Order 2015-4-6 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 10th day of April, 2015

FlyBlade, Inc. Docket OST 2015-0002

Violations of 49 U.S.C. §§ 41101 and 41712 Served April 10, 2015

and 14 CFR Part 399

CONSENT ORDER

This consent order concerns unauthorized air transportation by FlyBlade, LLC,

subsequently incorporated as FlyBlade, Inc., (FlyBlade) in violation 49 U.S.C. §§ 41101 

and 41712. This order also concerns FlyBlade’s violations of 14 CFR 399.80, which 

prohibits certain practices by ticket agents that constitute unfair and deceptive practices 

and unfair methods of competition. This order directs FlyBlade to cease and desist from 

future violations of these provisions and assesses the company a compromise civil 

penalty of $80,000.

Applicable Law

In order to engage directly or indirectly in air transportation, a citizen of the United 

States1 is required to hold economic authority from the Department of Transportation 

(Department) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41101, either in the form of a “certificate of public 

convenience and necessity” or in the form of an exemption from the certificate 

requirement, such as those applicable to direct air carriers2 operating as air taxis under 

 1 A “citizen of the United States” includes a corporation organized in the United States that (1) meets 

certain specified standards regarding the citizenship of its president, officers and directors, and holders of 

its voting interest and (2) is under the actual control of citizens of the United States. 49 U.S.C. 

§ 40102(a)(15).

2 “Direct air carrier” means a certificated commuter or foreign air carrier, air taxi operator registered under 

Part 298, or a Canadian charter air taxi operator registered under Part 294, that directly engages in the 
2

14 CFR Part 298 and to indirect air carriers3 acting as public charter operators under 

14 CFR Part 380. This authority is separate and distinct from any safety authority 

required by the Federal Aviation Administration. The holding out of air service, as well 

as the actual operation of air service, constitutes “engaging” in air transportation and, if 

done without the requisite economic authority, violates 49 U.S.C. § 41101.4 Violations

of section 41101 also constitute an unfair and deceptive practice and unfair method of 

competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712.5

In addition, as ticket agents pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(45), air charter brokers may 

not create the false impression that they are direct air carriers when they are not. Such 

conduct violates 14 CFR 399.80(a). Violations 14 CFR 399.80, like violations of section 

41101, are also considered by the Department to violate 49 U.S.C. § 41712.6

Background

FlyBlade specializes in providing air transport services. It does not hold economic 

authority from the Department nor does it own or operate aircraft. FlyBlade utilizes the 

services of a Part-135 on-demand air carrier, Liberty Helicopters, Inc., (Liberty) to 

operate flights for consumers requesting air transportation. 

An investigation by the Department’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

(Enforcement Office) revealed that for a period of time in 2014, FlyBlade held itself out 

as a direct air carrier and engaged in unauthorized air transportation as an indirect air 

carrier. Specifically, FlyBlade’s website and smartphone application contained language, 

statements, and images of aircraft painted in the company’s logo that could have led a 

consumer to reasonably conclude that FlyBlade was a direct air carrier. Through

marketing strategies such as these, FlyBlade created the erroneous impression that it was 

a direct air carrier.

In addition, FlyBlade operated a system through its smartphone application where the 

first person to book an on-demand charter (“lead passenger”) contracted with FlyBlade 

for the entire cost and capacity of the aircraft. The lead passenger’s price on future 

flights would then be reduced if other paying customers agreed to join the flight. In 

essence, FlyBlade ran a system whereby it, in effect, became an unauthorized indirect air 

 operation of aircraft under a certificate, authorization, permit or exemption issued by the Department. 

14 CFR 380.2. 

3 “Indirect air carrier” means any person who undertakes to engage indirectly in air transportation 

operations and who uses for such transportation the services of a direct air carrier. 14 CFR 380.2.

4 E.g., Jet One Jets, Inc., Order 2008-3-2 (March 4, 2008).

5 E.g., I-Jet Aviation, LLC, Order 2012-10-20 (October 19, 2012). 

6 E.g., Luxury Air Jets, Inc., Order 2010-2-17 (February 19, 2010).
3

carrier. By engaging in air transportation without the requisite economic authority from 

the Department, FlyBlade violated 49 U.S.C. §§ 41101 and 41712 and 14 CFR 399.80. 

Mitigation

In mitigation, FlyBlade states that it does not believe that any of the above circumstances 

warrant enforcement action and asserts that its business model should be viewed as 

permissible. In addition, FlyBlade believes that it has a positive compliance disposition 

and states that it did not intend any violations. FlyBlade states that once it learned that its 

business model might not be viewed as permissible, it promptly sought to have 

discussions with the Enforcement Office. FlyBlade emphasizes that it cooperated fully 

with the Enforcement Office’s review and when it learned that the Enforcement Office 

did not accept its innovative business model, it immediately took steps to bring its 

business model squarely within the boundaries of the Department’s rules.

Decision

The Enforcement Office has carefully considered the information provided by FlyBlade,

but continues to believe that enforcement action is warranted. The Enforcement Office 

and FlyBlade have reached a settlement of this matter in order to avoid litigation. 

Without admitting or denying the violations described above, FlyBlade consents to the 

issuance of this order to cease and desist from future violations of 49 U.S.C. §§ 41101 

and 41712 and 14 CFR 399.80, and to the assessment of $80,000 in compromise of 

potential civil penalties otherwise due and payable pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301. 

The compromise assessment is appropriate considering the nature and extent of the 

violations described herein and serves the public interest. It establishes a strong deterrent 

to future similar unlawful practices by FlyBlade and other entities.

This order is issued under the authority contained in 14 CFR Part 1. 

ACCORDINGLY,

1. Based on the above discussion, we approve this settlement and the provisions of 

this order as being in the public interest;

2. We find that FlyBlade, Inc., violated 14 CFR 399.80(a) and 49 U.S.C. § 41101, as 

described above, by engaging in air transportation without appropriate economic 

authority;

3. We find that by violating 14 CFR 399.80(a) and 49 U.S.C. § 41101 as described 

in ordering paragraph 2 above, FlyBlade, Inc., has engaged in an unfair and 

deceptive practice and unfair method of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 

§ 41712; 
4

4. We order FlyBlade, Inc., its successors, its affiliates, and all other entities owned 

by, controlled by, or under common ownership and control with FlyBlade, Inc., 

its successors, its affiliates, and its assigns to cease and desist from further 

violations of 14 CFR 399.80(a) and 49 U.S.C. §§ 41101 and 41712;

5. We assess FlyBlade, Inc., $80,000 in compromise of civil penalties that might 

otherwise be assessed for the violations described in ordering paragraphs 2 and 3

above. Of this total penalty amount, $40,000 shall be due and payable within 

thirty (30) days of the date of issuance of this order. The remaining portion of the 

civil penalty amount, $40,000 shall become due and payable immediately if, 

within one year of the date of issuance of this order, FlyBlade, Inc., violates this 

order’s cease and desist provisions or fails to comply with the order’s payment 

provisions, in which case FlyBlade, Inc., may be subject to additional 

enforcement action for violation of this order; and

6. We order FlyBlade, Inc., to pay the penalty through Pay.gov to the account of the 

U.S. Treasury in accordance with the instructions contained in the Attachment to 

this order. Failure to pay the penalty as ordered shall subject FlyBlade, Inc., to 

the assessment of interest, penalty, and collection charges under the Debt 

Collection Act, and to possible additional enforcement action for failing to 

comply with this order.

This order will become a final order of the Department 10 days after its service date 

unless a timely petition for review is filed or the Department takes review on its own 

motion.

BY:

BLANE A. WORKIE

Assistant General Counsel for

 Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

An electronic version of this document is available at

www.regulations.gov