The jet card — a prepaid aviation product that promises simplified access to private aircraft in exchange for a deposit, typically between $50,000 and $500,000 — is the most marketed product in private aviation. The marketing is excellent. The contracts are complex. The gap between the two is where the product actually lives.
The appeal of the jet card is genuine. A fixed hourly rate, confirmed availability, a single relationship replacing the broker-by-broker approach, and the simplicity of prepayment rather than per-trip negotiation. For a principal whose aviation requirement is moderate — perhaps 25 to 50 hours annually — and whose routes are primarily domestic or short-haul European, a well-chosen jet card from a reputable provider is a reasonable solution.
The problem is not the product category. It is what the 47 pages of terms contain that the marketing does not mention.
What the terms actually say
Peak period surcharges. The fixed hourly rate in the marketing applies during standard availability periods. Peak periods — which include, in most jet card contracts, the weeks surrounding major holidays, specific event periods including Monaco Grand Prix week, Courchevel ski season, and the Hamptons summer — are subject to surcharges that can add 20% to 40% to the headline rate. The definition of peak period varies by provider and is sufficiently broad in some contracts to cover a significant portion of the weeks when a principal is most likely to want to fly.
Repositioning fees. The fixed rate applies to the flight the principal takes. The cost of moving the aircraft from where it is to where the principal needs it is, in many jet card contracts, either excluded, capped at a level that does not reflect actual repositioning costs, or subject to a separate fee structure that is disclosed but not prominently.
Aircraft substitution rights. The jet card contract that does not specify a tail number — which is most of them — grants the provider the right to substitute an aircraft of equivalent category if the originally assigned aircraft is unavailable. The definition of equivalent is the provider’s, not the client’s.
Expiry. Prepaid balances expire. The terms vary from 12 to 24 months in most contracts. The principal who purchases a large deposit and uses it at a slower pace than anticipated is flying against a clock. The provider who offers a generous expiry extension has usually built the cost of that extension into the pricing model.
Fuel escalation clauses. Several jet card contracts include provisions for rate adjustment if fuel costs exceed a specified threshold. The threshold and the adjustment mechanism vary. The existence of the clause means the fixed rate is fixed until it is not.
The due diligence that the market does not encourage
The jet card market does not encourage the due diligence that would reveal these terms clearly because the sales process is optimised around the simplicity proposition — one card, one rate, one relationship — and detailed term review undermines the simplicity narrative.
The principals who read the contract before signing — who have their aviation counsel or their family office legal team review the terms with the same rigour applied to any other significant financial commitment — make different purchasing decisions than those who do not.
They select providers whose terms are genuinely transparent. They negotiate specific terms that the provider is often willing to improve for a buyer who asks clearly. They understand what they have purchased and are not surprised by what it delivers.
The jet card is not a scam. It is a product whose terms reward the buyer who reads them and penalise the buyer who does not.
In private aviation, as in most things, the contract is the product.
Curated by: Hype Luxury
