Individual And Family Membership Application: Fill & Download for Free

No country in the world should be subject to “caravans” of unskilled, impoverished, mendicants, demanding entry into a sovereign Nation, and demanding that Nation share their wealth with them. Do Americans see what it has done to Europe? Where does this end?As a European, I hold a US H-1B visa and have held F1 and O-1 visas. I did not gather in a horde of indigents and caravan through your border. I had a complete background and family check, had to prove financial solvency, provided the required paper work to enter the US for education and work, and waited my turn.I understand the need for skilled immigration, I hire from around the world. The US Government has the right, and the duty to its citizens to control its borders and to know who enters and why. I enter the US through Boston Logan International Airport several times a month. They have an Immigration & Customs “control” point of entry. Every country I enter, I pass through an immigration “check-point”. In Europe we learned after the Arab-Spring that open borders are costly. People with stable employment, education, and marketable skills do not group in hordes and enter nations illegally and demand benefits.Bestowing Third-World “lawbreaking” Caravan Immigrants with the US “Liberal Humane Rights (taxpayer entitlements)” such as food, clothing, modern housing, air conditioning, automobiles, phones, refrigerators, an array of non-necessary electric appliances, and consumables purchasing power is clearly a negative effect on the environment; but please consider your debt. You cannot afford handouts.Please do not confuse European benefits with US government benefits. Our own citizens and immigrants do not enjoy the extravagant benefits that those in the US are bequeathed. As a European, being poor in the US (where I was educated and have a home) is much different than anywhere in the world. Poor in the US is a two bedroom apartment, air-conditioning, food programs ample enough to be obese, cigarettes, video games, internet, a car in driveway, two flat screen televisions with cable, a cell phone, new style clothing, and a government benefit EBT card. Do not confuse what is considered poor in the US for poor in the rest of the world.As a European we are reminded, the greatest threat to global security is America's national debt. The US is in debt (with debt-to-GDP ratio over 100 percent) and this debt threatens the economy of free Western World. Adding thousands of unskilled, non-English speaking, and impoverished immigrants is a burden on the taxpayers. Adding debt for prospective voters is an irresponsible act that affects the global economy. Yes, yes, I know, it is only a few billion to buy these immigrant votes, but….Remember the outflow of gold from the US Federal Reserve System, which began in 2014 due to Obama’s poorly formulated economic plan, continues today almost without interruption. Our German government exported gold reserves from the US, returning to Germany 300 tons of ingots. The Netherlands also repatriated over a 100 tonnes of gold from the US, as did 42 other nations during the Obama failed economic plan.The world seeks to reduce dependence on the dollar. Americans must remember that in 1944 the US dollar replaced the British pound as the world reserve currency. The UK accumulated excessive debts and years of economic instability, and the pound collapsed. Is that worth adding voters to the rolls?My American employees speak of the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. They are the largest drivers of federal spending, and both of their trust funds will go to zero in less than 20 years.Remember your immigration Family Reunification Laws:The immigrant visa process begins when an American Citizen or Legal Permanent Resident files a petition with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) of the Department of Homeland Security. American Citizens may file petitions for their fiancé(e), children, spouses, parents, and siblings. Legal Permanent Residents may file petitions for children and spouses.Adding immigrants that never paid a dime into the fund and that will receive SSI and disability. Yes, I hear “they are not eligible”, I see no one starving or going without in the US. They will receive taxpayer benefits.Why would your nation add more debt due to unskilled and impoverished immigrants, when US citizens complain of rising health care costs, complain of poor infrastructure, schools that rank 37th in mathematics and 32nd in science, the student-loan bubble, pensioners low standard of living, and socialist politicians promising “everything for free!”.Necessary immigration? In Europe we know the cost of immigration. Although unlike the US, in Europe, we have declining birth rates, which our politicians use to justify our low-skill labour refugee influx. However, in the US, you have a surplus of low-skill labour, however, you have a low labour participation rate of such persons; government benefits are better than a job. I know; I hire in the US.In Europe we need unskilled workers due to low-birth rates; however, we learned a valuable lesson, all immigrants are not equal. We have a culture, we have customs, we have a history, we have a language, we have laws, and assimilation is difficult. Not all immigrants are in the best interest of the people, we need to control our borders and screen each and every “applicant”. The only way to do this is concertina wire (Razor Wire) above and below fences and walls.Yes we demand our Governments use Razor Wire and Walls. No technology will do the job. It must be purchased, many man-hours of control, observation, and maintenance. With remote technology or manpower reducing technologies, border security agents must travel to the breach point, then it is too late stop the invaders. Build the wall, protect your country, protect our investment in the US, we are doing it, it works.US citizens must ask, how can your country afford caravans of unskilled and impoverished immigrants that your working tax dollars pay for food, health-care, schooling, clothing, modern housing, air conditioning, automobiles, phones, refrigerators, an array of non-necessary electric appliances, and consumables purchasing power. Where is your “better life and opportunity?”If Americans are concerned enough about the Central-American immigrant caravans to provide them with a “better life and opportunity” what about others? World Hunger reports that 501 million people, or 47 percent of the population of sub-Saharan Africa, lived on $1.90 a day or less, a principal factor in causing widespread hunger and violence. Most are subject to violence due to lack of basic human rights. According to World Bank's report in 2016, there are 766 million extremely poor Asians suffering hunger. Most are subject to violence due to lack of basic human rights. About 519.6 million people do not have enough food to eat in Asia, and a prominent 70 percent of world’s malnourished children live on the eastern continent.These people are watching the caravans, are they next? Why not? To deny them, and allow the Central-American immigrant caravans is racist, and unacceptable? Is the definition liberal “no-borders”,“ humanitarian” , “refugee”, based on discrimination and confined to those we choose?What about the liberal rally cry, “…give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses”? Let's examine the statements original context.I have a book on “Path to U.S. Citizenship” in our office in Boston.“give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teaming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my light beside the golden door”…was a poem "The New Colossus" by poet Emma Lazarus to raise money for the construction of a pedestal for the Statue of Liberty. It was not government sanctioned or endorsed, nothing to do with American Policy, or a legislative motivated passage, it clearly did not reflect the US Government’s actions.In fact the same year, 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Chester A. Arthur. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first significant law that restricted immigration into the United States of an ethnic working group. This was one of many policies on immigration exclusions, quotas, and limitations that the US had in place during its rise as an industrial power. That Industrial power created the wealthiest nation on earth.Karl Marx wrote extensively concerning immigrant workers, central planning and immigration policy.I believe the point liberals are making is quite similar to what we are hearing in Europe: asylum and refugee status.U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) define a refugee as someone who is outside of his or her homeland, and has been persecuted in his or her homeland or has a well-founded fear of persecution there on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Political asylum is for someone already in the United States, and protects an individual from removal to a country of feared persecution.According to the European news the majority of the immigration asylum seekers are currently from Central America’s Northern Triangle region (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador). They are claiming asylum based on violence and poverty. “People pursuing economic and social migration are not refugees seeking asylum”, there is no immediate cause to enter the US for protection from persecution. In their home country (not at the border) they may fill the paperwork out, get in the queue, go through the process, and enter the US if they meet the requirements. The claim of violence and persecution in their home country may be cause for immediate action, border holding, legal hearing, and economic assistance. However,Four cities in the United States are counted the among the world's most dangerous. The cities are, in descending order of homicide rates, St. Louis, Missouri, Baltimore, Maryland, New Orleans, Louisiana and Detroit, Michigan. More dangerous than the major cities the asylum seekers come from, San Pedro Sula, Honduras; Guatemala City, Guatemala; and San Salvador, El Salvador.So the question we the world are asking, how does the US tell a mother of murdered child in one of those cities that the US is more interested in these refugees, than the children in their city? It would appear that these Democratic Party run cities should be more concerned with the death and violence within the American borders, than a photo opportunity of a “family” with no documentation that they are related. In Logan Airport I viewed these families on the television; however, no mention or pictures of the violence and murder in St. Louis, Missouri, Baltimore, Maryland, New Orleans, Louisiana and Detroit, Michigan. (I lived in the Detroit area, abject poverty and crime, where is the outcry?) It is beyond comprehension that American children are second to these so-called refugee seekers.Yes, build the wall.

So here’s the Second Amendment, as ratified:A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.In plainer, more modern English, this Amendment might read:Because having a well-armed and well-trained civilian population is necessary for that population to provide for its own security, the people of this country have a right to own, possess, carry and use weapons suitable for that purpose, and that right must not be limited.You’ll notice it gets a lot more wordy; this is because I broke out the connotations of several highly meaningful terms, which are commonly misinterpreted. The 27 words of the Second Amendment were, despite many assertions from modern scholars, very carefully chosen over multiple rounds of debate and drafting in both chambers of Congress for conciseness of language. This was for a variety of reasons, including that this document would have to be copied many times in a combination of hand-copying and typesetting in order to distribute it to the States for ratification.The version of the right to keep and bear arms (commonly abbreviated as the “RKBA”) that became the Second Amendment has its roots in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, penned by George Mason in 1776 shortly after Virginia joined with the other 12 American colonies declaring their independence from Britain. This Declaration stated, in part:That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.A decade later, Mason was one of only three delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that refused to sign the Constitution it produced. His dissent was largely on the grounds that the Constitution did not provide a similar enumeration and protection of basic rights of the people as his own State, and thus that a Federal government created and empowered by the Constitution could too easily overstep its bounds.Fellow Framer and Virginian James Madison, often considered alongside Alexander Hamilton as “the father of the Constitution”, took these concerns to heart, and incorporated the bulk of the Virginia Declaration into what was originally designed as an entirely new Article, but was eventually split into twelve separate proposed Amendments to the Constitution, ten of which were ratified to become our Bill of Rights (an eleventh Amendment, not ratified at the time, would be resurrected by a UT Austin political science student in a 1982 term paper, and was eventually ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment. But that’s a whole other answer to a whole other question).Mason’s dissent on these grounds was not alone; notably, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also produced a missive to Congress and anyone else who would listen, “The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania”, aka the “Pennsylvania Dissent”. Their version of the RKBA is derived from the Virginia Declaration, but mixes in language from the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (“Part The First” of the Massachusetts Constitution).The Massachusetts version reads:The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.The Pennsylvania Dissent split the difference, and also went into more detail as to why the right was important, and what exceptions, if any, existed to the protection of the right against government control:That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.A statement of the right to keep and bear arms that is closely related to either the Massachusetts or Pennsylvania versions is found in the constitutions of 23 states. So it’s not exactly unknown in legal circles, though SCOTUS, not being bound by any one state’s constitution in the general case, tends to consider their language primarily for educational and historical purposes, unless a provision of the state constitution is the subject of the question before the Court.So, while the 27 words ratified in 1791 represent the authoritative legal form of the right to keep and bear arms, in the interest of knowing what the RKBA actually means in today’s plain language, it’s important to consider these alternate statements of the right, written by the figures involved in debating it.There are some very common threads across all of these statements of the right; let’s examine a few in plain language.The right to keep and bear arms is a matter of defense and security. This is very plain from a reading of any of these versions of the RKBA, specifically stating that the right exists for this reason. It’s also apparently very important, given that few if any other enumerated rights in the Bill had any reason given for why they were being recognized and protected in the statement of the right itself.Many gun control advocates argue that “you can keep your hunting and target shooting firearms, therefore we are not infringing the Second Amendment”. That is a fallacy. The Second Amendment, and other statements of the RKBA, make it plain that the right exists so that people can provide for their own security, not just for their recreation or subsistence.The use of a professional, full-time armed force for domestic defense and security is a dangerous concept. The Framers learned this firsthand, as the British used enlisted military soldiers for law enforcement in the years leading up to the Declaration of Independence and in cities they controlled during the Revolutionary War. This resulted in several uses of deadly force by these troops to quell riots and other protests. The fledgling United States definitely did not want a force for law enforcement to be in the military chain of command. For such a nation to defend itself against enemies foreign and domestic, then, another solution was needed.This concept that standing armies ought not to be maintained has been significantly watered down in the wake of the Civil War, when a fundamental problem inherent in state-level organization and control of the country’s military forces was illustrated. It was accelerated with the mechanization of war in the Industrial Age, which made the materiel of war much more complex, requiring expensive upkeep of expensive armor and aircraft, and in-depth training of their operators which made them more valuable to keep around. Certainly by the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the Cold War, it was impractical not to have a sizable, professional military force to manage the materiel and support systems behind the front lines, ultimately leading to the transition to an “all-volunteer force” by the Nixon Administration. We also, over the last century or so but especially in the last 30 years, have developed a system of full-time, heavily-armed and armored forces under local control with the primary job of enforcing domestic law and order, and there are very notable cases of abuses of power within those forces.The spirit of the sentiment remains, however, as the States retain first-line control of the National Guard for their own use, and the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military being deployed domestically to enforce the laws of the United States by executive action alone (either Congress must expressly authorize such deployment, or the Constitution must explicitly grant the power to use military force in the situation presented, such as during a foreign invasion; the landmark Reconstruction case ex parte Millegan further defines situations in which martial law either may or must not not be imposed).The right refers to an individual’s ability to access weapons. This is most clearly illustrated in Pennsylvania’s version. The inclusion of the purpose of killing game makes the right specifically applicable to the activities of an individual person, and the declaration also specifically says that no law may disarm the people “or any of them”. While other statements of the right are not this specific, other uses of “the people” in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are at least dualist in connotation, referring to citizens of the country both as a corporate group and individually.The First Amendment, for instance, is commonly dualist in interpretation with regard to “the right[s] of the people” it contains. Religious expression, assembly and petition to government are, by nature or definition, corporate activities typically undertaken by groups of people, and are protected as such. However any single person also has the right and free choice to identify as a member of a religious or ideological group, to speak their own individual mind whether it agrees or contrasts with any such group, and to communicate directly to legislators and executives in government, unaffiliated with any corporate advocate. The Fourth Amendment, another mention of “the right of the people”, is almost universally considered a right of individual persons, and has never in any case law been predicated on identity as a member of any group smaller than that of all residents of the United States.A major tenet of the dissent in Heller v. D.C. as heard at the Circuit level, which was then brought to SCOTUS by the Solicitor General, was the idea that the 2A was a corporate right only; the right belonged to “people” in an aggregate sense, similar to the way we use the term “taxpayers” to refer to Americans in general in their capacity to foot the bill for government activities and projects. No one “taxpayer” owns or has direct and unfettered access to any specific part of public works, or military materiel, but these are produced, maintained and used for the benefit of all such taxpayers. Thus, the argument was made that the right to keep and bear arms was limited to the ownership of arms by corporate groups of people not directly controlled by the Federal government, and that exercising the right required active membership in such a group. Proponents of this argument further contend that just such a group - the National Guard - exists, and provides arms to its members as required in their duties, therefore the laws in DC restricting ownership of weapons by type and requiring secure unloaded storage at all times was not infringing the RKBA as the laws didn’t affect the National Guard.This is an incorrect interpretation, as SCOTUS unanimously agreed even among the dissents to the majority opinion. George Mason said it himself; the militia is “the whole people, except for a few public officials”, whether they identify as part of a group more specific than “Citizens of the United States” or not. Further, the National Guard, while available for use by state governments in a variety of situations, is ultimately administered by the Federal government, and the President has ultimate authority over when they’re called up and what they do where, overriding the States’ ability to do the same. They cannot, therefore, be “the militia” that Mason was talking about.The right refers to weapons, and other equipment, suitable for use in combat by an infantryman. The original idea of the RKBA was that, when called to duty, a person would bring the long gun they kept in their home, along with a store of powder, shot and flint. The ideal was the “minuteman”; a person who could be heading out their door ready for anything within 60 seconds of a messenger riding by with a call to arms.This is a major crux of the pushback against proposed bans of “military-style weapons”, usually called for with fingers pointed squarely at AR and AK pattern rifles. The entire point of the RKBA is for civilians to own weapons that wouldn’t be out of place in military combat. A common counterpoint is that the weapons of the time in which these rights were debated took about 20 seconds to reload between shots for a well-practiced rifleman. That may be, however no fighting force on the planet currently limits itself to such weapons, so the weapons suitable for combat have progressed in the same way lines of communication (protected by First and Fourth Amendments) and methods of punishment (restricted by the Eighth Amendment) have done. The enumerated rights of the people are not limited based on the advancement of technology beyond what the Framers could have considered, and Scalia specifically said as much in the Heller opinion.In fact, the weapons generally available to civilians don’t meet military specifications, because they don’t fire fast enough. U.S. v. Miller is interpreted as upholding the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, in affirming Miller’s conviction for possessing a sawn-off shotgun, holding that such a weapon was not “suitable for military use” which is the scope of the protection of the Second Amendment. This ruling, had it been applied verbatim by the Court in deciding Heller, would have caused the entire NFA to be struck down, as every single category of restricted “Title II” weapons (including weapons capable of automatic fire, restricted as “machine guns” by the NFA) were and still are “common in military use” and thus the core of the 2A protection of the RKBA under Miller.The right assumes the individual’s ability and responsibility to be proficient in the use of that weapon. This tenet requires the general ability of citizens not only to own and possess a working firearm, but to be able to purchase ammunition and to use the firearm, shooting at a designated nonliving target for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining skill in marksmanship. As such, the RKBA naturally extends to a limitation on government’s ability to restrict the supply of ammunition, or to restrict the availability of suitable land or facilities to use as target ranges.This is another area where gun control advocates claim that the 2A is being perverted. The argument typically centers on the term “well-regulated”. When you hear “regulated” in modern conversation, the connotation is “something kept in check by a governing mechanism”, and when people or corporate groups and entities are “regulated”, the entity doing the regulation is usually an agency of the government. The argument is therefore made that the right, and those who exercise it, are subject to control at some level by some agency of the government.However, a look at documents authored around the 1790s shows the connotation of the word has shifted over 200 years, as words have a tendency to do. In the understanding of the Framers, something that was “well-regulated” was something that was prepared to do its job as designed. A “well-regulated clock” kept accurate time, a testament to the design of the machine and the skill of the watchmaker in implementing it. A “well-regulated mind” was one taught and trained to solve the problems presented to it. The concept of “making something regular”, in the sense that the preparation includes discipline and layers of control, is not incompatible with this understanding, however the control is not and cannot be the goal of regulation in itself.A “well-regulated militia”, therefore, is a militia that has the tools and training to provide “the security of a free state”. Even if we accept that the right is not totally absolute (and most people on both sides agree it isn’t), and that the ownership of a firearm carries with it a responsibility for not only proficient, but conscientious use, which is obviously being disregarded by a select few, it still does not follow that the government can ignore the Second Amendment and exercise a power it does not have over all gun owners as a result of these select few disregarding their responsibility.The right is not absolute. This one kinda goes the other way. Most 2A proponents will have openly and eagerly agreed to everything I’ve said so far. However, the idea that there is a limit, somewhere, to the public ownership and use of weapons, is problematic to supporters of the RKBA, because it invites gun control advocates to come right in and draw a line where they think that limit should be, usually somewhere between the current, already-”infringed” status of the right and not having the right at all, and call that a “compromise”.Let’s be clear; the limits of the right that the Pennsylvania Dissent mentions, that people may be disarmed “for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals”, are limits that are already in place. Proponents of the RKBA assert that the existing laws prescribing disarmament in these situations are not being enforced, and a law that isn’t enforced is a law that only people who are morally inclined to follow the law will obey. People who are inclined to ignore laws as it suits them are known as “scofflaws”, or in more absolute language, “criminals”, and they are and always have been the problem behind the use of guns in violent crime. Laws aimed at better identifying those people and forcing them to answer for breaking the law are laws generally supported by 2A proponents. Laws that primarily serve to present additional obstacles to lawful gun ownership, or that can be easily abused to disarm people who have done nothing wrong, are laws generally opposed by 2A proponents.The right is no less important today than it was in 1790. This goes beyond most written words in any form of the RKBA, suffice to say that an increasingly common argument of gun control is that we simply do not need the Second Amendment anymore, and should get rid of it.This is, again, misguided, as the reasons enumerated in the Pennsylvania Dissent are no less true today than in 1790. There were butchers selling meat that you didn’t have to hunt or slaughter yourself. There were professional law enforcers. There were very definitely professional soldiers in the US; George Washington was one of them for most of his life, first for the British, then for the Continental Army. So, you didn’t have to own a firearm in colonial or post-colonial America in order to be confident that your home, community, state or country would be defended, or that you could procure food for yourself and your family. Just as you don’t have to own a firearm to do any of the same things today. You just had to live somewhere that you could be reasonably sure someone else had the means to provide these things on your behalf.Despite that, the Framers still made it a priority to include a protection of the RKBA in the proposed Amendments, and the States still made it a priority to ratify that Amendment. Remember that the original slate had 12 Amendments, and only 10 were adopted; if any 5 states had said “no, this one’s too troublesome”, what we would call the Second Amendment would be our current Third Amendment, practically dormant for 200 years, and if the RKBA were recognized at all it would be at the state level.The right was and is recognized, because despite any substitute methods to otherwise guarantee the provision of things the RKBA enables, the RKBA was, and is, still the best method to provide many of these, especially as they relate to the individual and those closest to him.

Thanks to Terrance for the A2A.I admit I became curious, first about SurfAir, and then to see what's up in the private jet space.And it looks like there are some interesting offerings.Notably, they all hush up about prices until you send them contact info. That means I can't say whether or not any of these are cheaper than SurfAir, unfortunately.NetJets LeaseA NetJets Lease will work best for anyone who flies 50 or more hours per yearLease time on a specific serial-numbered aircraft in the NetJets U.S. fleetBuy as much as you needLease sizes start at 50 annual flight hours and increase in 25-hour incrementsAccess an entire fleet - if your aircraft type doesn’t suit you for a particular trip, you may request an exchange to another aircraft type in the NetJets fleet to better satisfy your specific trip requirementsGuaranteed aircraft availability with as little as four to six hours’ notice, depending on aircraft typeChoose from many more airports than commercial carriersPricing is based on aircraft type, flight hours per year, and length of lease term. Fixed-term leases range from 24 to 60 months.Initial deposit is equivalent to four months of lease payments and management feesMonthly lease fee - a guaranteed monthly fixed-rate paymentMonthly management fee - covers indirect operating costs such as pilot salaries, training, hangar use, liability insurance, and Owner Services supportOccupied hourly fee - covers direct operating costs such as maintenance, landing fees, and standard fuel. You are billed as you fly and only for occupied flight hours – wheels up to wheels down – plus six minutes of taxi time at the beginning and end of each flightOther fees include hourly fuel fee, fuel tax surcharge, Federal Excise Tax (if applicable), international fees (as applicable), and ground transportation, if requestedHighest safety standards, in March, 2012 NetJets obtained Level III of the FAA's safety management system (SMS) pilot program, the first and only fractional operator and fixed wing Part 135 operator to achieve that levelThe most stringent maintenance and operational procedures. Exhaustive security checks before every flight. Only the best aircraft equipped with the most advanced safety equipment are flownNetJets manages over 300,000 flights annually to more than 170 countriesNetJets is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berkshire HathawayWheels UpIt's a clubPay an initiation fee and annual duesGuaranteed occupied hourly pricing on a pay-as-you-fly basis, paying only for hours flownNo hidden charges or unnecessary management or service feesExclusive access to a private fleet of brand new King Air 350i and Citation Excel/XLS aircraftExperiencing Wheels Down (a perk of the club) events, concierge and partner benefits programAn individual or family membership with Wheels Up provides flexible scheduling options for last-minute trips and guaranteed availability$17,500 one-time club entry fee$8,500 annual dues, starting in Year TwoGuaranteed availability24 hour notice to book*12 Hour Advance Notice available with certain Pre-Purchase ProgramsThere are corporate memberships availableWheels UP uses King Air 350i and Citation Excel/XLS aircraftLonger trips are flown using Jet Aviation aircraftInternational travel - VistaJetHeliFlite, executive helicopter services availableVictorDirect access to 7000+ private jetsSee pricing and availability from hundreds of the leading private jet operatorsSmartphone app provides end-to-end private jet charter experience, with complete control (must request quotes)The widest choice of jets, routes and prices at your fingertipsRequest a quote in seconds and receive instant estimates.Smart technology finds the best aircraft available.Compare the actual aircraft and operators side by sideChoose the right aircraft and operator at the right price.Fixed fee, no hidden costs or unexpected surcharges.Secure booking from anywhereXOJetOn-demand service and pricing for popular flights between 22,000 destinations on a fleet of Challenger 300 and Citation X jetsPrivate jet fleet supplemented by a Preferred Partner Network of light, mid-size and large cabin aircraft, including Hawker 400XP, Hawker 800XP and Gulfstream V jetsComplimentary Wi-FiConsistent high-touch servicePersonalized planning. Work with a dedicated Aviation Advisor—available 24/7—to plan and coordinate private flights, catering and ground transportationBlackJetPrivate jet seat bookingMost affordable private jet charter solutionConfirm seats on private jets in secondsFlights provided by professional aircraft operators who are authorized by the FAA and DOT to provide on demand air charter service for hire.Services: Booking, Concierge, LogisticsPacific Coast JetAny trip, anywhere in the world, on any time scheduleOperating a fleet of light through super midsize jets based throughout the Western United StatesFor those who wish to own a jet, a charter program can help offset ownership costsSales and acquisition assistanceMentor pilotingPersonal serviceJetSmarterHail a private jet at the tap of the buttonFly out of your own private terminalNo more TSA security checkpointsUse Concierge to book hotel and ground transportationGet to and from the airport in a breeze with free Heli-transfersGet push-notifications on JetDeals to and from your favorite and frequent locations