Flying Freight / Cargo for hire???

"Salem Farm & Garden" wrote in message
news:_9TVb.206301$Rc4.1686511@attbi_s54...
| Interesting thread. What if you were flying your own freight? i.e. you
were
| in the import business and flew your DC-6 over to China a couple times a
| week to pick up products you intended to sell here? I would assume that
it
| would still fall under part 121.

No, it is still part 91. You are not holding yourself out for common
carriage of passengers or property for hire.

"Mark S Conway" wrote in message

I'm a commercial pilot and have been asked by several people if I could
bring things over for them....

Clarify, please. When you say "...I'm a commercial pilot...", do you mean
that you are employed as a pilot for an airline or other commercial
operator, or do you only mean to say that you hold a Commercial Certificate?

JG

OK... I live on Cape Cod, and fly my Piper Apache to Nantucket Island
every day for work.
I'm a painting contractor, interior / exterior.....
A friend owns a quick lube / tire place.....
He said he paid the local airlines $25K last year in freight charges...
I said, how can i get a piece of that cake...
He said he would pay me $7.00 per tire to bring them over to him...
He did 2,000 tires last year, i'm thinking i could use the extra
$14,000.00..
Now, what do you guys think????

Mark

"Mark S Conway" wrote in message
news:BCTVb.257698$I06.2780928@attbi_s01...
Now, what do you guys think????

Assuming you stick to just that one customer, based on the limited and vague
information that I've seen from the FAA on these things, it does not sound
to me like you'd have any trouble operating under Part 91, since you would
not be a common carrier, nor would you be operating one of the larger
aircraft that require adherence to Part 121 or 135 regardless of the common
carriage issue.

By the way, I also think you need three more questions to go with all those
question marks you used.

Pete

"Mark S Conway" wrote in message
news:BCTVb.257698$I06.2780928@attbi_s01...
OK... I live on Cape Cod, and fly my Piper Apache to Nantucket Island
every day for work.

He said he paid the local airlines $25K last year in freight charges...

If you want to do this, make damn sure you check it out and have all your
ducks lined up properly, because that guy who is about to lose 25K of
revenue to you, a part 91 operator, will probably be on the phone to the Fed
before you have your wheels in the wells.

JG

Mark,

What you described is a Part 135 compensation. You are being
compensated for flying and you don't meet one of the exceptions. It's
that simple. Believe me, this has all been tried before. If a person
pays to have cargo or people moved by airplane, the FAR and the NTSB's
interpretation of them have been consistent, it is a for-hire
operation and the person paying for the operation is entitled to a
much higher level of qualification for the operator he is paying than
normal Part 91 ops.

The sanction you face is suspension or revocation of your certificate
and/or a civil penalty (fine) for each and every infraction, at a max
of $1,100 per infraction which can be interpreted as every flight you
make.

If you want to carry cargo for hire, you are going to have to get a
135 air taxi certificate.

Otherwise, if you are making the flight and if you are paying for it,
you can carry stuff for a friend as a favor, but you cannot charge
anything for it.

This issue comes in front of the FAA all the time from pilots trying
to find a way to build time for less money and the pilots get hammered
each time.

All the best,
Rick

"Mark S Conway" wrote in message news:BCTVb.257698$I06.2780928@attbi_s01...
OK... I live on Cape Cod, and fly my Piper Apache to Nantucket Island
every day for work.
I'm a painting contractor, interior / exterior.....
A friend owns a quick lube / tire place.....
He said he paid the local airlines $25K last year in freight charges...
I said, how can i get a piece of that cake...
He said he would pay me $7.00 per tire to bring them over to him...
He did 2,000 tires last year, i'm thinking i could use the extra
$14,000.00..
Now, what do you guys think????

Mark

OK. So what if the tire company bought a 1/10th ownership of the
airplane...for an Apache that should be $5000 or so. The tire guy has
a legitimate, fractional ownership of the plane and hires the pilot to
fly the *tire companys* plane, which he also happens to own. I know
you can't get away with having Joe Customer rent a plen the Fred Pilot
owns then turn around and hire Fred Pilot to fly it, but what part
prevents Joe Customer from hiring Fred Pilot to fly a plane that Joe
Customer already owns part of? The tire guy would still save quite a
bit of money over the long run. Why would this be different from a
fractional ownership?

Cap


(Rick Durden) wrote in message om...
Mark,

What you described is a Part 135 compensation. You are being
compensated for flying and you don't meet one of the exceptions. It's
that simple. Believe me, this has all been tried before. If a person
pays to have cargo or people moved by airplane, the FAR and the NTSB's
interpretation of them have been consistent, it is a for-hire
operation and the person paying for the operation is entitled to a
much higher level of qualification for the operator he is paying than
normal Part 91 ops.

The sanction you face is suspension or revocation of your certificate
and/or a civil penalty (fine) for each and every infraction, at a max
of $1,100 per infraction which can be interpreted as every flight you
make.

If you want to carry cargo for hire, you are going to have to get a
135 air taxi certificate.

Otherwise, if you are making the flight and if you are paying for it,
you can carry stuff for a friend as a favor, but you cannot charge
anything for it.

This issue comes in front of the FAA all the time from pilots trying
to find a way to build time for less money and the pilots get hammered
each time.

All the best,
Rick

"Mark S Conway" wrote in message news:BCTVb.257698$I06.2780928@attbi_s01...
OK... I live on Cape Cod, and fly my Piper Apache to Nantucket Island
every day for work.
I'm a painting contractor, interior / exterior.....
A friend owns a quick lube / tire place.....
He said he paid the local airlines $25K last year in freight charges...
I said, how can i get a piece of that cake...
He said he would pay me $7.00 per tire to bring them over to him...
He did 2,000 tires last year, i'm thinking i could use the extra
$14,000.00..
Now, what do you guys think????

Mark

"Mark S Conway" wrote in message news:BCTVb.257698$I06.2780928@attbi_s01...

I'm a painting contractor, interior / exterior.....
A friend owns a quick lube / tire place.....
He said he would pay me $7.00 per tire to bring them over to him...

Since the tire place does not own the aircraft, you would be "holding
out to others" (119.3, "noncommon carriage") and performing an
"all-cargo operation" (119.3), and would require an air carrier
certificate (119.5(a)).

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message om...
"Mark S Conway" wrote in message news:BCTVb.257698$I06.2780928@attbi_s01...

I'm a painting contractor, interior / exterior.....
A friend owns a quick lube / tire place.....
He said he would pay me $7.00 per tire to bring them over to him...

Since the tire place does not own the aircraft, you would be "holding
out to others" (119.3, "noncommon carriage")

Holding out is common carriage. Any solicitation of business, no matter
how small the market is holding out.

There's an AC 120-12A on the subject.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..
Holding out is common carriage. Any solicitation of business, no matter
how small the market is holding out.

There's an AC 120-12A on the subject.

You should read it. It specifically contradicts your claim that "any
solicitation of business, no matter how small the market is holding out".

In particular, it stipulates that maintaining as few as three contracts has
been held to be private carriage, not common. Unfortunately, it doesn't go
so far as to tell us exactly how many contracts put you over the common
carriage boundary, but from the AC we do know that it's somewhere between
three at the low end and eighteen to twenty-four on the high end.

I agree that open solicitation to no particular individual would be "holding
out". But having a friend to whom you offer your services, and offering
them ONLY to that friend is definitely private carriage. Just because a
pilot proposes the operation does not mean the operation is common. The
determining factor is how the proposal is made, and to what extent it is
extended to the general public.

Your interpretation sounds a lot like the private pilot restriction against
taking friends flying when they ask you to, but these are completely
different issues.

There remains open the question of whether private carriage is also subject
to 119 and related rules, or if it can be done under Part 91. Some here
have argued that even private carriage needs to be done under Part 135 or
121, but I have yet to see a convincing argument to that effect. That is, I
have seen no reference that clearly says that.

IMHO, either the difference in private and common carriage is important, in
which case the AC to which you refer clearly shows that Mark can move tires
for his friend for pay, or the difference is NOT important, in which case I
feel that the FAA is doing us all a disservice by making us worry about
what's private and what's common (even to the point of writing a detailed AC
about the subject!)

Pete