12. When is an empty-leg flight an acceptable option rather than an unsafe budget assumption?

Put this to: Doug Gollan and Marcela White.

Why it matters: the relevant distinction is schedule dependency, not a universal discount. Jet Partners’ published description explains that an empty-leg opportunity can change with the underlying mission. Treat that as a supplier explanation of the product, not independent evidence of reliability or savings. (jetpartners.aero)

Question: “What would need to be true before you allowed a fixed-deadline traveller to rely on this particular empty leg?”

A good answer should cover:

• What creates the repositioning requirement and what changes could remove it.
• Whether the agreement commits to a flight or remains conditional on another itinerary.
• The actual departure window, aircraft, operator and permitted changes.
• Cancellation notification, refund terms and whether replacement is included.
• A separately priced and feasible alternative if the opportunity disappears.

Follow-up: “Would you recommend this flight if the buyer could not afford the replacement, or could not arrive a day earlier?”

Proposed buyer test: compare the empty-leg price plus the implications of a credible fallback, not simply the empty-leg price against a full charter quotation. Do not invent cancellation probabilities to manufacture an expected-cost calculation.

Evidence to request: listing-specific terms and a fallback decision deadline. For an immovable event, make sole reliance on an empty leg an explicit approval exception rather than an invisible assumption.

Expert quote: [Pending interview, attribution and approval.]