Tata, Singapore firm in rent-a-jet pact
Corporate fliers need not worry about flight delays or non-availability of tickets any more. Now, they can simply rent or even co-own a jet — if buying one is not an option.
Singapore-based BJETS, a business jet renting company along with the Tata Group, will launch its operations in India from May this year, its chief executive officer Mark Baier said on Tuesday. The company will be based in Hyderabad with a principal office in Mumbai.
The Tata Group is a significant investor in the joint venture, however Baier did not disclose the quantum of investment by Tatas. The aircraft renting company, he said, has ordered 50 new business jets at an estimated cost of Rs 2,400 crore.
BJETS fleet would comprise 20 Cessna Citations and 20 Hawker 850XP and 950XP jets with options for 10 more. The first 15 jets will be here by end of this year. “We see a huge market for jet rentals in India. We will target the CEOs and heads of small and medium enterprise who can not buy a jet but can rent or have fractional ownership of an aircraft,” Baier said.
Explaining the business model Baier said companies can co-own or have fractional ownership in the company that would provide them round the clock availability of an aircraft and would allow them to fly from point A to point B in the comfort of their own aircraft without having to book or wait for a scheduled flight.
Corporate jets can also be hired for 25-hour blocks, Baier said, “The top management of a company can attend several meeting at different places in the country and still be home for dinner with their families,” he added. The price for hiring a corporate jet will be modeled on the way it is done in Europe and America, Baier said.
Enter your email to get our daily newsletter in your inbox
- Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot and his former deputy Sachin Pilot tried to present a united face ahead of the assembly bypolls in four seats in the state.
- A single-judge bench of Justice Prithviraj Chavan was on February 22 hearing an appeal matter during which the appellant's advocate removed his mask in the courtroom contrary to guidelines.