What are the 15 readiness questions?

1. Have you written a mission brief that another organiser could use?

• A — 0: We have only a destination or a request to find a jet.
• B — 1: We know the cities, approximate dates and passenger count.
• C — 2: We have an itinerary, but timing, baggage or flexibility remains unresolved.
• D — 3: We have recorded airports or acceptable alternatives, local dates and time zones, arrival deadlines, passengers, bags, ground transfers and acceptable stops.

Evidence to keep: one approved brief, with essential requirements separated from preferences. NBAA’s charter guide treats passenger requirements, cabin needs, baggage and trip details as inputs to sourcing—not details to settle after aircraft selection. (nbaa.org)

2. Have you tested whether private travel is necessary for this mission?

• A — 0: We have not considered another way to complete the trip.
• B — 1: We believe private travel saves time, but have not compared itineraries.
• C — 2: We have a dated commercial alternative, but the door-to-door comparison is incomplete.
• D — 3: We have compared feasible premium-commercial, private and relevant ground options—or documented why alternatives fail—and separated cash expenditure from assumed time value.

Our recommended test: show the approver which meeting, connection, overnight stay or other requirement changes the decision. If privacy, security or personal preference is decisive, record that rationale honestly rather than relabelling it as cash savings.

3. Has the operating team assessed aircraft–mission fit?

• A — 0: We chose by photographs, brand or advertised seating.
• B — 1: Published range and seats appear sufficient.
• C — 2: The proposed aircraft type has been discussed, but loading, configuration, airport or non-stop assumptions remain open.
• D — 3: The operator has provided a written mission assessment covering the relevant passenger, baggage, configuration and airport requirements, with remaining operational conditions identified.

Programme adaptation: assess representative missions and the required flight-specific confirmation process, not an unassigned future tail number.

Why this matters: manufacturer figures have conditions. Textron’s CJ4 Gen2 product card, for example, specifies zero-wind assumptions and a ferry-mission basis for its published range. Treat brochure performance as a planning input, not confirmation of your loaded flight. (cessna.txtav.com)

4. Are the proposals genuinely comparable?

• A — 0: We are comparing advertised hourly rates.
• B — 1: We have trip totals, but the aircraft or itinerary assumptions differ.
• C — 2: We have aligned the main assumptions, but some inclusions or conditions remain unclear.
• D — 3: We have a common comparison showing mission assumptions, aircraft provision, quote validity, known total and unresolved differences—or a documented reason for using a single source.

Evidence to keep: a private jet charter quote comparison table with separate columns for known expenditure, unpriced exposure and delivery conditions. NBAA’s charter RFP asks for additional charges, cancellation and refund terms, and an estimated total including taxes and fees. (nbaa.org)

5. Have you identified taxes, extras and contingent charges?

• A — 0: We assume the quoted amount includes everything.
• B — 1: We have been told it is all-inclusive, without checking the exclusions.
• C — 2: Most charges are identified, but tax treatment or variable charges remain unresolved.
• D — 3: Each relevant charge is marked included, excluded, conditional or not applicable; applicable taxes are confirmed, and unresolved expenditure has an approval rule.

Evidence to request: the treatment of positioning, minimum billing, de-icing, crew expenses, airport charges and itinerary changes. A published flyExclusive terms document illustrates how additional charges and repricing provisions can sit alongside the trip quote; obtain the version that actually governs your booking. (d37bgjny9g6ghe.cloudfront.net)

For private jet charter taxes and fees in the USA, do not apply a universal percentage to every line. IRS guidance distinguishes taxable amounts, domestic segments, international facilities and exemptions. (irs.gov)

6. Is there a named approver and an agreed financial boundary?

• A — 0: No one has confirmed who can authorise the commitment.
• B — 1: There is an informal budget, but no written approval boundary.
• C — 2: The initial purchase is authorised, but changes, recovery expenditure or renewal decisions are not.
• D — 3: The signatory, budget, exception process and authority for additional expenditure are documented.

Evidence to keep: an approval note that identifies who may accept a cost increase, itinerary compromise or additional deposit. NBAA’s aircraft-use policy resource provides a policy-development framework, while expressly warning that its 2016 template is not current legal or tax advice. Use it for governance structure, not present-day tax conclusions. (nbaa.org)

7. Can you distinguish the seller, contracting entity, payee and operating carrier?

• A — 0: We know only the sales brand.
• B — 1: We know whether we are dealing with a broker or operator, but the legal entities are unclear.
• C — 2: The contracting entity and payee are identified, but operating-carrier disclosure or the broker’s role remains incomplete.
• D — 3: We have an entity map, the broker’s stated role where relevant, and either the operating carrier’s identity or a documented disclosure and acceptance process for later assignment.

Regulatory distinction: Part 295 requires certain broker disclosures, including the carrier, broker role and broker liability-insurance position. Total cost and specified third-party charges are among the disclosures required on request; the rule also addresses information unavailable at contracting. A late assignment is not automatically a violation. (ecfr.gov)

8. Have you checked the appropriate operating authority?

• A — 0: No authority check has been made or assigned.
• B — 1: We rely on a logo, aircraft-registration record or supplier assurance.
• C — 2: Operator evidence has been checked, but an assigned aircraft or another material authorisation question remains outstanding.
• D — 3: A competent reviewer has checked the applicable operating authority and assigned-aircraft evidence, with a repeat check required after substitution.

Programme adaptation: full points require evidence appropriate to the programme’s legal structure and a documented pre-flight verification process. They do not mean future aircraft have already been verified.

For Part 135 charter, the FAA publishes a searchable operator-and-aircraft list. If an operator or aircraft is missing, the FAA directs users to a Flight Standards District Office to verify its status; absence from the list is not, by itself, a finding of illegal operation. (faa.gov)

9. Has someone qualified reviewed insurance and flight-specific diligence?

• A — 0: We assume the sales brand has checked everything.
• B — 1: We have a safety badge or headline insurance limit only.
• C — 2: We have supporting documents, but their scope, currency or relevance to this flight has not been fully reviewed.
• D — 3: An appropriate aviation or insurance reviewer has checked the evidence against our requirements, with responsibilities assigned for later crew, aircraft or operator changes.

Evidence to request: operator insurance and applicable aircraft coverage, relevant operator assessments, and the process for checking assigned crews and replacements. NBAA recommends operator, aircraft, crew and insurance diligence; ARGUS describes TripCHEQ as an individual-flight qualification tool covering crew, aircraft and operating-certificate information. Neither a quiz score nor a badge should be treated as a safety guarantee. (nbaa.org)

10. Have you reviewed cancellation, substitution and refund terms separately?

• A — 0: We have not read the governing terms.
• B — 1: We know our cancellation penalty but little else.
• C — 2: We have reviewed the main terms, but an important scenario remains unanswered.
• D — 3: We understand the consequences of our cancellation, supplier non-performance, delay, substitution, fuel stops and partial completion, including money owed and refund or credit treatment.

Our recommended exercise: write down what happens if the principal cancels, the aircraft becomes unavailable, or the revised itinerary no longer meets the brief. A published flyExclusive agreement addresses several of these events differently, illustrating why one general reassurance about flexibility is insufficient. Your own agreement must govern the analysis. (d37bgjny9g6ghe.cloudfront.net)

11. Is there a usable recovery plan for a disrupted flight?

• A — 0: We assume another aircraft will appear.
• B — 1: We have a promise of assistance, but no explanation of responsibility or cost.
• C — 2: Replacement sourcing is described, but timing, incremental cost or an alternative travel plan remains open.
• D — 3: We have an escalation contact, recovery responsibilities, cost-allocation rules and a feasible fallback—or explicit approval to postpone or abandon the trip.

Fixed-deadline test: an offer to seek replacement lift is not the same as a commitment to deliver it by your deadline. Stratos’s recovery explanation expressly distinguishes recovery support from guaranteed replacement availability. (stratosjets.com)

Empty-leg test: Victor’s published terms make its empty-leg performance dependent on the primary charter. For this quiz, an immovable deadline supported only by an empty leg and no acceptable alternative triggers a hold. (flyvictor.com)

12. Do the access rules work on the dates you actually need?

• A — 0: We assume membership or payment means unrestricted access.
• B — 1: We know the normal booking rules, but not peak-date conditions.
• C — 2: We have the relevant calendar and rules, but have not tested our intended trips against them.
• D — 3: We have tested the required dates, notice periods, service area, aircraft access and permitted schedule changes against the written terms.

One-off charter adaptation: check quote expiry, booking confirmation and any event-specific or date-specific conditions instead of programme rules.

Why this matters: Sentient Jet’s 28 September 2026 explanation distinguishes standard-day and peak-day booking notice. Use the actual programme calendar and signed agreement rather than assuming a general availability statement covers every date. (sentient.com)

13. Have you tested the purchasing model against your actual use?

• A — 0: We selected charter, a card, membership or fractional access mainly by familiarity.
• B — 1: We compared hourly rates or a generic annual-hours threshold.
• C — 2: We modelled expected usage, but not lower usage, different missions or exit.
• D — 3: We have compared relevant models using mission-level requirements and lower/base/higher-use scenarios; for a one-off trip, we have documented why no recurring commitment is needed.

Our recommended output: compare cash committed, recurring fees, usage charges and exit assumptions separately. NetJets’ own pricing explanation distinguishes share funding, monthly management fees, occupied-hour charges and variable fuel costs—components that a headline hourly comparison would omit. (netjets.com)

A full score does not require choosing a more complex purchasing model.

14. Do you understand what happens to unused or prepaid money?

• A — 0: We have not checked the payment or balance provisions.
• B — 1: We rely on a statement such as refundable, protected or non-expiring.
• C — 2: We have reviewed expiry and refund terms, but custody, termination or recovery of funds remains unclear.
• D — 3: Finance and, where appropriate, counsel have reviewed the payee, fund arrangements, refund conditions, expiry, renewal, termination and relevant exit exposure; the decision owner has accepted the documented risks.

One-off charter adaptation: apply the same test to the trip deposit, cancellation exposure and refund process. Do not award automatic points simply because there is no membership.

Why this matters: NetJets’ published comparison distinguishes share rollover from termination of remaining card hours at contract end. That is a programme-specific example—not a universal rule for jet cards. Obtain your own contract’s answer. (netjets.com)

15. Can you execute the decision securely and preserve an auditable record?

• A — 0: Documents and payment instructions are scattered or unchecked.
• B — 1: We have a folder, but no independent payment verification or final document review.
• C — 2: Controls exist, but a critical payment, privacy or evidence-checking step remains outstanding.
• D — 3: The final record is human-checked; payment details are independently verified; sensitive information is restricted; and any AI-extracted terms and calculations are checked against their sources.

The FBI recommends independently verifying payment requests and changes to account details. FTC guidance supports collecting and retaining only necessary personal information, while NIST identifies confident but false output as a generative-AI risk. Our recommended control is therefore verification before execution, not confidence in a polished summary. (fbi.gov)