Companies spending more than $750,000 annually on private aviation should run a formal RFP every 2-3 years — both to capture market pricing efficiencies (typical savings 12-22%) and to satisfy procurement governance. The complete framework: when an RFP makes sense, what goes in the document, how to score vendors, contracting terms that protect the company, and the post-RFP performance management that determines whether the savings actually materialise.
We may earn a commission if you book through links on this page.
By Richard J. · 15 May 2026
A competitive RFP process for corporate charter aviation typically delivers 12-22% cost reduction versus pre-RFP spend while improving operator quality and contract terms. The savings come from three sources: replacing high-markup brokers with transparent vendors (8-15% saving), consolidating volume with fewer operators in exchange for preferred pricing (3-8% saving), and capturing market rate movements between the prior contract period and current pricing (4-9% saving). Below: the full framework from RFP scoping through post-award performance management, including the specific document structure, vendor scoring approach, and contracting terms that protect the company.
An RFP is not free. The process consumes 4-8 weeks of procurement and finance team time, requires executive sponsorship, and changes vendor relationships in ways that have ongoing implications. The RFP only makes sense when specific conditions apply.
Companies below $750,000 in annual spend typically benefit more from spot-quote discipline (the three-quote workflow) than from formal RFP processes. The transition point sits at the level where ongoing vendor relationship management produces compounding savings.
A complete charter RFP document typically runs 15-25 pages and covers eight sections. The structure below produces vendor responses that can be scored consistently.
The RFP should be issued to 5-8 vendors typically — a mix of major operators (NetJets, FlexJet, Vista, Wheels Up where applicable), specialist brokers known for the company's primary route patterns, and 1-2 transparent-model brokers as benchmark against the traditional structures. Response window typically 4-6 weeks for serious responses.
The scoring framework should be defined before responses arrive, with weights that reflect what actually matters for the company. The five-category framework below works for most corporate situations.
| Category | Weight | What it measures | Scoring approach |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing | 35% | Per-hour rates, positioning fees, all-in cost for representative trips | Quantitative scoring against benchmark |
| Safety & credentials | 25% | Operator certifications, fleet age, insurance levels, audit history | Threshold (pass/fail) plus differentiation |
| Operational capability | 15% | Response times, availability commitments, route coverage, fleet flexibility | SLA-based scoring against requirements |
| Transparency & reporting | 15% | Fee disclosure, reporting commitments, invoicing accuracy track record | Qualitative scoring with references |
| References & references | 10% | Comparable client testimonials, case study quality, account team depth | Reference call scoring |
Weights should be adjusted to reflect company-specific priorities. International-heavy operations might increase operational capability weight to 20%; companies prioritising procurement transparency might increase that category to 20-25%. The total always sums to 100%.
JetLuxe provides useful benchmark pricing alongside the formal RFP process — surfacing market rates that anchor the analysis of vendor pricing responses. The platform's transparency model is itself relevant benchmark for evaluating traditional broker pricing.
One of the major RFP design decisions is whether to award the contract to a single primary vendor or split between two or more. Both structures have specific advantages.
Concentrating all volume with one primary vendor typically generates the best preferred pricing because the vendor sees the full revenue opportunity. Sole-source agreements typically include service commitments that multi-vendor splits cannot deliver: dedicated account management, priority access during peak windows, custom reporting. The trade-off is concentration risk — vendor failure or quality decline has no immediate alternative.
Splitting volume between 2-3 vendors maintains competitive tension during the contract period — vendors compete for each individual booking. Provides natural backup if primary vendor cannot deliver a specific trip. Typically results in slightly lower individual rates than sole-source but loses some preferred-pricing depth. Operationally more complex; requires the EA or aviation coordinator to manage multiple relationships.
Common compromise: 70-80% of volume with primary vendor (sole-source-equivalent pricing) plus 20-30% with secondary vendor for backup, specialty routes, or competitive benchmark. Combines pricing depth with competitive tension. Most mature corporate aviation programmes operate this way.
For international-heavy operations, geographic vendor specialisation may make sense: one vendor for North American operations, another for European, another for Asia. Each vendor offers genuinely deeper expertise in their region. Operationally complex; works best with corporate aviation function that can manage multi-vendor relationships.
The contract document is where the RFP gains either survive or evaporate. Several specific terms determine whether the bid-time pricing actually applies during the contract period.
Effective RFP scoring requires market benchmark data. JetLuxe surfaces real charter quotes on representative routes that anchor the pricing analysis. Use these alongside vendor responses to identify which bids are competitive and which are inflated.
Get benchmark quotes on JetLuxe →The typical charter RFP runs on a 12-16 week timeline from kick-off to contract award. Compressing the timeline produces lower-quality responses and reduces savings; extending substantially produces decision fatigue without proportional gains.
The RFP savings only materialise if the new contract is actually used — not bypassed by EAs continuing prior booking habits or by emergency exceptions that become routine. Post-award performance management is what determines whether the projected 12-22% savings appear on the actual P&L.
Monthly review by procurement and aviation coordinator: total spend versus budget, average rate per hour versus contracted rates, vendor SLA performance, any policy exceptions or non-preferred-vendor bookings. Variances investigated and explained; trends identified before they become problems.
Quarterly meeting with vendor account team: utilisation patterns, service quality issues, upcoming usage forecasts, contract performance against SLAs. Address service issues before they become contract disputes. Maintain relationship strength that supports ongoing preferred pricing.
Annual full review: total savings versus baseline, market rate movement, vendor performance against SLAs, recommendation on continuation, modification, or re-tendering. Documented for audit committee and board reporting. References to the annual aviation review framework.
Common patterns of contract erosion: gradual rate creep through "fuel adjustments" not in the contract; increasing use of "exception" bookings outside the contract framework; declining service quality after the initial honeymoon period. Document specific instances; raise at quarterly business reviews; trigger early re-tendering if patterns persist.
Standard re-tendering interval is 2-3 years. Several specific triggers can either accelerate or extend the interval.
Formal RFP processes for charter aviation make sense when annual aviation spend exceeds approximately $750,000, when current vendor relationships are 3+ years old, when spend has grown significantly without re-tendering, when procurement governance requires periodic re-tendering, or when there are service quality issues with incumbent vendors. Companies below $750,000 in annual spend typically benefit more from spot-quote discipline (the three-quote workflow) than from formal RFP processes. The savings from competitive RFP typically run 12-22% of pre-RFP spend.
Typical post-RFP savings run 12-22% of pre-RFP annual spend. The savings come from three sources: replacing high-markup brokers with transparent vendors (8-15% saving from broker margin reduction), consolidating volume with fewer operators in exchange for preferred pricing (3-8% saving from volume discounts), and capturing market rate movements between the prior contract period and current pricing (4-9% saving from market alignment). The actual realised savings depend on contract terms, vendor performance, and post-award performance management.
Standard corporate charter RFP timelines run 12-16 weeks from kick-off to contract award. The typical 14-week timeline allocates 2 weeks to internal scoping, 2 weeks to vendor shortlisting, 1 week to RFP document finalisation, 4 weeks for vendor response, 2 weeks for initial scoring and shortlisting, 1 week for vendor presentations and reference calls, 1 week for final scoring and recommendation, and 1 week for contract negotiation. Compressing the timeline produces lower-quality responses; extending substantially produces decision fatigue without proportional gains.
Typical corporate charter RFPs invite 5-8 vendors. The mix should include major operators (NetJets, FlexJet, Vista Global, Wheels Up where applicable for the spend level), specialist brokers known for the company's primary route patterns, and 1-2 transparent-model brokers as benchmark against traditional broker structures. Fewer than 5 vendors limits competitive tension; more than 8 produces unwieldy evaluation without proportional improvement in outcomes. The longlist of 8-12 candidates is typically pre-screened to the 5-8 shortlist based on basic credentials, capability fit, and geographic coverage.
Both structures work for different situations. Sole-source agreements typically deliver the deepest preferred pricing because the vendor sees the full revenue opportunity, plus stronger service commitments (dedicated account management, peak window priority). Multi-vendor splits maintain competitive tension during the contract period, provide natural backup if primary vendor cannot deliver, and result in slightly lower individual rates. Most mature corporate aviation programmes use a hybrid approach: 70-80% of volume with primary vendor, 20-30% with secondary vendor for backup, specialty routes, or competitive benchmark. Geographic vendor specialisation may make sense for international-heavy operations.
Critical contract terms include: rate guarantees for 12-24 months with explicit escalation mechanisms; positioning fee transparency with operator identification; broker commission and margin disclosure on each booking; service level agreements (typically 2-4 hour quote response, 24 hour booking confirmation) with defined remedies for failures; operator insurance at company-required levels with vendor indemnification; audit rights for pricing, operator selection, and invoicing accuracy; defined termination rights at 30-90 day notice for company; volume expressed as expected case rather than strict minimum commitments. Avoid contracts with long minimum terms or termination penalties.
Benchmark RFP responses against transparent market quotes
Get benchmark quotes on JetLuxe →RFP framework reflects typical corporate procurement best practice for charter aviation as of May 2026. Specific company procurement policies and vendor relationships may require process adaptation. This article contains affiliate links — bookings made through our links may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.
We use cookies to improve user experience. Choose what cookie categories you allow us to use. You can read more about our Cookie Policy by clicking on Cookie Policy below.
These cookies enable strictly necessary cookies for security, language support and verification of identity. These cookies can’t be disabled.
These cookies collect data to remember choices users make to improve and give a better user experience. Disabling can cause some parts of the site to not work properly.
These cookies help us to understand how visitors interact with our website, help us measure and analyze traffic to improve our service.
These cookies help us to better deliver marketing content and customized ads.