Members oppose NBAA position...
want frax under 135 with proportional vote
1367 ballots returned.
24.4% of 5613 members listed in 1999 NBAA Directory.

Pro Pilot Staff Report and Data compiled by Conklin & de Decker

After a series of guest editorials which began in Pro Pilot's May 1998 issue with EJA's Richard Santulli stating in his Leader's Viewpoint that "Fractional ownership is good for the industry," and continuing with various viewpoints including reader responses to a question of the month on whether fractionals should be under 91 or 135, for-and-against editorials from charter operator Marc Fruchter, Captain Dan Kormanik of International Paper, NBAA President Jack Olcott and former Raytheon Aircraft President Roy Norris, the heavy mail from Pro Pilot readers indicated that a survey of NBAA member representatives would be welcome. This was especially true since at that time no plans by NBAA for a membership poll on the controversial fractional subject had been announced to sample membership opinions.

From mail received here at Pro Pilot to discussions with concerned parties, including a face-to-face meeting with Jack Olcott in his office, it appeared that there were strong differences of opinion within the NBAA membership ranks on 4 key questions. At Pro Pilot these questions were crystallized as follows: Should fractional ops be under 91 or 135? Should owners of fractional aircraft be allowed to be members of NBAA? Should owners of fractional aircraft have a full vote in NBAA or should they have a proportional vote? Has the executive leadership of NBAA properly represented your company's position and interest in recommending to FAA continued operation of fractional ownership aircraft under FAR Part 91?

Therefore, since Pro Pilot is an interactive magazine and key to its format is the collection of opinions from readers, it was decided to launch an impartial 3rd-party watchdog survey of NBAA members to discover what were the majority opinions on these 4 questions.

The 4-question ballot was formatted on August 4, 1999. Bill de Decker of Conklin & de Decker was called on the same date and asked if his research company would score the returned ballots and compile the data. Publisher Murray Smith called Jack Olcott on August 13th to inform him of the impending Pro Pilot survey of NBAA members. A fresh copy of the 1999 NBAA Directory of Member Companies, Aircraft & Personnel obtained during an earlier meeting with Olcott was used to create a mailing list of both regular and associate members. The first batch of Pro Pilot questionnaires went out in the mail to each member designated NBAA representative on August 9th. Cutoff date for returns was September 15th and as of that date a total of 1367 signed questionnaires or 24.4% was received from the 5613 mailed out. The count of regular and associate member representatives actually totalled 5619. But 6 listees that included 5 with NBAA reps who represented more than one company and Queensmith Communications, a member of NBAA since 1966 and publishers of Professional Pilot, were excluded.

Answers to the questions

Was it only a small minority of member representatives who wanted fractionals under Part 135? No. Fully 984 respondents, or 72%, of the 1367 returned signed ballots which comprised the gathered sample used for these measurements state clearly they want fractionals governed by FAR Part 135 rather than the current Part 91.

Yes, NBAA's membership says that they would accept fractionals as NBAA members. A total of 1003 respondents representing 73.4% of the total return say they will accept fractional owners as part of the membership.

But is it only a splinter group that wants fractionals to have a proportional vote in NBAA affairs? No. Fully 1097 or 80.2% of the 1367 signed and returned ballots stated that as NBAA members fractionals should receive a vote but only in direct proportion to their fractional share.

Is NBAA's membership pleased with the current executive leadership as it relates to the fractional controversy? No. Responses by 848 members or 62% of the collected sample registered dissatisfaction with the current executive leadership on this issue.

Who answered the questions?

About 63.7% of the responses came from chief pilots, aviation department managers and people with similar titles. Presidents, aircraft owners and CEOs made up the second largest group with 31.8% of respondents. Pilots, maintenance managers, sales and marketing personnel and others made up the remaining 4.5%.

An analysis was conducted to determine if any significant differences of opinion existed among the respondents themselves. Chief pilots, aviation department managers and directors of aviation returned 870 surveys. Of this group 78.9% wanted fractional operations under Part 135 and 71.5% felt misrepresented by NBAA's leadership. Presidents, CEOs and other senior managers returned 435 surveys. Out of this group 60.5% wanted fractionals under Part 135 while 49.4% felt properly represented by NBAA. Pilots, maintenance managers, sales and marketing personnel and others returned 62 surveys. Of these, 56.5% wanted fractionals under Part 135 and 51.6% felt NBAA represented them fairly.

Aircraft owners vs non-owners

This survey also searched for differences of opinion between aircraft owners and non-owners. Not surprisingly, aircraft owners represented 1260, or 92%, of respondents. Of these, 72.6% favored fractionals under Part 135. Among the non-owners, 64.5% also expressed the need for fractionals to operate under Part 135. Aircraft owners felt
much more strongly than non-owners that NBAA has not properly represented their interests. 63.8% voiced their displeasure with NBAA while 51.4% of the non-owners gave NBAA's leadership a vote of confidence.

Regional differences explored

Pro Pilot asked Conklin & de Decker to investigate if any differences of opinion existed on a regional level. Conklin & de Decker divided the US into 5 regions and scored each region according to the zip codes of the respondents. The distribution of responses matched the distribution of NBAA's membership quite closely. This analysis revealed that all regions of the country felt that fractionals belonged under Part 135. However, feelings ran a little higher when major hubs of corporate aviation were examined. The hubs of New York, Chicago, Dallas and Los Angeles were selected for examination. Two of these hubs, New York and Chicago, stood out in their responses to questions 1 and 4. Here, an average of 83.2% of the respondents wanted fractional operations under Part 135 as compared to the national average of 72%. Likewise, an average of 73.8% of respondents in New York and Chicago felt misrepresented by NBAA as compared to the national average of 62%. Dallas and Los Angeles finished closer to the national average in response to all questions.

Pro Pilot received a wide and varied commentary from NBAA members who expressed their views concerning the fractional debate. Following is a significant sampling of comments received:

Comments from NBAA members who marked their ballots in favor of Part 91

Fractional operations have so far maintained high standards of conduct. However, the FAA should maintain a watch over them. It may be necessary to consider forcing them under Part 135 if problems occur. We should allow fractionals to operate under a temporary Part 135 exemption until they can prove their ability to operate safely under Part 91.

John Brundage, ATP. Convair 580, Sr Pilot, Erim Intl, Ypsilanti MI

We must get the message across to opponents and critics of fractionals that Part 91 operations are good for the entire industry. Manufacturers, charter operators, individual owners and managers benefit alike. Nothing else in recent history has stimulated growth in general aviation the way the fractional industry has.

John Kalled, Comm-Multi-Inst. Comanche PA30, Attorney, Entreprenair, Ossipee NH

Fractional ownership makes great sense given the cost of aircraft, managing a flight department and maintenance issues. The current controversy of 91 vs 135 is yet another example of the FAA trying to regulate a part of the industry where problems don't exist.

Michael O'Toole, Private-Multi-Inst. Skymaster 337, President, Integrated Aero Systems, McLean VA

There isn't any doubt that if the FAA begins to regulate fractionals under Part 135, all other forms of Part 91 will be jeopardized. Part 91 hasn't been scrutinized by the FAA since 1972. The whole industry will be better off if the FAA keeps a "hands-off" attitude. NBAA understood the type of threat a rewrite of Part 91 would pose to its members and made the right decision.

Kent Jackson, ATP/CFII. Citation I, President, Jackson & Murphy, Overland Park KS

I feel that small fractional operators should be under Part 91. However, they should have to operate up to Part 135 standards. Let's face it, there are some fractional and partnership aircraft that aren't flown with 10 different pilots. Small fractional operators should be Part 91 while large fractionals should be under Part 135.

Harvey Meharry, ATP. Beechjet 400A, Mgr Flight Dept, Four Eight Romeo Alpha, Jacksonville TX

As Jack Olcott stated, the FAA could severely restrict the freedoms we enjoy under Part 91. If the fractionals could be moved from under Part 91 without hurting traditional flight departments, then I would support it. However, if major changes are planned, I'd take my chances leaving fractionals where they are.

Steven Rehwinkel, ATP. Citation V Ultra, Chief Pilot, Modine Manufacturing Co, Racine WI

Fractional owners are owners who make a major investment. They should have the right to fly their aircraft under Part 91. They should also have the right to full representation in NBAA. Many fractional owners of larger business aircraft pay a greater purchase price than the full owners of smaller business aircraft. Why should they have fewer rights?

Gary Arber, Comm-SEL-Inst. Cherokee PA28, Attorney, Law Office of Gary M Arber, Brookline MA

Just because a company or corporation can't afford to own an aircraft outright doesn't make them lesser than other business aircraft operators. Who cares if they're renters, fractional owners, or full owners? All that matters is for all of us who fly business aircraft to work together to advance the industry and promote aviation.

Steven Mays, Private-SEL-Inst. Duchess BE76, Senior VP, Grey Direct West, Bellevue WA

If the FAA intends to lump together reviews of bizav flight ops with fractional regulations, I prefer things be left as they are. Fractional operations are more similar to traditional flight departments than charter operations under Part 135. It appears that much of the alarm being raised involves economic concerns. We need to continue to concentrate on assuring safety.

Peter Agur Jr, ATP/CFII/Helo. Baron BE58, President, The VanAllen Group, McDonough CA

We should remember that individuals who own multiple aircraft are only allowed one vote. This same concept would work for fractional aircraft owners. Since the fractional owner has the potential to become a sole owner, participation in NBAA should be encouraged.

Steve Fushelberger, Comm-Multi-Inst. Bonanza BE33, Dir Communications, Rolls-Royce Allison, Indianapolis IN

This survey is poorly defined. Levels of NBAA's management are not addressed. Traditional aviation managers are hired to isolate owners from the challenges involved in aircraft operations. These managers are NBAA corporate member company representatives. They're actively involved in operating business aircraft. They have the background and perspective to direct NBAA's leadership. Fractional management companies have similar operational knowledge. These companies should be welcomed to register their aircraft. Give them the same voting privileges as corporate members: 1 vote.

Michael Kosar, ATP. King Air 90, 200, CE650, DA20, Director, Aircraft Management Services, Boulder CO

I'm in favor of fractionals remaining under Part 91. However, total fractional voting representation should be limited. It should be a percentage set by NBAA and restricted to prevent a disproportionate majority of fractional owners and operating companies from distilling votes.

David Deters, ATP. Citation V Ultra, Chief Pilot, Reinhart Institutional Foods, La Crosse WI

I believe this decision should be based upon safety and related issues, not emotion. I do feel strongly that NBAA should take a stand against fractional ownership companies that aggressively solicit private flight departments in an effort to convert the industry.

Cynthia Kelly, ATP. Beechjet 400A, Chief Pilot, Ring Power Corp, St. Augustine FL

I believe that fractional operations should only be placed under Part 135 to help eliminate potential safety problems. This may be helpful in the future, especially for those operations that have limited financial resources.

Gary Varnell, ATP. Learjet 24, President, Sdancune Airpark OKC, Yukon OK

Our company is exploring the fractional leasing/ownership idea. It would be very beneficial to keep regulating fractionals under Part 91.

Jason Palisin, ATP. Piper Malibu PA46, Dir Flight Ops, D & L Flyers, Dallas TX

Fractional owners should be allowed into NBAA but not as voting members. Perhaps a new membership category should be established just for fractional owners. Voting privileges are a concern. It would be too easy for fractional companies to influence voting issues due to their sheer numbers.

Kent Ramquist, ATP. Learjet 60, Mgr Flight Ops, Sundstrand Corp, Rockford IL

I believe in the spirit of the law. As long as fractional aircraft aren't being made available to the general public, they should be allowed to operate under Part 91. NBAA made the right decision and has represented my interests in this matter.

Larry Davis, ATP. Learjet 35, Chief Pilot, Warm Air, Cincinnati OH

Key to the entire fractional debate is who has operational control of the aircraft. Do the owners of the aircraft know who's operating the aircraft? Yes. Do they know where the aircraft is at a given point in time? Yes, they do. The fractional companies managing these aircraft know who's in operational control and they know where the aircraft is at all times.

Jerry Francis, ATP. Hawker 125, Chief Pilot, Omnicare, Cincinnati OH

Part 91 needs to be adjusted. Under the current rules crew flight and duty times are too easily abused. Although Part 91 works, it may be necessary to create new rules to address fractional ownership concerns.

Per Landeck, ATP. King Air 200, Chief Pilot, Yates Petroleum Corp, Artesia NM

I see no reason to put fractional ownership under Part 135. Moving fractional operations out of Part 91 would only increase operating costs and wouldn't provide owners with any extra safety.

Dan Mills, ATP. Mitsubishi MU2, Director of Transportation, Samaritan's Purse, Boone NC

There's more to this issue than the vague questions presented in this survey. No, we don't need more regulation. Yes, we do need to ensure safety. However, corporations do want to see their aviation expenses reduced or they'll start looking for alternatives to corporate air travel. Our industry needs to focus on making air travel efficient and quit fighting in the ranks. Change is here to stay. We better accept it. Or the industry will become cargo carriers just like the railroads.

Tim Edmonds, ATP/Helo. Cessna 441, Bell 206B, Aircraft Mgr, Paxton Media Group, Paducah KY

I believe NBAA has represented themselves fairly and impartially on this subject. They took a command position. If they hadn't done so, the FAA would have made the decision for us. We can only imagine the outcome. I applaud NBAA's action.

Richard Young, Comm-Multi-Inst. Baron BE58, President, R A Young & Co, Glenbrook NV

For the past 18 years, we've owned 4 different aircraft. The last was a Cessna 441, which we operated during the first 5 years of our NBAA membership. We now own a 1/4 share of a Flexjet Lear 31, which cost more than the Cessna 441. We'd be offended if we were only allowed a 1/4 vote! Fractional ownership is the best thing that's happened to business aviation.

Bob Schock, Private. Learjet 31, President & CEO, CDT Corp, Mystic CT

NBAA's leadership has represented its membership fairly considering the very complicated issues presented by the fractional debate. The FAA, with NBAA's continued input, should create another subpart to Part 91 dedicated to fractional operations. They did the same for aircraft that are now operated under the transport category.

Steve Nielsen, ATP. Challenger 601-3A, Director of Aviation, Taco Bell Corp, Santa Ana CA

Everyone knows that fractionals aren't Part 91. I instructed pilots in Citations for FlightSafety Intl. In fact, I trained a large number of EJA's pilots. Their captains really didn't care if or when they were flying under Part 91, 135 or 121!

Gregg Epps, ATP. King Air 200, Chief Pilot, Alcoa Fujikura, San Antonio TX

NBAA should consider establishing an investment requirement for fractionals to obtain voting privileges. A minimum investment between $100,000 to $500,000 of fractional shares in an aircraft would equal 1 vote. I'd like to see NBAA hold an open discussion on this matter at our annual meeting in Atlanta.

A Paul Vance, ATP. Piper Seneca PA34, Chairman, Aviation Fluids Services, Fredericktown MO

Fractional ownership under Part 91 is the best way to control cost escalation in corporate aviation. High costs and taxes are being justified under Part 135 as perceived safety benefits. Only the charter operators would benefit if fractionals were changed to being regulated under Part 135.

Dudley Humphrey, Comm-Multi-Inst. Baron BE55, President, Avlaw, Winston-Salem NC

FAA has said that fractionals belong under Part 91. If they're moved under Part 135 that might affect all of Part 91 traditional flight ops. I agree fractionals can get out of hand in their methods of approaching senior management of flight departments. But if you have your company's trust and a handle on costs and operations there shouldn't be any competition.

Bill Hodde, ATP. GIVSP, Citation V Ultra, Director Flight Ops, USAA Flight Operations, San Antonio TX

Charter services operate charter. We crew and manage a fractionally owned Citation 550 under Part 91. If FAA changes us to Part 135, it wouldn't affect us since all of our planes and pilots can operate under Part 91 or 135.

Bobby Marks, ATP. Citation II Bravo, President, Charter Services, Mobile AL

I'm growing weary of the frax debate! Isn't it the same one we had about management companies some time ago? And I'm growing tired of the articles written by charter operators telling me how expensive fractional ownership is. Please! We took a year to analyze the cost of fractional operations before purchasing our shares. Since our aircraft usage involved trip origination in different locations, often only one-way, fractional operations offered the best investment.

Jerry Lind, ATP. Sabreliner 65, Chief Pilot, Universal Forest Products, Grand Rapids MI

Has everyone forgotten that NBAA's stance on fractionals was in response to a very specific question posed by the FAA? The question was asked, "From a pure safety standpoint, should the fractionals remain under Part 91?" The directive was clear: Look only at the safety issues and nothing else!

Phil Rickert, ATP. DA50, Citation Encore 650, Dir Aircraft Operations, Hillenbrand Industries, Batesville IN

Any shift back and forth between Part 91 and Part 135 usually ends with the aircraft being operated under Part 135. Most aircraft currently flown under Part 91 are being operated up to Part 135 standards anyway. Fractionals have a good overall safety record. There's no need for additional regulation.

Allen Lambert, ATP/Helo. BE400A, Bell 407, Captain, Cambata Aviation, Millboro VA

When the safety record of the fractionals becomes as poor as the Part 135 operators, then they should be addressed. We should remember that FAA oversight of charter companies didn't prevent them from having accidents. Fractionals are safe under Part 91.

David Keys, ATP. Sabreliner 65, Chief Pilot, Pajmm Inc-Newport Group, Heathrow FL

I think safety should come first and self-regulation should be promoted where possible. Frax companies will eventually spin their customers off into their own flight departments. Fractionals have helped many new companies to become involved in corporate aviation.

Marvin Ledyard, ATP. King Air B100, Dir of Aviation, Jetman LC, Midland TX

Fractional ownership provides a solution for companies wishing to engage in corporate aviation. A fractional owner needs the flexibility of Part 91 since he's not engaged in transportation for hire. Part 135 isn't even an option. Creating a new FAR would effect all Part 91 operators since any change would have to be global.

Gunnar Stumpe, ATP. Citation II Bravo, Aviation Dept Mgr, Scott, Madden & Associates, Raleigh NC

NBAA's video was very accurate and certainly put the fractional issue into perspective. All of the arguments surrounding the fractional issue seem to be about something other than safety.

Rodney Troyer, ATP. Citation II Bravo, Chief Pilot, Therm-O-Disk, Mansfield OH.

The FAA already has more than enough control over general aviation. They don't have any right controlling fractional operations. It has been established that fractional operations are governed by Part 91 and they should remain there.

Roger Fischer, ATP. Learjet 35, AC 690, Manager, Timberline Aviation, Grand Junction CO

Statistics have shown that Part 91 flight operations performed in a professional manner have a better safety record than Part 135 air taxi operations. I can only conclude that applying Part 135 regulations to fractional operations won't provide a great advantage. Professionalism is the only way to ensure safety.

Richard Carlson, ATP. King Air 200, Manager Aviation Services, Michigan Bureau of Aeronautics, Lansing MI

Fractional ownership is the most successful business aviation program ever. It has created revenue in business aviation, service industries, fuel, maintenance programs, parts and even advertising. These operators hire more pilots and make it possible for more companies to enjoy business aircraft. Part 135 operators should stop whining and enjoy the ride.

James Haynes, Comm-Multi-Inst. Bonanza A36, President, The Aviation Group, Leesburg VA

Personally, I'm getting fed up with the needless controversy. Where's the issue? Fractional companies aren't holding themselves up as common carriers.

Barton Gault, ATP. Challenger 600, Hawker 125, Aviation Mgr, Howard S Leight & Associates, Santa Monica CA

Comments from NBAA members who marked their ballots in favor of Part 135

A fractional company's contracts and rates don't even come close to meeting FAR 91.501 subpart D. Fractionals are operating aircraft for compensation. They should be required to meet the letter of the law of FAR 135.

Bruce Cochran, ATP. Learjet 55, Chief Pilot, Emax Oil Co, Charlottesville VA

Fractional owners should be allowed membership in NBAA with limited voting rights. They should receive votes equal to their ownership. If an owner holds 1/2 of an aircraft's shares, he should receive 1/2 of a vote. If he holds 3/8 of the shares, he should receive 3/8 of a vote.

John James, ATP. Hawker 800, Chief Pilot, Ebensteiner Co, Agoura CA

Fractionals have gone behind the backs of flight department managers to promote their own interests. They present a one-sided, biased justification to CEOs and withhold information detrimental to their own interests. NBAA has given fractionals the freedom to operate unopposed. We only need to look at the corporate flight departments that no longer exist because of fractionals.

Eddie Dray, ATP/CFII. Citation II Bravo, Chief Pilot, Diemakers, Monroe City MO

We feel NBAA has sold out to the fractionals. We won't renew our membership when it expires.

Larry Wood, ATP. Citation V Ultra, Learjet 31, Aviation Mgr, Xpress Air Inc/US Xpress, Chattanooga TN

NBAA's leadership put forth its Part 91 position without polling the membership. I believe this was on purpose. I called NBAA twice and sent a letter stating my support of Part 135. I was told my input would be considered. Not likely! In talking with many of my fellow members, I have yet to find one who feels properly represented on this issue.

Terry Turgeon, ATP. Citation I, Chief Pilot, Gutmann Leather Co, Wheeling IL

Fractional ownership is nothing more than a Part 135 operation. Aircraft owners have no control whatsoever over their fraction of the airplane. Or the crew. They rarely use their own airplane and often fly on another type. It's obvious the NBAA executives forgot who brought them to the dance. They've consistently misled members about the number of flight departments closed due to fractionals. I recently interviewed candidates for a flying position. Six out of 10 had lost their jobs due to fractionals.

Richard Tracy, ATP. Challenger 601-3A, Chief Pilot, R D Hubbard Enterprises, Palm Springs CA

FAR Part 91 has no provision for fractional operations. Joint ownership of an aircraft requires the owners' names be affixed to the aircraft registration certificate. This isn't being done. If the FAA continues to ignore this oversight, I don't see a reason why an airline can't claim their ticketed passengers purchased a share of the aircraft and operate under Part 91 themselves.

Richard Meyers, Comm-Multi-Inst. King Air 200, Aviation Dept Mgr, Dan A Hughes Co, Beeville TX

Fractionals certainly come closer to Part 135 than Part 91. One possible solution would be to give fractional owners associate membership in NBAA. Also, allow fractional companies such as EJA one vote and pay membership dues for each aircraft operated. Our company has one vote and pays dues for all 5 aircraft. Why should fractionals be treated differently?

Jay Aeschliman, ATP. Falcon 10, Chief Pilot, Flight Management Corp, Sarasota FL

It would appear that the operations of fractional companies like EJA are well organized and managed. They also appear to self govern quite well. But what about the operations that aren't interested in doing the job right? They may be legal, however they aren't safe without Part 135 to bind them.

Andy Jester, ATP. Falcon 50, Chief Pilot, Kimball Intl Transit, Huntingburg IN

NBAA is wrong in its support for fractionals under Part 91. There's no resemblance between corporate aviation and fractional operations. Fractionals, as they exist, don't fit into the framework of FAR 91.501 Subpart F. NBAA has devoted a great deal of time and effort to justify placing fractionals under Part 91. This is a curious position for an organization founded to represent corporate aircraft operations. Historically, the "for profit" aspect of aircraft operations has been the accepted test of FARs. Fractional operations are unquestionably "for profit." This wholesale club membership approach to aircraft ownership may be a creative idea for circumventing FAR 135 and 121, but it certainly isn't legitimate.

Jim Pippin, Comm-Multi-Inst. Learjet 31, Chief Pilot, Llama A W Corp, Springdale AR

We're considering dropping our NBAA membership. Fractional ownership is clearly a 135 operation. It should be treated as such unless Part 135 regulations are dropped entirely.
Fat chance!

John Newlin, ATP. Learjet 55, Chief Pilot, 35-55 Partnership, Houston TX

I've just viewed the video tape explaining NBAA's stance on the fractional fracas. I don't believe the opinions of the membership were fairly represented. Safety isn't the issue. Fractionals can be safely regulated under Part 91 the same as any Part 135 carrier. The point is fractionals don't belong under Part 91. Placing them under Part 135 is the desire of the membership. Jack Olcott's continued support of fractionals under Part 91 is in direct opposition. He continues to assert that placing them under Part 135 would drag corporate operations down also. Why? How about an example? It's time to provide some concrete examples of why pulling fractionals out of Part 91 would result in changes for the rest of us.

R A Rizzo, ATP. Challenger 600, Chief Pilot, The Marmon Group, Chicago IL

NBAA is clearly broadening its scope beyond its intended purpose. NBAA is supposed to be an organization for those who operate aircraft, not ride in them. Fractional owners only care that an aircraft shows up at the appointed time. NBAA needs to straighten up and stick to the business at hand, not just try to broaden its financial base. Maybe Jack Olcott needs to start a separate organization for fractional operators and leave NBAA for what it was intended.

Roger Lone, ATP. Citation II Bravo, Chief Pilot, Charles H Murphy Family, El Dorado AR

In my mind, the entire issue was poorly handled. NBAA rushed too quickly in responding to the FAA's request and is now paying the price. NBAA's management should identify to the membership what the global changes to Part 91 might be. If they are legitimate changes, it's possible the membership may not object. A key part of this debate is that we weren't even asked to vote!

John Ransom, ATP. Hawker 800XP, Mgr Aviation, Georgia-Pacific Corp, Atlanta GA

During my previous employment with Condor Air, my flight department was approached twice by the same fractional company. This was done without a request from my principals or myself. Also, a friend of mine, who happens to have been a DA20 chief pilot at TEB, lost his position when his company bought a 1/8 share in a Citation X. Again, the fractionals approached his company in an underhanded fashion. It's almost a joke that fractional companies claim they don't approach existing flight departments without an invitation.

Raul Dominguez, ATP. Lockheed JetStar 731, Chief Pilot, Pan American Enterprises, Opa Locka FL

NBAA never asked for my opinion or comments on this issue. If NBAA doesn't start listening to the views of corporate flight department members, I probably won't support NBAA or approve of our company paying dues.

Bob Walker, ATP. King Air 100, Chief Pilot, James River Coal Co, Richmond VA

Fractional operations with multiple owners and multiple pilots don't comply with the spirit of Part 91. When fractional owners are treated as a full members, they'll dilute the force of the true NBAA members.

Mario Grisanti, Comm-Multi-Inst. Westwind I, President, Grisanti Business Aircraft, Tyler TX

Fractionals should be Part 135. NBAA isn't listening to its members. NBAA was founded to represent corporate aviation, the same corporate aviation now operating under Part 91. If NBAA's leadership doesn't change their stance on fractionals I won't renew our membership next year!

Tom Sanders, ATP. Beechjet 400A, Chief Pilot, Bissell, Grand Rapids MI

NBAA is purely representing its own interests for the purpose of pursuing maximum revenue. In many cases, the fractional ownership companies supported by NBAA's management are in direct competition with corporate flight departments. When this occurs, how can the NBAA represent both parties?

Glenn Fulp, ATP. Westwind I, Vice President, National Management Assoc, Raleigh NC

I don't see why there's even a question. Fractional ownership is simply pre-paid charter. Fractional owners have little-momentary-control of the aircraft and absolutely none over operations, maintenance, training or pilots. This is similar to air taxi operations. Air taxi operators are members of NBAA. So make fractional owners members but on a proportional basis. Unfortunately, NBAA doesn't want to hear this. They're only interested in the business part of "business aviation."

Allen Fleming, ATP. Citation Jet, Chief Pilot, Riverside Financial, Waukegan IL

I've discussed these matters with my boss, Chi-Chi Rodriguez. He feels as I do. It may be necessary to cancel our membership in NBAA. A month doesn't pass that some representative from NetJets calls Chi-Chi and tries to get him to sell our JetStar and go fractional. Fortunately, we did our homework and found the hidden costs the fractionals don't like to talk about.

David Crowe, ATP. Lockheed JetStar 731, Chief Pilot, Juan A "Chi-Chi" Rodriguez, Heathrow FL

It's obvious the leadership of NBAA no longer represents the interests of the companies that helped to found the organization. They appear to only be interested in increasing NBAA's size and power. Renewing our membership is in question.

John Ward, ATP. Hawker 800XP, Chief Pilot, Rosetree, West Mifflin PA

A basic tenet of Part 91 is that the owner has total operational control of his aircraft. He maintains it, his pilots fly it and he controls the use of it. Fractional owners perform none of these functions. In reality, all they've done is buy a block of tickets. They have little to no input on maintenance, crew training, salary, pilot qualifications or aircraft usage. How can this be Part 91?

Bill Blontly, Comm-Multi-Inst. Falcon 50, Director of Aviation, Saks, Memphis TN

I've tried to maintain a very open mind regarding fractionals. Live and let live. However, one of their pilots recently told my pilot their goal was to have his job in five years. Which they did. I'm afraid my patience has been pushed beyond what's reasonable. Fractionals are very arrogant.

Glenn Jones, ATP. Falcon 2000, Mgr Aviation, Steelcase, Grand Rapids MI

NBAA has embraced fractional ownership because it's big money. And we all know that money talks. Four traditional flight departments in our city were eliminated because of fractional ownership. My company was approached recently by fractional organizations who want to replace our flight department. Clearly, fractional ownership means the end of the traditional flight department. I hope the management of NBAA wakes up to that fact.

William Hines, Comm-Multi-Inst. KA 200, B206/212, Mgr Flight Services, Salt River Project, Phoenix AZ

After many years as a member of NBAA we declined to renew our membership. I indicated our reason was the organization's position on fractional ownership. I received a phone call from Jack Olcott. We discussed the issue. I said fractionals were operating in a Part 91 loophole. He responded that FAA changes to Part 91 would be disastrous to present Part 91 operators. I disagree. We presently operate at better than Part 91 standards. If you operate a professional and safety conscious organization you have nothing to worry about.

Carl Steffon, ATP. Hawker 1000, Chief Pilot, Stroehmann Bakeries, Coopersburg PA

This will be our last year with NBAA!

Galen Michael, ATP. Learjets 35A and 55, Dir Flight Ops, Bayer Corp, Elkhart IN

NBAA cloaks this issue in a mantle of safety. They preach about the possible changes to Part 91 as affecting all corporate operations. The real issue at stake here isn't safety, but operational control. Fractional owners don't have operational control of their aircraft. They operate as Part 135. We know the old saying, "If it quacks like a duck..." NBAA's management is totally out of touch on this issue. No winners will emerge from this situation.

Terry Clark, ATP. Citation Bravo IIS and KA 350, Aviation Dept Mgr, Teleflex, Limerick PA

I believe the NBAA has let corporate flight departments down. They're clearly looking out for more membership instead of supporting traditional flight departments. Clearly, fractional ownership conducted under Part 91 is no good for the industry. It's just another way to side-step Part 135 requirements. I wish NBAA good luck in following this philosophy of greed.

Raymond Weber, ATP. Hawker 800XP, Director Flight Ops, Gencorp, North Canton OH

Fractional ownership defeats the purpose of a company owning its own aircraft. Whatever happened to the values of privacy, aircraft flexibility, trusting a familiar crew and safety?

Robert Bordes, ATP. Falcon 20, Chief Pilot, Tidewater, New Orleans LA

There have been some far reaching negatives that NBAA has chosen to ignore. For example, all mechanical work is performed by the fractional company or its chosen outlet. This hurts the economy when only a select few are allowed to work on fractional equipment. Also, fractionals have chosen to utilize only one or two major insurance outlets. They're ignoring the long-time aviation insurance specialists. Certainly, more aircraft are being sold. But, the support industry is being fractured by the fractionals.

Chuck Wenk, Comm-Multi-Inst. Baron 58, President, Wenk Aviation Insurance Agency, Highland Park IL

I protest the organization's current position regarding fractional operations under Part 91. I'm dropping my membership in NBAA.

Warren Childers, ATP. Jetstream 32, President, Aviation Management Services, Charlotte NC

NBAA has misled the FAA. By avoiding a poll of the membership, NBAA's leaders have sent a message that 100% of NBAA supports the fractional position. This reluctance on behalf of the leadership can only be interpreted as, "Don't ask the question if you know the answer."

Marc Fruchter, ATP. Beechjet 400A, President, Marc Fruchter Aviation, Reading PA

Did everyone forget that NBAA doesn't give full voting privileges to all members? Pilots may not receive a full vote if they aren't an ATP. Or if their ops manual doesn't meet requirements. Now NBAA wants to include fractionals in the organization with full voting privileges! The day they do is the day we terminate our long standing membership.

Oliver Van Hoesen, ATP. Cessna Citation CE550, Chief Pilot, J F Wilbur Jr, Tucson AZ

Like so many industry organizations NBAA has become profit-oriented. They're simply kissing up to the big money folk! I will not rejoin NBAA.

Greg Vaughn, ATP. Cessna Citation CE550, Director of Ops, Condor Express, Danbury CT

NBAA's leadership is in direct conflict with the membership. They've deliberately misrepresented our position to the FAA by siding with the fractionals. NBAA executives commented they must look to the interests of the member companies as separate from the wishes of the members themselves. This is an insult to the integrity and professionalism of corporate pilots everywhere. We are seriously considering ending our membership in NBAA. If the FAA can't stop the abuse of our present rules, why have rules at all?

Gary Ricupero, ATP. Citation I and King Air 300, Chief Pilot, Fresh Express, Salinas CA

NBAA's management has forgotten who they represent. This fractional issue shows just to what extent they've lost touch. Only now are they getting around to surveying the membership. The questions being asked are slanted to allow the answers to reflect what they want to hear. NBAA's leadership made a big mistake in supporting fractionals and they need to admit that fact.

Clovis Crompton, ATP. Astra 1125, Aviation Dept Mgr, Hubbell Incorporated, Stratford CT

It's my feeling that the true business aircraft operators have been shortchanged by NBAA. I'm leaning very strongly toward not renewing our membership. NBAA should consider becoming the NFOA, or the National Fractional Owners Association.

Gary Britt, ATP. Falcon 20, Aviation Dept Mgr, Choo Choo Aviation, Chattanooga TN

I'm extremely displeased by the recent actions of NBAA. If they don't represent traditional flight departments, then there's no reason to remain with NBAA.

Vic Kregel, ATP/CFII. Hawker 800, Mgr Aviation, Johns Manville, Englewood CO

Show me the part of the aircraft a fractional owner holds. Better yet, just show me the aircraft!

Robert Melrose, Comm-Multi-Inst. Westwind I, Chief Pilot, OGE Energy Corp, Oklahoma City OK

Most of us in corporate aviation look at fractionals as being a thorn in the side. They do have strong marketing and it's hard for a corporate flight department to compete with that. Despite their sheer size and FAA oversight, these fractionals remain under Part 91. How long will it be before the FAA decides corporate Part 91 operators need oversight too?

Steve Bakke, ATP. Falcon 10 and 50, Mgr Flight Dept, Semitool, Kalispell MT

Fractionals are charter operations in every way except for who pays the bills. If NBAA continues to support fractional-friendly policies we'll withdraw our membership.

Keith Anderson, ATP. Gulfstream II, Aviation Dept Mgr, Cross Timbers Oil Co, Fort Worth TX

NBAA's position doesn't represent a good cross-section of the membership. Fractional ownership is nothing more than contracting a charter. They should be regulated accordingly. Remember the lousy reputation attached to time-shared real estate? Some fractionals will soon take on the same stigma. We better look out over the long run.

Ronald Klotz, Comm-Inst. Skymaster 337, Executive Dir, Pinnacle Air Network, Blufftom SC

I truly believe that fractional ownership will result in the formation of more traditional flight departments. However, I'm very worried about fractionals operating under Part 91. I'm not overly concerned about the major fractional operators, just the small one or two airplane companies. There will always be get-rich-quick shady operators. Nothing will prevent one from buying a 30 year-old B727, slapping a corporate interior inside and start selling shares. We all know about the quickie type rating schools. An inexperienced flightcrew could be hired for cheap and turned loose. I realize that placing fractionals under Part 135 or 121 will increase their costs. But there must be some type of regulatory control for their sake. It's the only way to prevent a tragic incident that will bring in the FAA.

Alec Caudell, ATP. Sabreliner 65, Chief Pilot, The GHK Corp, Oklahoma City OK

Everyone is missing the point on this issue. The reason a company has its own flight department is for quality, not economics.

Charles Preston, ATP. Westwind I, Chief Pilot, Torchmarck, Birmingham AL

Should fractional owners be allowed to join NBAA? Yes, but why would they want to? NBAA's executive leadership doesn't represent its members' positions or interests. This is exactly why we didn't renew our membership this year!

David Barnholtz, ATP. Gulfstream IV, Av Mgr/Chief Pilot, Iridium, Dulles VA

Fractional ownership is counterproductive to FBOs. Larger fleets of aircraft mean larger fuel discounts. Fractionals provide their own maintenance. They bypass established service centers. Likewise, they purchase their own avionics and parts. It's clear that fractionals are costing the industry jobs. The US government will eventually have to regulate these business practices. It's the only way to save the industry.

Howard Codney, Operating Learjet 60, President, Air Services of Cleveland, Cleveland OH

Fractional companies will only proliferate and create undesirable operators riding the wave of fractional success. Like other profit motivated companies they'll look for ways to cut costs and safety will be compromised. I don't believe we should let the market dictate safety. Regulations need to be in place before a fractional crew flying 16 hours a day crashes and kills innocent people.

Charles Vinson, ATP. Diamond MU300, Chief Pilot, Cameron Communications Corp, Sulphur LA

When Part 91 and 135 were drafted, no thought was given to the issue of fractionals. Both previous and current versions of these regulations provide no guidance on the topic. Allowing the fractional industry to police itself is a huge mistake. It would be proper if this were a limited entry situation but clearly it's not. Unfortunately, like most regulations it'll take an accident to open peoples' eyes.

Dale Nickerson, ATP. Gulfstream IV, Chief Pilot, Connell Limited Partnership, Portsmouth NH

I won't renew our membership in NBAA because of the fence riding stance of Jack Olcott.

Thomas Lendzion, ATP. Hawker 125, Director of Ops, Glieberman Aviation, Novi MI

NBAA's on-line debate has skipped some very serious issues. For example, why do fractionals have maintenance priorities at FBOs? Why are they given fuel pricing advantages and AOG parts availability preferences? Why are they allowed to monopolize simulator training slots? If these issues aren't addressed they'll create very serious problems.

Ken Rose, ATP. Beechjet 400A, Chief Pilot, Bear River Turbines, Scottsdale AZ

Upper management of corporations aren't looking at the bottom line. The astounding success of fractional operations is proof enough. Companies are spending more money and receiving less of a return. A lot of this is caused by fractional sales hype. There's simply too much money at stake for NBAA to go against the fractional lobby. I agree with a quote published recently, "It won't be long before every corporate jet will have a registration number ending in QS."

D Keith Hann, ATP. Westwind I, Chief Pilot, Basler Electric Co, Highland IL

NBAA made a tough call. I agree with their decision in respect to several factors. First, the FAA allowed a short response time. Second, a lack of response from NBAA members. And third, the FAA's threat to revise Part 91 for all business aircraft. It's tough to separate the facts from the emotion of this issue. That being said, fractional ops are Part 135 and should be treated as such.

Steven Stombaugh, ATP/CFI. Citation V Ultra, Aviation Dept Mgr, Great Lakes Chemical Corp, West Lafayette IN

We do not plan to renew our NBAA membership!

Fred Floyd, ATP/Helo. GII and Bell 206L4, Aviation Dept Mgr, Sykes Enterprises, Tampa FL

NBAA's executive leadership didn't represent the majority in this matter. At times management must take a stand in favor of unpopular issues. Remember the line, "The people don't really understand what is best for them?" Maybe that's true but in this case management was wrong. Fractional shares programs are becoming a cancer that will take over many healthy flight departments.

John Pasciutti, ATP. Falcon 50 and 900, Aviation Dept Mgr, Group Holdings, Ft Worth TX

Fractional operations in Europe are conducted differently than in the US. European ops are neither Part 91 nor Part 135. Fractionals are classified as public transport and are regulated as such.

O W Epton, ATP. Hawker 800, Corporate Chief Pilot, R M C Flight Operations, Farnborough, England

In 30 years this is the first time I've had a difference of opinion with NBAA. Why NBAA would side with non-members and spread word that only 10 flight departments had been closed due to fractionals is beyond me. There's room in this business for both fractional and corporate operations. However, if you believe fractionals only contact corporate prospects after being invited I've got some swamp land to sell you.

Dan Dill, ATP. Westwind I, Department Mgr, MAC Aviation, Tampa FL

Fractionals managed by large corporate entities should operate under Part 135. Perhaps we should create a new membership category for them within NBAA. By their very nature stand-alone corporate departments and fractional organizations have separate goals and often opposing agendas.

Benjamin Jungman, ATP. BAC111, Dir Flight Ops, Rotec Industries, Rockford IL

I've heard many horror stories from fractional crews. These crews were told to fly unusually long duty days for too many days on end. When the crews wanted to know why they were being worked so hard the response was, "This is Part 91. We can do it to you."

Henry Kliner, ATP. Diamond MU300, Chief Pilot, Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co, Warroad MN

Without a doubt fractional operations should be conducted under Part 135. Fractional owners shouldn't be allowed into NBAA. They're simply wannabe aircraft owners. We're very disappointed with NBAA and may not renew our membership.

James Grindrod Jr, ATP. Gulfstream II, Dir Aviation, Dealaero, Wilmington DE

Monday, August 16, 1999 Pro Pilot's survey shows up. Tuesday, August 17th NBAA letter describing their own survey shows up. Wednesday, August 18th NBAA survey arrives. Amazing!

Tim Mayer, ATP. Astra 1125, Chief Pilot, Pioneer Aviation, Eugene OR

We've just cancelled our membership in NBAA after many years because of this issue. They aren't hearing their members!

David Sampl, ATP. Hawker 125, Chief Pilot, Kaman Corp, Windsor Locks CT

I've been in aviation since 1964. I have a lot of friends in corporate aviation and aircraft manufacturing. The average NBAA member isn't out to run down the board or anyone that works for NBAA. However, NBAA's leadership isn't listening to it's members regarding fractional ownership. We don't need to change Part 91. Leave it alone! Fractional ownership should be under Part 135. If regulations for fractionals need changing, make those changes under Part 135. We want NBAA to put fractional ownership and its operations under Part 135. We want NBAA to put more time into issues important to members, such as ground delays at TEB. I'm not sure how long I've been an NBAA member. But if NBAA wants to keep me and other members they need to get back to the business NBAA was created for.

David Newell, ATP. Falcon 20 and 50, Director Aviation and Travel, VF Corp, Greensboro NC

As Part 91 corporate operators we're continually reminded of possession, command and control of our aircraft. Fractional owners don't have this! Why should we follow one interpretation of Part 91 and fractional owners another?

Martin Cooper, ATP. Challenger 600, Aviation Mgr, Mills Pride Partnership, West Palm Beach FL

NBAA's executive leadership was set up to watch and protect our interests. They have turned into lap dogs for the FAA. They elect the same board members year after year who fall into line with whatever the full-time leadership wants. I'm seriously considering terminating my company's NBAA membership.

Bob Jenkins, ATP. Falcon 50, Chief Pilot, M W Media, Hillsboro OR

I believe the executive leadership acted in the best interests of NBAA. Perhaps not every member will agree. But fractionals are here to stay and we have to live and work with them. In the interests of safety, Part 135 would be more appropriate for their operations. Their volume of flying per month as compared to a typical corporate flight department is considerably greater.

Fred Baudzus, ATP. Challenger 600, CEO, Global Aviation, Singapore

My thanks to Pro Pilot for doing this survey. It's obvious NBAA wasn't interested in our opinions.

Richard Simons, ATP. Gulfstream IV, Av Dept Mgr, Pilots Inc, Philadelphia PA

Fractional owners aren't true representatives of corporate aviation. They shouldn't be allowed in NBAA. How can you give someone a full vote if they don't carry the same responsibilities as most NBAA members?

Charles Peterson, ATP. Citation Encore 650, Chief Pilot, Deluxe Corp, Minneapolis MN

After all is said and done the best two-word description of fractionals is "expensive charter." The difference between corporate and charter operations is who is in control. Fractional owners don't have operational control of the aircraft. Fractional operators have this control and charge for this service. This is charter!

Rickey Lynch, ATP. Challenger 600, Chief Pilot, Lupton, Chattanooga TN

I'm an Aviation Manager of a 3 airplane traditional corporate flight department. Recently, we transitioned into managing aircraft. We have an agreement with our parent company to operate aircraft under Parts 91 and 135. We were granted a 135 operating certificate about 3 years ago. My comments on this survey, in particular the fractional program issues, will be to frame my concerns with the NBAA's position around the document Safety Guidelines & Responsibilities for Fractional Aircraft Owners and Fractional Aircraft Program Managers.

In this document it's stated, "FAR Part 91 provides sufficient means for monitoring safety issues such as aircraft airworthiness, pilot qualifications, operational control and compliance with the FARs. The safety culture practiced by operators of business aircraft provides the atmosphere of compliance needed for effective results." If this is true, why is there a Part 135? When I sought a 135 certificate, why did the FAA declare my NBAA-compliant operations manual insufficient for operating under FAR 135? One reason seems to be that the FAA understood how "pressures on commercial operators to turn a profit...could lead to abuses...1" John Olcott said at HPN Reachbac, "It's not about money!" With all due respect, he may have meant it's not about money for the president of NBAA, but it's clearly about money. And lots of it. We need to only look at Richard Santulli, Warren Buffett, Gulfstream, Falcon Jet and Flight Safety International for examples. Richard T. Santulli of Executive Jet stated, "The stock market has created trillions of dollars of wealth...It is far easier today for individuals to purchase an aircraft...It is also easier for a chief executive officer...to justify going to his board of directors to request additional aircraft.2" Another reason may be the desire of the fractionals to establish full vertical integration in the industry. Imagine Berkshire Hathaway purchasing Garrett Aviation or another full service maintenance facility. That would bode ill for the traditional flight departments by creating leverage in outsourcing maintenance, crew training or airframe acquisitions. As for training, most know that Warren Buffett owns Flight Safety Intl. With the overall lack of availability in the FlightSafety training centers today, it's not hard to imagine a time when all training slots will be held by an affiliate company of fractional program managers.

Here's another issue. NBAA states that fractional operations are eligible for membership contingent upon compliance with its Guidelines & Responsibilities. I've worked for 4 NBAA member companies during my 16 years in corporate aviation. Although NBAA bylaws require a member company to have an operations manual, it wasn't until I joined with John Pope to write a manual for my fourth company that I actually saw a corporate operations manual. Just the idea that voluntary guidelines for fractional operations will address subtle safety issues is specious. Also, NBAA didn't define Dry-Lease Aircraft Exchange. There isn't a definition for this anywhere in FAR Part 91, Subpart F. I admit there may be other sources for this with which I'm not familiar. But, it appears that NBAA invented a niche for this program and decided it should reside in Part 91 as a newly defined area.

Let's talk votes for a moment. A fractional ownership interest equal to, or greater than, one-sixteenth entitles the owner to one vote. I have 3 aircraft in my operation. I represent owners with the NBAA and get at most 3 votes. Under the Guidelines, 16 fractional owners will get 16 votes for 1 aircraft. Or the program manager will get proxy rights to 16 votes. This will
void my vote and the votes of most of my colleagues in traditional flight departments.

Another issue is operational control. Guidelines defines operational control as, "With respect to a flight, the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight." This is the FAA's keystone issue in my region. As Roy Norris stated, "Customers seldom, if ever, fly in the actual aircraft in which they have purchased a fractional share. And due to the large number of aircraft and diversity of destinations, they seldom fly with the same crew.3" I believe the same can be said for maintenance. Fractionals seldom use the same facility or technicians. I had the opportunity to speak with a fractional program crewmember. I asked where he was based. His reply was, "We're a program aircraft. We're from nowhere." As a Pro Pilot reader remarked, "When one aircraft out of a large Wichita fleet flown by pilots who reside in Dallas and Hartford picks up passengers in Atlanta...how should we construe it?4"Combine this situation with a fractional owner who finds a Falcon 50 has been substituted his Falcon 2000. See the picture? It seems a more precise definition of fractional programs would be "guaranteed charter." What do fractional owners want? What are they willing to pay a premium for? They don't want a company plane staffed by a permanent crew. It's not their concern who acquires the aircraft or how they do it. Fractional owners want an aircraft guaranteed to be at their disposal in "x" amount of hours. If the owner isn't controlling a specific aircraft, a specific crew or specific maintenance functions what exactly is he controlling? We've heard of fractional owners sharing time with non-owners. What in the Guidelines prevents an owner from doing that? Why shouldn't the entire enterprise be brought under Part 135 to insure control and accountability for everyone?

Chapter 5 of the Guidelines deals with safety and responsibilities of fractional program managers. It reads like an FAR 135 Ops Manual Checklist. My POI looked at every one of these issues during his review of my 135 manual. He didn't care about my NBAA compliant Part 91 manual. His regular visits ensure my 135 operations are conducted in strict accordance with my 135 operations manual. He doesn't really care how I conduct Part 91 operations. Once you shift maintenance programs to 135 you are always maintaining up to those standards. Also, this chapter mentions that if a fractional owner uses more than 25% in excess of his total hours, this flight time may not be operated under Part 91. Under what part will the excess time be conducted? Part 135? And why a 125% benchmark? Why can't the original share hours be conducted under the same rules?

So, who does NBAA represent? After reviewing Guidelines & Responsibilities, it's clear NBAA has sided with fractional programs to the exclusion of traditional flight departments. I feel NBAA should either take up the challenge to have Part 135 revoked as it affects corporate flight departments or create a niche that will protect traditional flight departments from Part 135. NBAA must recognize fractional programs for what they are: Guaranteed availability charter aircraft which should be governed by FAR Part 135.

Edward Goodwin, ATP. Falcon 900EX, Dir Flight Ops, Interlaken Capital Aviation Services, White Plains NY

1 Roy Norris, "Wagging the Dog-NBAA Style," Professional Pilot 33, no. 3 (1999): 25.

2 Richard Santulli, "Fractional ownership is good for the industry," Professional Pilot 32, no. 5 (1998): 56.

3 Roy Norris, Ibid., 26.

4 Jon Arnold, "Fractional Viewpoints," Professional Pilot 33, no. 3 (1999): 91.

Fractional aircraft are paid for by the flight hour. They're flown by crews who are employed by a company outside of the owner's control. This is Part 135 charter plain and simple.

Hugh Hardy, ATP. Hawker 800, Dir Aviation, Darden Restaurants, Orlando FL

Fractional ownership is just a fad. Its operation under Part 91 compromises safety. At least the traditional flight department has control over its pilots, training, aircraft flown and maintenance. Company passengers are assured of their comfort and safety. People will soon realize the true cost of fractional ownership when they find their benefits in the management companies' pockets.

Ron Buccarelli, ATP. Citation I, President, Lake Air, Fort Lauderdale FL

We won't renew our NBAA membership at this time. If and when NBAA decides to re-focus on corporate aviation, we'll consider supporting this organization.

Jim Worden, ATP. GIII and Learjet 35, Chief Pilot, The Glimcher Co, Columbus OH

NBAA has represented its members well on the safety issue concerning fractionals under Part 91. However, this is not the real issue. The FAA needs to leave Part 91 alone. What needs to be done is to find a new way to regulate this concept called "fractional ownership." In this case, one regulation does not fit all operators.

Bill Chadderdon, ATP. Falcon 20, Chief Pilot, Mutual of Omaha, Omaha NE

Much of the resentment towards fractionals is a direct result of the resentment Part 135 operators feel toward the FAA. The FAA treats Part 135 operators poorly and they're finally getting fed up with having to take it. Adding fractionals to Part 135 would actually improve NBAA's ability to tolerate the FAA's over-regulation. In essence, we should all share the pain!

John Lotzer, ATP. King Air 200, President, Gran-Aire, Milwaukee WI

Fractionals are a mask for charter and should be governed as such. Operators such as these belong to NATA, not to an association promulgated on Part 91. And why give fractionals proportional votes? If a 1/8 fractional is allowed 1 vote, why can't I have 8 votes? NBAA's leadership has been very presumptuous. I feel that as a voting member I should have been consulted, presented with the facts, heard a recommendation from the board and given a chance to vote.

Michael Meek, ATP/CFI. Falcon 20, Aviation Dept Mgr, J P Investments, Jackson MS

Fractional ownership does have its place in the industry. However, when companies choose a fractional program to augment their transportation needs they're in essence using a taxi or limo service. Seldom does the fractional owner get the same plane or crew for every flight. In some cases, fractional companies charter aircraft to use as substitutes. This is anything but Part 91.

Bruce Wickmann, ATP. Falcon 2000 and GII, President, Westshore Aviation Management, Holland MI

Fractional ownership is illegal. It's killing the small corporate aviation departments and should be stopped. Fractionals shouldn't be considered part of corporate aviation. We need to tighten Part 135 or give fractionals their own rules to fly by. Everybody knows "fractional ownership" is a play on words. It really spells "big charter under Part 91." Fractional owners should be required to fly the airplane they bought, not one just like it.

Dale Hill, ATP. King Air 200, Chief Pilot, Bank of Mississippi, Tupelo MS

Fractional ownership has opened business aviation to an entirely new marketplace. It has created new owners who are interested in efficient point-to-point transportation. Most have a modest annual need of 100-200 flight hours. Thus, they aren't as knowledgeable as traditional owners. They're far closer to a charter client. Using Part 135 and 121 would be entirely rational in this case.

James Lara, ATP. Falcon 20, General Manager Aviation, Sea Ray Boats, Alcoa TN

I think fractional ownership should change its name to fictional ownership. If I owned fractional shares, what do you think would happen if I and my fellow co-owners decided to take a day off and go to Columbus, Ohio to wash our Citation?

Mark Derickson, ATP. King Air 200, Chief Pilot, Jaymar-Ruby, Michigan City IN

If a fractional owner pays full dues to belong to NBAA, he should receive full voting privileges. Otherwise, fractional management companies should receive a single vote regardless of the number of aircraft they operate.

Niel Markussen, ATP. Falcon 2000, Mgr Flight Dept, Marwais Steel Co, Concord CA

I don't agree with NBAA's decision to back the fractionals. However, I realize the heat put on NBAA by the aircraft manufacturers and the rest of the big players must have been intense. NBAA wasn't the organization to cross this group.

Richard Hay, ATP. GIII and IV, Dir Aviation, Colleen Corp, Philadelphia PA