Direct Answer
An aircraft management company can sit on either side of the line. In a Part 91 management arrangement, the company is the owner’s agent and the owner keeps operational control — the §1.1 authority over initiating, conducting, or terminating a flight. In a Part 135 charter arrangement, the company places your aircraft on its Part 135 certificate, and the certificate holder holds operational control for every charter trip it sells to paying third parties. Same company, opposite control.
Which one you are in is decided by operational control, compensation, and holding out — the 14 CFR §119.1 applicability test — not by what the management agreement is titled. Most real relationships are hybrids: the aircraft flies Part 91 for the owner when it is not chartered and Part 135 when it is, switching control status trip by trip.
Whether your arrangement is Part 91 or Part 135 — and who holds operational control under it — is a fact-specific legal question for an aviation attorney. FileFlo does not structure your deal or decide operational control. What it does is keep the records that prove who controlled each flight — the management agreement, the operational-control designation, the crew records, the OpSpecs/conformity documents, and the §91.23 filings — organized and audit-ready.
This Is a Decision, Not a Definition
If you have already read our companion piece on what operational control is in Part 135, you know the concept. This article is the next question: given that operational control matters, which way should you structure your aircraft — and who ends up holding control under each option? That is the management-company-vs-charter decision, and it is one of the most consequential calls an aircraft owner makes, because it determines who the FAA holds responsible, who carries the liability, how you are taxed, and what records you must keep.
The trouble is that the word “management” is doing two completely different jobs in the market. One company calls itself a “management company” and keeps you in control under Part 91. Another calls itself a “management company” and is really a Part 135 charter operator that wants your aircraft on its certificate. A third does both — and your aircraft moves between the two worlds depending on whether you are flying or it is being chartered. So the only way to know what you actually have is to ignore the label and look at operational control. Let us take the two clean models first, then the messy reality in between.
This is a legal & tax decision — defer it to counsel
Choosing between a Part 91 management arrangement and placing your aircraft on a Part 135 certificate has serious legal, liability, and tax consequences, and the right answer is specific to your facts. Nothing here is legal or tax advice. Before you sign a management agreement or put an aircraft on a certificate, get a written analysis from a qualified aviation attorney (and a tax advisor on the tax side). FileFlo is the records layer for owners and operators who have already chosen a structure with their advisors; it does not assess your arrangement or render legal opinions.
The Two Clean Models, Side by Side
Strip away the hybrids for a moment and there are two pure forms. Notice that almost every row below is really one underlying question — who holds operational control — expressed through a different concrete fact.
| Question | Part 91 management | Aircraft on a Part 135 certificate |
|---|---|---|
| Who holds operational control (§1.1)? | The owner | The Part 135 certificate holder (for each charter trip) |
| What is the company’s role? | The owner’s agent / service provider | The certificated operator that sells and conducts the flight |
| Who is being carried, and is it for hire? | The owner and the owner’s guests, not for hire | Paying third parties — commercial air transportation |
| Is there holding out to the public? | No | Yes — the operator holds out charter to the public |
| Certificate required? | No air carrier certificate | Yes — Part 135 certificate + OpSpecs |
| Who does the FAA hold responsible for the flight? | The owner | The certificate holder |
Part 91 management (owner keeps control)
- You own the aircraft and fly it for your own non-commercial purposes.
- The company performs functions as your agent — at your direction.
- You retain the authority to initiate, conduct, or terminate each flight.
- No paying third parties are carried; there is no holding out.
- No air carrier certificate is required for the operation.
- You — the owner — are the person the FAA holds responsible.
On a Part 135 certificate (operator controls)
- Your aircraft is added to the operator’s OpSpecs and conformed to its programs.
- The certificate holder sells charter and holds out to the public.
- For each charter trip, the operator holds operational control.
- The operator carries the Part 135 operating and recordkeeping burden.
- You can typically still fly the aircraft yourself under Part 91 off-charter.
- The certificate holder is the party the FAA holds responsible for the trip.
The mechanics of actually getting your aircraft onto a certificate — adding it to the operator’s operations specifications and conforming it to the approved maintenance, training, and manual programs — are a topic of their own. See adding an aircraft to a Part 135 certificate (conformity) and operations specifications (OpSpecs) explained. For the “am I even allowed to charge for this?” threshold, start with Part 91 vs Part 135: compensation or hire.
Operational Control Is the Hinge
Every part of this decision swings on a single concept: operational control, defined in 14 CFR §1.1 as “the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight.” In a genuine Part 91 management arrangement, the owner holds that authority and the company acts on the owner’s behalf. When the aircraft is on a Part 135 certificate and flies a charter, the certificate holder holds it, because the certificate holder is the one the FAA holds responsible for conducting that flight under Part 135. The reason the same management company can be on either side is that operational control is about who actually exercises the authority — not who is named in the contract or who owns the asset.
This is precisely where this article differs from our deeper dive on the concept itself. If you want the full doctrine — how operational control is defined, why it cannot be delegated away on paper, and how the FAA traces it — read what is operational control in Part 135. Here, the job is narrower: to show how the same concept lands differently depending on whether you choose management or charter, and how to keep control where you intend it to be.
Questions the FAA asks to locate operational control
Answer those honestly for a given flight and you usually know who held operational control on it — and therefore whether that flight was Part 91 or Part 135. A “Part 91 management” relationship where the answers all point to the management company is not really Part 91 in the FAA’s eyes; the company may be exercising operational control, and if it is doing so for compensation while holding out, that is commercial air transportation that needs a Part 135 certificate.
A useful definition to keep in mind: the “direct air carrier”
14 CFR §110.2 defines a direct air carrier as “a person who provides or offers to provide air transportation and who has control over the operational functions performed in providing that transportation.” That is the mirror image of management: whoever controls the operational functions — crew, dispatch, maintenance decisions, scheduling — is the one exercising operational control. A true Part 91 manager performs those functions for the owner and under the owner’s authority; a Part 135 operator performs them as the controlling carrier. Where the functions actually sit decides the answer.
If the FAA asked who controlled that flight, could you prove it?
FileFlo does not structure your management deal or decide who holds operational control — that is your aviation attorney’s job. What it does is the records work that makes your arrangement provable: classifying, version-controlling, and tracking expirations on the management agreement, the operational-control designation, your crew records, and the OpSpecs/conformity documents — so they are audit-ready, not reconstructed in a panic. Starter at $89/mo, Professional at $299/mo. 5-day free trial, no credit card required.
The Hybrid Reality: One Aircraft, Two Worlds
Most owners who use a management company are not in a pure model — they are in a hybrid. The aircraft is managed, the owner flies it under Part 91 for personal and business trips, and when the owner is not using it, the management company charters it to third parties under its Part 135 certificate to offset the cost of ownership. Crucially, operational control moves with the mission: on an owner trip, the owner holds control and the flight is Part 91; on a charter trip, the certificate holder holds control and the flight is Part 135.
This is entirely legitimate and extremely common — but it creates a documentation discipline that trips operators up. Every single flight has to be correctly characterized, because the operating rules, crew requirements, duty/rest limits, and recordkeeping obligations are different on the two sides. A flight flown for the owner’s business under Part 91, and the next flight chartered to a stranger under Part 135, are governed by different rules even though it is the same airframe, often the same crew, on the same day.
The hybrid, trip by trip
Owner trip → Part 91. The owner exercises operational control and flies for the owner’s own purposes. No charter, no holding out. Records prove the owner controlled the flight.
Charter trip → Part 135. The management company, as certificate holder, sells the trip, holds out, and holds operational control. Records prove the operator controlled the flight, under its OpSpecs.
The discipline. Each flight must be tagged to the right regime, with the records to back it up. Get the characterization wrong — e.g., a “Part 91” flight that was really a disguised charter — and you are back in illegal-charter territory.
There is also a narrower Part 91 toolkit worth knowing about. 14 CFR §91.501 (Subpart F) permits certain cost-sharing arrangements for large and turbojet aircraft — including time-sharing, interchange, and joint-ownership agreements — with their own cost rules and truth-in-leasing implications. These are not charter and do not require a Part 135 certificate, but they have precise limits and their own paperwork, and they are easy to overstep. Whether any of them fits your situation is, again, a question for aviation counsel.
The Management-Company Trap: When “Part 91” Is Really Charter
Here is where good intentions go wrong. An owner sets up a single-purpose company to “own and manage” an aircraft, hires crew through it, and lets it carry the company’s personnel — or worse, lets affiliated entities or third parties “reimburse” it for flights. On paper it is a Part 91 management structure. In substance, a company whose only business is providing air transportation, that selects and directs the crew, controls the schedule, and collects compensation for the flying, can look a great deal like an uncertificated carrier. This is the classic “flight department company” trap.
When the facts show a company providing aircraft and crew, controlling the operation, and being paid for transportation while holding out, the arrangement satisfies the FAA’s four-element test for common carriage, framed in Advisory Circular 120-12A, “Private Carriage Versus Common Carriage of Persons or Property.” That guidance describes a common carrier as one engaged in (1) a holding out of a willingness to (2) transport persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation or hire. That four-element test is FAA guidance and decades of legal interpretation — not a numbered CFR section. The hard regulatory anchors are §119.1 (who must hold a certificate) and §119.5(g), which provides that no person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate certificate and operations specifications.
You cannot label your way out of operational control
Calling a company a “management company,” titling an agreement “Part 91 management,” or routing crew through a separate entity does not make the charter analysis disappear. The FAA looks at substance over form. If the practical reality is that the company runs the flying and collects value for it — especially a company whose sole purpose is operating the aircraft — the words on the contract will not save it. Whether your specific structure crosses the line is a fact-specific legal question for aviation counsel, and one worth resolving before the first flight.
The two structures most likely to slide from legitimate management into uncertificated charter are the single-purpose flight department company and the management deal that quietly puts the manager back in control of an owner’s aircraft. We cover both in depth:
The flight department company trap
Why a single-purpose company set up just to own and fly an aircraft can be treated as an illegal charter.
The FAA’s grey-charter crackdown
How the agency pursues illegal charter — and why management arrangements are squarely in scope.
And for the related lease-based versions of the same problem — where the “management” is wrapped in a lease — see dry lease vs wet lease, aircraft leaseback and Part 135, and what “holding out” means in aviation.
Choosing Between Management and Charter: What Actually Drives It
There is no universally “right” answer — the choice depends on how you use the aircraft, how much control and privacy you want, your liability posture, and the tax picture, all of which are fact-specific. What we can do is lay out the honest trade-offs so you arrive at your attorney’s office asking the right questions.
| If you care most about… | Leans toward Part 91 management (you control) | Leans toward charter on a Part 135 cert |
|---|---|---|
| Control & privacy | You keep operational control and full say over the aircraft. | The operator controls charter trips; the aircraft is shared with paying clients. |
| Offsetting cost | No charter revenue; you bear the full cost of ownership. | Charter revenue can offset ownership cost when you are not flying. |
| Regulatory burden | Lighter operating rules; you and your manager keep Part 91 records. | Heavier Part 135 burden (OpSpecs, conformity, training, duty/rest), largely carried by the operator. |
| Liability exposure | You hold operational control — and the responsibility that comes with it. | The certificate holder is responsible for the charter flights it controls. |
| Who the FAA looks to | You, the owner. | The certificate holder, for trips on its certificate. |
A note on cost figures
Management fees, charter revenue splits, and the cost of consultants to set any of this up vary widely and there is no published price. As of 2026, expect management arrangements and any certification-adjacent work to be quoted as ranges that depend on aircraft type, utilization, and scope — get current written quotes rather than relying on a number from a blog. And remember the tax treatment of management fees, charter revenue, and depreciation is its own specialty: that belongs to a tax advisor, not to a compliance article.
If your leaning is toward charter, the practical path runs through certification and conformity. See single-aircraft Part 135 charter, do I need a Part 135 certificate to charter my plane, and how to get a Part 135 certificate. Deciding which certificate fits is its own step — see Part 135 certificate types and the certification application checklist. If your leaning is toward keeping the aircraft Part 91, the Part 91 corporate flight department records guide covers what you still must keep.
Proving Who Held Control: The Records That Show, Not Argue
Here is where the legal question hands off to a documentation one — and where FileFlo fits. The decision of which structure you are in, and who holds operational control under it, belongs to your aviation attorney. But that decision only protects you if you can prove it. When the FAA, an insurer, or a charter client asks “who controlled that flight?”, the operator who can produce the documents on demand is in an entirely different position from the one reconstructing them after the question is asked. These are the record families that establish who held control, and how FileFlo keeps them audit-ready.
The management agreement & operational-control designation
Why it establishes control
The agreement itself — and whether it casts the company as the owner’s agent (Part 91) or as a Part 135 operator. For large aircraft over 12,500 lbs, the §91.23 truth-in-leasing clause names, in large print, the one person responsible for operational control. This is the document that states, on its face, who controls the flights.
How FileFlo keeps it audit-ready
FileFlo classifies and version-controls the management agreement and any truth-in-leasing clause, with effective dates and a retained history so the operative version is never in doubt.
Crew employment & qualification records
Why it establishes control
Evidence of who employs and directs the pilots — the owner, the manager, or the certificate holder — plus pilot certificate, medical, and currency records. Crew sourcing and direction is one of the strongest factual signals of who holds operational control.
How FileFlo keeps it audit-ready
FileFlo indexes crew qualification and currency records and tracks their expirations, so the chain of who controls the crew is visible at a glance.
OpSpecs & conformity records (if on a Part 135 cert)
Why it establishes control
If the aircraft is placed on a Part 135 certificate, the operations specifications listing the aircraft and the conformity records proving it was brought into the operator’s approved maintenance, training, and manual programs — the paper that shows it is genuinely operated under that certificate.
How FileFlo keeps it audit-ready
FileFlo organizes the OpSpecs and conformity documentation alongside the agreement so the Part 135 side of a hybrid arrangement is complete and retrievable.
Flight-by-flight regime characterization
Why it establishes control
For hybrid operations, a record showing whether each flight was flown Part 91 (owner-controlled) or Part 135 (operator-controlled charter), with the supporting cost, billing, and insurance trail. This is what defends the line between owner flying and charter when each trip is questioned.
How FileFlo keeps it audit-ready
FileFlo keeps the per-flight supporting documents and the cost/insurance trail organized so each trip’s characterization can be backed up, not just asserted.
Related reading: What operational control means in Part 135 · Truth-in-leasing aircraft lease records (§91.23) · What records a Part 135 operator must keep · Adding an aircraft to a Part 135 certificate · Part 91 corporate flight department records
FileFlo is the records layer — not legal counsel, not your tax advisor, not the certification team
To be unambiguous: FileFlo is a compliance document intelligence platform that classifies, indexes, version-controls, and tracks expirations on your compliance documents. It does not structure your entity, draft or characterize your management agreement, decide whether you are in a Part 91 or Part 135 arrangement, determine who holds operational control, obtain or hold a Part 135 certificate, broker charter, or provide legal, financial, or tax advice. The management-vs-charter and operational-control determinations belong to your aviation attorney; tax questions belong to your tax advisor; certification belongs to the certificate holder and your FAA Flight Standards office. Once you and your advisors have chosen a structure, keeping the records that prove who controlled each flight — complete, current, and audit-ready — is the document problem FileFlo solves. (FileFlo does not claim SOC 2 certification.)
Frequently Asked Questions
What does an aircraft management company do?
An aircraft management company handles the day-to-day operational and administrative burden of owning an aircraft so the owner does not have to. Typical services include hiring and scheduling crew, arranging maintenance, handling flight planning and dispatch support, managing fuel and hangar, keeping the records, and providing accounting and budgeting. The critical legal variable is which of two arrangements you are in. In a pure Part 91 management arrangement, the company acts as the owner's agent and the OWNER keeps operational control — the §1.1 authority over initiating, conducting, or terminating the flight. In a Part 135 arrangement, the same company often also holds a Part 135 certificate and places your aircraft on it for charter, in which case the certificate holder — not you — holds operational control whenever the aircraft flies a charter trip. Same company, very different control, liability, and recordkeeping picture. Which one you are in is a fact-specific legal question for an aviation attorney.
Who has operational control: the owner, the management company, or the Part 135 operator?
It depends entirely on the arrangement, and that is the whole point. 14 CFR §1.1 defines operational control as the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting, or terminating a flight. In a genuine Part 91 management arrangement, the aircraft owner retains operational control — the management company is the owner's agent, performing functions on the owner's behalf and at the owner's direction. When the aircraft is placed on a management company's Part 135 certificate and flies a charter, the Part 135 certificate holder holds operational control for that flight, because the certificate holder is the one the FAA holds responsible for conducting it under Part 135. The danger zone is the in-between: a 'Part 91' management deal where the company has quietly taken over crew selection, scheduling, and dispatch and is being paid like a charter operator. There, the FAA may find the company is exercising operational control without a certificate — an illegal charter. Who holds operational control in your specific deal is a legal determination; confirm it with aviation counsel.
Is aircraft management Part 91 or Part 135?
It can be either — the label 'management' does not tell you. A Part 91 management arrangement keeps the owner in operational control and operates the aircraft for the owner's own non-commercial purposes; no air carrier certificate is required because no one is being furnished transportation for compensation and there is no holding out. A Part 135 arrangement exists when the aircraft is placed on the management company's Part 135 certificate so it can be chartered to paying third parties; those charter flights are commercial air transportation conducted under Part 135 with the certificate holder in operational control. Many real-world management relationships are hybrids: the aircraft flies Part 91 for the owner most of the time and Part 135 when chartered to others, switching operational-control status trip by trip. Whether a given flight is Part 91 or Part 135 turns on operational control, compensation, and holding out — the §119.1 applicability test — not on what the management agreement is titled.
What is the difference between an aircraft management company and a charter company?
A charter company is, by definition, a Part 135 certificate holder that holds operational control of the flights it sells and holds out to the public to transport passengers or property for compensation. An aircraft management company is a service provider hired by an owner; depending on the deal, it may keep the owner in operational control (Part 91 management) or it may also be a Part 135 operator that places the owner's aircraft on its certificate for charter. The practical distinction is who holds operational control and who is holding out: a charter operator holds out and controls; a true Part 91 manager neither holds out on the owner's behalf nor takes operational control. Confusion arises because one company frequently does both — managing aircraft under Part 91 AND running a Part 135 charter operation — so the same logo can sit on both sides of the line depending on the trip. The FAA looks at substance over form to decide which you are actually in on any given flight.
Does a management company have operational control of my aircraft?
In a properly structured Part 91 management arrangement, no — you, the owner, keep operational control, and the management company performs functions as your agent. That distinction is what keeps the arrangement on the Part 91 side of the line. But operational control can drift to the management company without anyone intending it: if the company selects and directs the crew, controls scheduling and dispatch, makes the day-to-day go/no-go and airworthiness calls, and is compensated in a way that looks like charter pricing, the FAA can find that the company is in fact exercising operational control. If it is doing that without a Part 135 certificate, that is an uncertificated commercial operation. This is exactly the 'flight department company' and sham-management trap the FAA enforces against. Whether operational control has shifted in your arrangement is a fact-specific legal question — and one your aviation attorney, not a management agreement template, should answer.
Can I put my aircraft on a management company’s Part 135 certificate to charter it?
Yes — placing your aircraft on a management company's Part 135 certificate is a common and legitimate way to charter it to third parties and offset ownership costs. When you do, the aircraft must be added to the certificate holder's operations specifications and conformed to its approved programs (maintenance, training, manuals), and the Part 135 certificate holder — not you — holds operational control whenever it flies a charter trip. You typically retain the ability to fly the aircraft yourself under Part 91 when it is not on a charter, which is why management aircraft routinely move between Part 91 (owner flying) and Part 135 (chartered) status. The trade-offs — revenue, control, liability, tax treatment, and added recordkeeping — are real and deal-specific. Whether and how to do this should be structured with an aviation attorney and a tax advisor; the mechanics of adding the aircraft are covered in our conformity guide, and FileFlo keeps the resulting records provable.
What records prove who held operational control of a managed aircraft?
When the FAA or an insurer asks who held operational control of a flight, the answer has to live in documents, not memory. The records that establish it include: the management agreement itself (and whether it casts the company as the owner's agent under Part 91 or as a Part 135 operator); for large aircraft, the §91.23 truth-in-leasing clause naming the one person responsible for operational control; crew employment and qualification records showing who selects and directs the pilots; the operations specifications and conformity records if the aircraft is on a Part 135 certificate; flight-by-flight records showing whether each trip was flown Part 91 (owner) or Part 135 (charter); and the cost, insurance, and accounting trail. FileFlo does not decide who held operational control — it classifies, indexes, version-controls, and tracks expirations on exactly these documents so the operational-control story is complete and retrievable on demand instead of reconstructed under pressure.
Does FileFlo decide my structure or who has operational control?
No. FileFlo is a compliance document intelligence platform — the records and proof layer. It does not structure your entity, draft or characterize your management agreement, decide whether you are in a Part 91 or Part 135 arrangement, determine who holds operational control, obtain or hold a Part 135 certificate, broker charter, or provide legal, financial, or tax advice. Those determinations belong to your aviation attorney, your tax advisor, the Part 135 certificate holder, and your FAA Flight Standards office. What FileFlo does is the documentation work around whatever structure you and your counsel choose: it classifies and version-controls the management agreement, the operational-control designation, crew and qualification records, OpSpecs and conformity documents, and the §91.23 filings, and it tracks their expirations — so when someone questions who controlled a flight, you can show, not argue. FileFlo does not claim SOC 2 certification.
Decide it with counsel — then prove it with records
Whether you keep your aircraft under Part 91 management or place it on a Part 135 certificate is a legal call for your aviation attorney, and the cost/tax side is a question for your tax advisor. The day-to-day job of proving who held operational control — the management agreement, the operational-control designation, the crew records, the OpSpecs and conformity documents, and the §91.23 filings — is a records problem, and that is what FileFlo solves. AI document classification. 600+ document types. One-click FAA-ready binder. Starter at $89/mo, Professional at $299/mo. No credit card required for the 5-day free trial. FileFlo does not give legal or tax advice or get you certified — it organizes and proves your compliance documents.
5-day free trial · No credit card required · Cancel anytime
Continue your aviation structure & certification reading
Reviewed by Chad Griffith, Founder, FileFlo — compliance document intelligence. Last reviewed June 15, 2026. The definition of operational control (“the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight”) is verified against 14 CFR §1.1, the “direct air carrier” definition against §110.2, the certificate-applicability rule against §119.1, and the Part 91 Subpart F cost-sharing arrangements (time-sharing, interchange, joint ownership) against §91.501, all via the Cornell Legal Information Institute. The four-element common-carriage test and the meaning of “holding out” reflect FAA guidance in Advisory Circular 120-12A and longstanding FAA legal interpretation — guidance, not regulatory text. Management-fee, charter-revenue, and consultant cost figures are market ranges as of 2026 with no published price and should be confirmed with current written quotes. This article is a compliance-document perspective and is not legal, financial, or tax advice; whether a specific arrangement is Part 91 management or Part 135 charter, and who holds operational control under it, is a determination for a qualified aviation attorney (and a tax advisor on tax questions) and your FAA Flight Standards office.