

True, but you should know who is who when you fly part 91. And you would know the governor isn't a board member/president/vice president/employee/etc....
 
EdFred said:
True, but you should know who is who when you fly part 91. And you would know the governor isn't a board member/president/vice president/employee/etc....
Click to expand...
But they could give a non board member/VP/employee, etc, a free ride. Who’s on board isn’t the only factor, either.
 
PaulS said:
I think where she crossed the line is paying $855 for her seat, trying to navigate one law ran her afoul of another. Other than that, if I own a jet, and a friend needs help, I should be able to help them out with my jet.
Click to expand...
Agree. The fact that money changed hands made it a problem regarding charter. There would have been no problem if money hadn't changed hands, although there have been cases where "goodwill" has also been considered compensation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top