United States v. Bradley, Civ. A. No. 65-H-845.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 65-H-845. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Harry E. BRADLEY, Aircraft Charters, Inc. and Houston Aviation Products Corp., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., and William B. Butler, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff.
E. P. Dee, Houston, Tex., for defendants.
The United States sued Harry E. Bradley, Aircraft Charters, Inc. ("Aircraft Charters") and Houston Aviation Products Corp. ("Aviation Products") to recover civil penalties and for an injunction, alleging that the defendants are operating without certain required certification from the Federal Aviation Agency.
Both parties agree that the sole issue before this Court is whether the defendants' operations come within the provisions of 14 C.F.R. § 121.3(f) so as to require the defendants to hold a valid commercial operator operating certificate. That regulation provides:
"No person may engage in the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire in air commerce without, or in violation of a commercial operator operating certificate and appropriate operations specifications issued under this part."
Both parties rely on the testimony of Harry E. Bradley. His testimony as to his method of operation was full, fair and candid. It is accepted by the Court.
The evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion held on December 13, 1965, revealed the following facts. Bradley is president and principal stockholder of both Aircraft Charters and Aviation Products. Aviation Products buys and sells supplies and used aircraft parts. Aircraft Charters owns several (four to six) DC3 and C47 aircraft, which are of more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated take-off weight. These aircraft have been and are being made available under lease agreements to parties wishing air service not provided by regularly scheduled commercial airlines.
In every instance where an airplane is leased, the lessee has exclusive use of it. The defendants have no control over the number of passengers or the amount of cargo carried, except perhaps to fix the upper limit that may be safely carried. The charge made by the defendants for use of an aircraft is calculated upon a mileage basis, without regard to the number of persons or amount of cargo carried. The lessee has control of times of departure and destination, weather conditions permitting, and may even divert the plane in mid-air if desired.
Under the usual lease arrangement, gas, oil, maintenance and repairs are furnished by Aircraft Charters. The crew of the plane is also furnished and paid by Bradley's company. One crew consisting of two men is on the company's payroll full time and others are employed on a daily or weekly basis, as needed. The pilot, of course, has exclusive control of the mechanics of piloting the plane, and has the responsibility to determine whether flying conditions permit the aircraft to be operated. The pilot likewise has authority to have repairs made to an aircraft under lease, and this is paid for by the lessor. Otherwise, the lessee has complete control of the aircraft.
The usual lease agreement provides that the lessor will furnish insurance on the aircraft and liability insurance for the lessee's guests, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc.
...should be found in the statute or the legislative history. However, we have been unable to find such a message. See United States v. Bradley, 252 F.Supp. 804 (S.D.Tex.1966). In short, on remand, if Allegheny's practices are found to be deceptive, and a judgment is entered against it, the tr......
-
Aircrane, Inc. v. Butterfield, Civ. A. No. 73-1964
...the validity of it was not in issue. See, e. g., B & M Leasing Co. v. United States, 331 F.2d 592 (5th Cir. 1964); United States v. Bradley, 252 F.Supp. 804 (S.D.Texas 1966). We turn now to United States v. Sikorsky H-37 Aircraft, et al.10 In this suit the government seeks to collect a civi......
-
Arkin v. Trans Intern. Airlines, Inc.
...Travel Services v. ACCI, 466 F.2d 552 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 967, 93 S.Ct. 1444, 35 L.Ed.2d 701 (1973); United States v. Bradley, 252 F.Supp. 804 (S.D.Tex.1966). Those entities "hold out to the public" that they engage in air transportation, Railway Express, 345 F.2d at 448, by ......
-
F.A.A. v. Landy
...See e.g., Aircrane, Inc. v. Butterfield, 369 F.Supp. 598, 601-03, 611-13 (E.D.Pa.1974) (three judge court); United States v. Bradley, 252 F.Supp. 804, 805 (S.D.Tex.1966). The evidence at trial was clearly sufficient to support the jury's finding that Landy and IAL operated the aircraft for ......