Scorecard

US Private Aviation Supplier Scorecard: How to Compare Charter Quotes, Jet Cards and Access Plans

US Private Aviation Supplier Scorecard

How should you judge a charter supplier or private-flight plan?

First establish whether the proposed service is eligible for approval. Then score aircraft suitability, total mission cost, recovery commitments and contractual exposure—not the sales brand or advertised hourly rate.

This scorecard gives executive assistants, corporate procurement teams and family offices a repeatable way to compare proposals and explain their decision to finance. It is designed for Daniel Gibbs’s Corporate Travel and Private Aviation Research desk.

Research cut-off: 16 October 2026. Geography: United States. Currency: USD.

The weights, scoring anchors, approval thresholds and worked examples below are this desk’s proposed procurement methodology, not regulatory standards, measured industry benchmarks or a prediction of safety. Named supplier documents illustrate particular contractual provisions; they are not endorsements or supplier rankings.

What should the decision file contain?

Produce five outputs for every comparison:

1. Eligibility: pass, hold or reject against non-negotiable requirements.
2. Weighted score: a maximum of 100 points, using one agreed weighting profile.
3. Evidence coverage: the percentage of weighted criteria supported well enough to score.
4. Financial exposure: known expenditure, conditional charges and prepaid commitments shown separately.
5. Approval conditions: unresolved questions, accountable owners and deadlines.

A high score cannot override an unresolved operating-authority question, a documented mission mismatch or an unacceptable contractual exposure.

What decisions does this scorecard cover?

Use it principally for on-demand business-aircraft charter, broker selection, jet-card purchases and membership renewals. Apply the programme version to fractional access only alongside specialist legal, operational and financial review.

Keep the operating framework distinct from the purchasing label. The FAA identifies Part 91 Subpart K as the framework for fractional ownership programmes; its charter resources separately address Part 135 operators. A card, membership or familiar brand name does not replace identifying the operating arrangement for the proposed flight. (faa.gov)

Use two approval stages:

• Supplier or programme approval: assess the contracting entity, operator-selection process, applicable standards, commercial terms and financial exposure. Future aircraft and crews need not already be assigned, but the agreement should specify how they will be checked.
• Individual-flight approval: verify the assigned operator and aircraft, confirm mission suitability and complete the agreed pre-flight evidence checks. Repeat the relevant checks after substitution.

This is not a complete scorecard for aircraft acquisition, aircraft-management accounting, public charters or large-airliner group transport. Those decisions need additional specialist modules.

What mission brief should every supplier receive?

Score competing proposals against the same brief. Freeze the essential requirements before evaluating suppliers; record subsequent changes rather than quietly moving the criteria to favour a preferred bid.

For the research file, use passenger counts rather than identity documents. Provide operationally required passenger information separately through the supplier’s approved process.

Which issues should stop approval before scoring begins?

Use mandatory gates before the weighted comparison. These are proposed buyer controls; where they exceed a legal minimum, treat them as purchasing requirements rather than statements of law.

The FAA advises buyers to verify the operator before booking and to look elsewhere if required authorisation is withheld. It also identifies attempts to transfer operational control to a consumer while supplying the aircraft and crew as a warning sign. (faa.gov)

Hold means unresolved—not unsafe. Reject means a documented failure against this buyer’s requirements. A supplier can be unsuitable for one mission without being unsuitable for every buyer.

What weights should buyers use?

Choose the profile before opening bids. Use the same profile for every candidate in that decision. Do not compare scores calculated under different profiles.

The smaller business-justification weight in the programme and fixed-deadline profiles assumes that the underlying travel requirement has already been approved. It does not excuse the absence of a business case.

For ordinary charter with no continuing programme balance, criterion 7 still applies: assess booking deposits, cancellation liabilities, refund arrangements and the duration of exposure. Do not automatically mark it not applicable.

How should each criterion be scored?

What does a score from zero to five mean?

Use 2 and 4 only where the reviewer explains why the evidence falls between adjacent anchors. A sales assertion alone cannot establish a contractual protection; an unanswered question is U, not automatically 0 or 1.

What do weak, acceptable and strong proposals look like?

The following anchors are proposed buyer standards, not descriptions of any named supplier.

Do not award points for aircraft age, fleet size or a safety badge in isolation. Under this methodology, points attach to relevant evidence and buyer protection—not proxies presented without context.

How do you calculate the score without hiding missing evidence?

For a fully evidenced comparison:

Weighted score = Σ [criterion weight × criterion rating ÷ 5].

Keep the underlying rating, evidence reference and reviewer rationale beside every contribution.

For unknown criteria, do not insert an average rating or redistribute their weights:

• Known contribution: total points earned from scored criteria.
• Unresolved weight: total weight assigned to U criteria.
• Possible score interval: known contribution to known contribution plus unresolved weight.
• Evidence coverage: 100 minus unresolved weight, expressed as a percentage.

For example, a proposal with 78 known points and an unscored 10-point criterion should display 78–88/100; evidence coverage 90%. It should not be presented as a completed 86.7/100 score by dividing through only the assessed weight.

Record evidence status separately:

• Verified for its purpose: for example, an official authorisation record or an executed contractual clause.
• Supplier-stated: a written representation requiring further corroboration where material.
• Assumed: a modelling input selected by the buyer.
• Unknown: evidence missing or contradictory.

Verification of a contractual promise establishes what was promised—not that future delivery is certain.

What decision thresholds should apply?

Additional controls:

• Require at least 3/5 on criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 for ordinary approval.
• Require at least 4/5 on recovery for an immovable-deadline mission, unless an independently approved alternative travel plan supplies the missing protection.
• Do not issue an unconditional approval with U criteria or failed gates.
• If candidates are within three points, treat them as a practical tie and inspect the underlying evidence rather than claiming a precise quality difference.

These thresholds are policy choices for buyers to calibrate—not statistically validated cut-offs.

How do you verify a private jet charter operator?

Check the operating carrier and authorised aircraft, not only the broker’s website or the aircraft’s registration. The FAA’s Part 135 operator-and-aircraft list is searchable by operator name or N-number and is described as updated weekly. If an operator or aircraft is absent, the FAA directs users to contact a Flight Standards District Office to verify status. (faa.gov)

Preserve the record searched, its date, the legal name and the registration number. Where the evidence conflicts, obtain clarification rather than resolving the discrepancy through assumption.

This matters particularly for automated checking: NATA reported the FAA list temporarily offline for data corrections on 3 March 2026, then reported the resource available again on 5 May 2026. Our recommendation is to treat a failed match as an investigation trigger, not an automatic finding of illegal operation. (nata.aero)

What must an air charter broker disclose?

Under 14 CFR §295.24, the pre-contract disclosures include the operating carrier, the broker’s capacity and the existence or absence and limits of specified broker liability insurance. On request, disclosures also cover relevant relationships when acting as the charterer’s agent, total cost paid through the broker and specified third-party charges. The rule addresses information initially unknown or subsequently changed and requires the relevant disclosures before transportation begins. (ecfr.gov)

Buyer action: request all six disclosure categories in writing. Ask for itemisation as a procurement requirement; the regulation does not require every component of the total price to be individually itemised. (ecfr.gov)

How should ARGUS, WYVERN and SMS evidence affect the score?

ARGUS describes TripCHEQ as flight-specific qualification software covering crew, aircraft and operating-certificate information. WYVERN describes PASS as a trip-specific assessment and distinguishes its Wingman and Registered standards. Record the actual product, standard, date and flight details rather than treating the names as interchangeable endorsements. (argus.aero)

For this scorecard, these are diligence inputs—not safety guarantees or substitutes for authorisation checks.

Also distinguish an implemented safety management system from an implementation plan. The FAA’s published timetable gives operators certificated before 28 May 2024 until 28 May 2027 to develop and implement SMS; new applications submitted on or after 28 May 2024 generally require implementation upon certification. Do not incorrectly label every existing operator without completed implementation in October 2026 as already past the deadline. (faa.gov)

How do you score aircraft suitability rather than advertised seats and range?

Require confirmation against the actual mission. Manufacturer specifications are a useful starting point, but they contain different loading and performance measures.

For example, Textron’s Citation Longitude specification lists a maximum passenger capacity of 12, maximum payload of 3,200 lb and full-fuel payload of 1,600 lb. Its separate performance page describes a 3,500-nautical-mile range with four passengers. These are different specification conditions—not a promise to carry the maximum passenger load over the maximum advertised range. (cessna.txtav.com)

Our proposed operator-confirmation checklist is:

• Confirm the offered cabin configuration and usable passenger seats.
• Assess baggage dimensions and loading, not just aggregate luggage volume.
• State the payload and fuel-stop assumptions behind the proposed itinerary.
• Identify airport, seasonal or timing qualifications requiring reassessment.
• Describe acceptable alternate airports and the resulting ground-transfer impact.
• Identify what changes would require a different aircraft or amended itinerary.

Treat a request such as “best private jet for eight passengers with luggage” as a mission-assessment question, not a model-ranking exercise. The buyer’s score should reward a documented fit and sensible contingencies, not a categorical non-stop promise.

How do you compare private jet charter quotes on total mission cost?

Create a quote equaliser before scoring price. NATA’s consumer guide identifies potential extras including landing fees, de-icing, hangar storage, taxes, crew waiting and overnight charges, and explains that logistics can affect the final charter price. (nata.aero)

Use this proposed comparison template:

Classify every item as included, separately priced, conditional or unspecified.

Present three outputs rather than a single blended estimate:

1. Known mission expenditure: confirmed non-duplicated charges and applicable quoted taxes.
2. Scenario expenditure: named contingencies priced under explicit assumptions.
3. Unpriced exposure: items that cannot yet be quantified.

Do not assign a zero value to an unspecified charge. Equally, do not add repositioning, tax or crew costs again when already included.

What US private-jet taxes should the worksheet flag?

IRS Publication 510 specifies a 7.5% tax on amounts paid for taxable transportation of persons by air and a USD 5.30 domestic-segment tax for 2026. Applicability, exemptions, international treatment and the taxable charge base require transaction-specific checking; do not apply these mechanically to every invoice or fractional arrangement. (irs.gov)

The supplier should identify its tax treatment, and an appropriately qualified adviser should resolve material uncertainty. A generic online private jet charter cost calculator is not sufficient evidence for a binding approval.

What does strong disruption protection actually look like?

Score the obligation, the funding and the feasible response—not simply the word “recovery”. Ask the supplier to walk through an aircraft-unavailable scenario using the actual itinerary.

Published terms demonstrate why this distinction matters. Aircraft Charter’s terms provide for an alternative carrier at additional cost to the customer in specified circumstances; its empty-leg clause makes performance dependent on another flight and provides for return of the charter price if that underlying flight is cancelled. Those provisions should not be scored as an unconditional replacement-flight commitment. (aircraftcharter.com)

Our fixed-deadline rule: do not make an empty leg the sole transport plan unless its failure is covered by a separately approved, feasible fallback. A refund and arrival before a fixture, performance or board meeting are different outcomes.

Which reliability statistics should buyers request?

Ask for definitions, period, flight count, exclusions and whether the evidence covers comparable operations. Separate arrival punctuality, completion, supplier-initiated cancellations and replacement outcomes.

For example, Wheels Up’s second-quarter 2026 disclosure defines A-30 punctuality as arrival within 30 minutes and excludes cancelled flights; its completion metric separately excludes customer-initiated cancellations. The buyer implication is to examine punctuality and completion together rather than treating one headline percentage as the whole service record. These are company-reported definitions, not independent assurance. (sec.gov)

NBAA’s published podcast discussion of standardised charter metrics also highlights the role of clearer performance data in buyer transparency. This scorecard translates that principle into a request for comparable denominators and exclusions. (nbaa.org)

How should a family office stress-test a jet card or membership renewal?

Replay actual missions through the proposed agreement, then test what changes when usage or timing differs. Do not select a programme solely from an annual-hours rule of thumb.

Request the complete agreement, price schedule, service-area definitions, peak calendar, incorporated policies and amendments. Build this proposed test matrix:

The 70% and 130% scenarios are modelling choices, not forecasts.

Private Jet Center’s published September 2025 terms illustrate the need for clause-level review: they add 12 minutes per leg for taxi time, apply minimum charging provisions and address surrender or conditional retention of unused hours. Analyse the applicable agreement rather than assuming an advertised hour equals an hour airborne or that unused hours automatically retain their value. Confirm whether that published version applies to the actual offer. (privatejetcenter.com)

How do you avoid counting prepaid money twice?

Maintain separate cash, consumption and remaining-exposure schedules.

Illustrative example only:

Do not add the USD 250,000 funding and USD 200,000 of flight deductions as though both were separate expenditure.

If the remaining USD 50,000 is forfeited, the buyer has paid USD 275,000 without retaining that balance. If it remains genuinely usable or is refunded, show that separately. These are procurement calculations, not accounting or tax conclusions.

How should prepaid exposure affect the score?

Ask who holds the funds, what permits withdrawal, whether any custody or protection arrangement is independently evidenced, and what remedies apply if services are not delivered. Do not assume a refund promise, separate account or use of the word escrow establishes recovery in insolvency; obtain counsel’s assessment of the actual arrangement.

As an example of why counterparty review belongs in procurement, Wheels Up’s FY2025 filing identifies future service obligations funded by customer advances and the need for sufficient working capital to meet obligations. That historical disclosure is a diligence prompt, not a conclusion about its current creditworthiness. Review subsequent disclosures before making a live decision. (sec.gov)

For fractional access, obtain a separate capital-and-exit model. NetJets’ published cost explanation distinguishes the acquisition cost, monthly management fee and occupied hourly fee. Our recommended comparison additionally shows the assumed net exit proceeds, transaction costs and financing or opportunity-cost assumptions—without counting both the full capital purchase and depreciation as the same economic cost. (netjets.com)

How should insurance and liability be assessed?

Let the buyer’s aviation insurance adviser and counsel establish the requirements; do not use an arbitrary universal limit. NBAA’s brokering guidance discusses operator insurance, additional-insured status and supplemental non-owned aircraft coverage, and recommends qualified advice on suitable coverage. (nbaa.org)

For criterion 8, request a review of:

• The insured entity, relevant aircraft, coverage period and geographic scope.
• Applicable limits, exclusions and any sublimits relevant to the mission.
• Required additional-insured protection and the supporting endorsement or policy wording.
• Broker coverage separately from operator coverage.
• Indemnities, liability limitations and the relationship between those obligations and insurance.
• The process for checking substitute aircraft and operators.

NBAA’s non-owned aircraft liability material specifically recommends obtaining both a certificate of insurance and the related endorsement when evidencing additional-insured protection. A certificate alone should not end the buyer’s review. (nbaa.org)

What would a completed charter comparison look like?

The following is entirely illustrative. It does not represent market prices, actual suppliers or a tax calculation. Assume the same approved mission, a USD 40,000 expenditure ceiling and final tax-inclusive quoted amounts.

Use the on-demand weights:

The equal cost-and-value ratings reflect different strengths: A has lower expenditure but a conditional charge; B has broader inclusion at a higher price. The reviewer must document that judgement rather than awarding the lowest headline price an automatic five.

Decision: B is the preferred candidate if all eligibility gates pass. A needs renegotiation because recovery and substitution protection fall below the proposed minimums. This conclusion does not claim B will save money or guarantee arrival.

If B’s prepayment evidence were missing, replace its eight points in criterion 7 with U: report 78–88/100, 90% evidence coverage, hold until that issue is resolved.

What should the CFO or principal actually approve?

Approve a documented commitment, not merely a supplier name. Use a one-page decision record with supporting evidence attached.

• Mission and necessity: why this trip or access plan is required.
• Alternatives: feasible commercial-premium, ground-travel and private options.
• Decision: selected supplier, contracting entity and purchasing model.
• Expenditure: known amount, named scenarios and maximum authorised commitment.
• Prepayment: maximum balance exposed, expected duration and exit conditions.
• Score: weighting profile, completed score or interval, evidence coverage and gate status.
• Conditions: specific actions required before signature, payment and flight release.
• Accountability: preparer, operational reviewer, insurance/legal reviewers where required, and signatory.

In the private-versus-commercial comparison, show actual cash expenditure separately from door-to-door time and any assumed value of executive time. Do not present a modelled productivity benefit as cash saved.

For AI-assisted charter procurement, our proposed control is straightforward: use document extraction to populate the worksheet, retain clause and page references, and have a person verify identities, prices, obligations and calculations. Do not let an automatically generated score constitute flight approval.

What clarification request can an organiser send today?

Please confirm the contracting entity, operating carrier or operator-selection process, applicable operating authority, and payment recipient. Supply the complete terms and all incorporated schedules. For our attached mission, confirm aircraft configuration, passenger and baggage suitability, expected stops and qualifications. Itemise the known total, taxes, exclusions and conditional charges. Explain cancellation, substitution, refund and recovery obligations, including who funds replacement lift. Provide the insurance evidence required by our adviser and, for programmes, the notice rules, peak calendar, expiry, refund, custody and exit provisions. Please identify any item that remains unconfirmed and when it will be resolved.

What should happen after selection?

Revalidate changed facts and test the scorecard against actual outcomes. Our proposed review triggers are a change of operator, aircraft, itinerary, passenger load, contract, insurance evidence or material financial information; programme renewal; and a material service failure.

After each mission, record:

• Final invoice versus approved known and scenario expenditure.
• Actual arrival against the buyer’s useful-arrival deadline.
• Supplier-initiated cancellations and substitutions.
• Recovery actions, expenditure and refund timing.
• Whether each significant contractual promise was fulfilled.

Use those records to calibrate future scores. Do not interpret the initial weights as proven predictors of performance.

Limits of this research: no live proposals, signed client agreements, assigned aircraft, insurer confirmations or proprietary trip reports were supplied. Public agreements illustrate possible terms but do not establish what any buyer will be offered. Operational feasibility, legal enforceability, insurance adequacy and tax treatment remain matters for the responsible operator and appropriately qualified advisers.

Sources

Primary regulatory, industry and supplier documents used in the scorecard are listed below. Older guidance is identified where relevant; public supplier materials must be reconciled with the actual offer.

1. FAA — authorised Part 135 operators and aircraft: https://www.faa.gov/about/officeorg/headquartersoffices/avs/faa-certificated-aircraft-operators-legal-part-135-holders
2. FAA — Thinking of Chartering an Aircraft?, updated 8 January 2026: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/safecharteroperations/thinking-chartering-aircraft
3. FAA — Safe Air Charter: https://www.faa.gov/charter
4. eCFR — 14 CFR Part 295, Air Charter Brokers: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-295
5. FAA — Part 91 Subpart K fractional programme approval: https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airline_certification/air_carrier/14_CFR_Part_91
6. FAA — SMS implementation timelines, updated 17 June 2026: https://www.faa.gov/faa-aviation-safety-outreach/safety-management-system
7. NATA — FAA list temporarily offline, 3 March 2026: https://nata.aero/faas-part-135-operators-and-aircraft-list-temporarily-offline-for-data-corrections/
8. NATA — FAA list available again, 5 May 2026: https://nata.aero/faa-certificated-aircraft-operators-list-now-live-on-safe-air-charter-website/
9. ARGUS — CHEQ and TripCHEQ: https://www.argus.aero/solutions/cheq-&-tripcheq
10. WYVERN — PASS reports and standards: https://www.wyvernltd.com/pass-reports/
11. Textron Aviation — Citation Longitude specifications: https://cessna.txtav.com/en/citation/longitude
12. Textron Aviation — Longitude four-passenger range description: https://txtav.com/sitecore/content/cessnaweb/home/longitude-delivers-it-all?sc_lang=en
13. NATA — Chartering an Aircraft, 2012 consumer guide linked by the FAA: https://nata.aero/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2012-chartering-an-aircraft.pdf
14. IRS — Publication 510, December 2025 edition, including 2026 adjustments: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p510
15. Aircraft Charter — published terms, empty-leg and replacement-cost provisions: https://aircraftcharter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/aircraft-charter-terms-and-conditions.pdf
16. Wheels Up — second-quarter 2026 disclosure and operating-metric definitions, SEC-hosted: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1819516/000162828026052133/ex-992xup2q2026lettertoi.htm
17. NBAA — podcast discussion of standardised charter performance metrics, 20 May 2024: https://nbaa.org/news/flight-plan/podcast-using-standardized-performance-metrics-to-enhance-the-charter-industry-part-2/
18. Private Jet Center — published September 2025 JetCard terms: https://privatejetcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/JETCARD-TC-FINAL-9-3-2572.pdf
19. Wheels Up — FY2025 Form 10-K, SEC-hosted: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1819516/000162828026016512/up-20251231.htm
20. NetJets — published explanation of private-jet cost components: https://netjets.com/en-us/private-jet-cost-pricing?gclsrc=3p.ds
21. NBAA — Best Practices for Air Charter Brokering, July 2024: https://nbaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/NBAA-Best-Practices-for-Air-Charter-Brokering.pdf
22. NBAA — Non-Owned Aircraft Liability Insurance, historical guidance: https://nbaa.org/flight-department-administration/insurance-and-risk-management/non-owned-aircraft-liability-insurance/

FAQs

What is the best way to compare private jet charter quotes?

Use the same mission brief and separate known expenditure, conditional charges and unpriced exposure. Then score suitability, recovery and contractual protection alongside cost; under this proposed methodology, the lowest headline price is not automatically the best proposal.

How do I verify a US private jet charter operator?

Check the operator and aircraft against the FAA’s Part 135 operator-and-aircraft resource and retain the dated evidence. If either is absent or the information conflicts, the FAA recommends contacting a Flight Standards District Office to verify charter status rather than assuming the operation is unauthorised. (faa.gov)

What is the difference between Part 135 charter and Part 91 Subpart K?

The FAA’s charter resources address Part 135 commuter and on-demand operations, while Part 91 Subpart K governs fractional ownership programmes. Identify the framework applicable to the actual service rather than inferring it from a card, membership or sales brand. (faa.gov)

How should ARGUS and WYVERN reports influence supplier selection?

ARGUS TripCHEQ and WYVERN PASS provide flight-specific information, but their products and assessment standards should not be treated as interchangeable. Record the report type, date and applicable flight details, and use the findings as diligence inputs rather than a guarantee of safety. (argus.aero)

Should I choose a jet card or on-demand charter?

Replay your actual missions through the proposed card agreement and compare them with equivalent charter options, including peak dates, minimums, unused balances and recovery provisions. This scorecard recommends selecting the model that fits your evidenced travel pattern rather than applying a universal annual-hours threshold.

Are empty-leg flights suitable for an immovable business deadline?

Only consider them as the sole plan if you have acceptable contractual protection or a separately approved fallback. Aircraft Charter’s published terms illustrate the problem: its empty-leg performance depends on another flight, and cancellation of that flight can leave the customer with a refund rather than replacement transport. (aircraftcharter.com)

What federal taxes should a US charter quote comparison check in 2026?

IRS Publication 510 identifies a 7.5% tax on amounts paid for taxable passenger air transportation and a USD 5.30 domestic-segment tax for 2026. Applicability, exemptions and the taxable base need transaction-specific confirmation, so do not automatically apply those figures to every private-aviation arrangement. (irs.gov)

How should missing supplier information affect the score?

Mark the criterion U for unknown, retain its weight and show a possible score interval plus evidence coverage. Under this methodology, missing evidence prevents unconditional approval but is not itself proof of poor service or unsafe operation.

What score should a private aviation supplier achieve before approval?

This proposed framework treats 85 or more out of 100 as preferred and 75–84 as potentially acceptable with documented trade-offs. Eligibility gates and minimum criterion scores still apply, so a high aggregate score cannot compensate for an unresolved authority, mission-fit or material contractual problem.

Sources

• 14 CFR Part 91, Subpart K (Part 91K) Fractional Ownership Program Application Approval Process | Federal Aviation Administration
• Thinking of Chartering an Aircraft? | Federal Aviation Administration
• FAA-certificated Aircraft Operators (Legal Part 135 holders) | Federal Aviation Administration
• FAA’s Part 135 Operators and Aircraft List Temporarily Offline for Data Corrections | National Air Transportation Association
• eCFR :: 14 CFR Part 295 -- Air Charter Brokers (FAR Part 295)
• CHEQ & TripCHEQ
• Safety Management System (SMS) | Federal Aviation Administration
• Citation Longitude
• https://nata.aero/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2012-chartering-an-aircraft.pdf
• Publication 510 (12/2025), Excise Taxes | Internal Revenue Service
• Microsoft Word - AC TCs 21.10.24 r1.docx
• www.sec.gov
• Flight Plan Podcast
• Microsoft Word - JETCARD TC FINAL 9-3-25
• up-20251231
• Private Jet Costs | Fractional Jet Ownership Cost | NetJets
• NBAA Best Practices for Air Charter Brokering – July 2024
• Non-Owned Aircraft Liability Insurance | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association
• Safe Air Charter | Federal Aviation Administration
• [https://www.faa.gov/about/officeorg/headquartersoffices/avs/faa-certificated-aircraft-operators-legal-part-135-holders](https://www.faa.gov/about/officeorg/headquartersoffices/avs/faa-certificated-aircraft-operators-legal-part-135-holders)
• [https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/safecharteroperations/thinking-chartering-aircraft](https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/safecharteroperations/thinking-chartering-aircraft)
• [https://www.faa.gov/charter](https://www.faa.gov/charter)
• [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-295](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-295)
• [https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airline_certification/air_carrier/14_CFR_Part_91](https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airline_certification/air_carrier/14_CFR_Part_91)
• [https://www.faa.gov/faa-aviation-safety-outreach/safety-management-system](https://www.faa.gov/faa-aviation-safety-outreach/safety-management-system)
• [https://nata.aero/faas-part-135-operators-and-aircraft-list-temporarily-offline-for-data-corrections/](https://nata.aero/faas-part-135-operators-and-aircraft-list-temporarily-offline-for-data-corrections/)
• [https://nata.aero/faa-certificated-aircraft-operators-list-now-live-on-safe-air-charter-website/](https://nata.aero/faa-certificated-aircraft-operators-list-now-live-on-safe-air-charter-website/)
• [https://www.argus.aero/solutions/cheq-&-tripcheq](https://www.argus.aero/solutions/cheq-&-tripcheq)
• [https://www.wyvernltd.com/pass-reports/](https://www.wyvernltd.com/pass-reports/)
• [https://cessna.txtav.com/en/citation/longitude](https://cessna.txtav.com/en/citation/longitude)
• [https://txtav.com/sitecore/content/cessnaweb/home/longitude-delivers-it-all?sc_lang=en](https://txtav.com/sitecore/content/cessnaweb/home/longitude-delivers-it-all?sc_lang=en)
• [https://nata.aero/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2012-chartering-an-aircraft.pdf](https://nata.aero/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2012-chartering-an-aircraft.pdf)
• [https://www.irs.gov/publications/p510](https://www.irs.gov/publications/p510)
• [https://aircraftcharter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/aircraft-charter-terms-and-conditions.pdf](https://aircraftcharter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/aircraft-charter-terms-and-conditions.pdf)
• [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1819516/000162828026052133/ex-992xup2q2026lettertoi.htm](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1819516/000162828026052133/ex-992xup2q2026lettertoi.htm)
• [https://nbaa.org/news/flight-plan/podcast-using-standardized-performance-metrics-to-enhance-the-charter-industry-part-2/](https://nbaa.org/news/flight-plan/podcast-using-standardized-performance-metrics-to-enhance-the-charter-industry-part-2/)
• [https://privatejetcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/JETCARD-TC-FINAL-9-3-2572.pdf](https://privatejetcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/JETCARD-TC-FINAL-9-3-2572.pdf)
• [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1819516/000162828026016512/up-20251231.htm](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1819516/000162828026016512/up-20251231.htm)
• [https://netjets.com/en-us/private-jet-cost-pricing?gclsrc=3p.ds](https://netjets.com/en-us/private-jet-cost-pricing?gclsrc=3p.ds)
• [https://nbaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/NBAA-Best-Practices-for-Air-Charter-Brokering.pdf](https://nbaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/NBAA-Best-Practices-for-Air-Charter-Brokering.pdf)
• [https://nbaa.org/flight-department-administration/insurance-and-risk-management/non-owned-aircraft-liability-insurance/](https://nbaa.org/flight-department-administration/insurance-and-risk-management/non-owned-aircraft-liability-insurance/)