Judgments against Foundation Aviation for over $800,000 and pending litigation show the financial risks for brokers, flyers and operators.
California-based private jet charter operator Firm Foundation Aviation and its principal, Timothy Lomakin, are involved in more than a half-dozen lawsuits.
As interesting as the lawsuits are, the details of the back-and-forth between operators and brokers that go on behind the scenes of each private jet charter flight are equally noteworthy to flyers.
The lawsuits highlight the sometimes foggy conditions regarding how long a customer must wait before finding an alternative to a delayed charter flight and still be entitled to a refund.
Hint: You may not like the answer.
Second hint: Contracts differ from operator to operator. There are over 600 operators in the U.S. with jets certificated for charter flights.
The litigation also spotlights how brokers pay operators for flights via wire transfers, sometimes within hours of departure.
Another aspect of what can go wrong and who pays in the world of private jet charter is when your flight is diverted, and you then have to get to your final destination a thousand miles away.
Some in the industry say the lawsuits against Foundation Aviation are merely an example of the challenges smaller operators face in the demanding world of Part 135 charter.
Private jets from the last century that, in their youth, were flown a couple of hundred hours annually in the exclusive use of their owners, mainly Fortune 500 executives and tycoons, are now expected by floating fleet operators to fly 80 hours per month, enduring the wear and tear of multiple legs per day and a revolving door of charter customers.
They say for operators, cash is always going out the door for maintenance, pilots, leases, fuel, hangar space, and other overhead.
When airplanes are out of service for maintenance, they aren’t earning money.
At the same time, the more they fly, the more maintenance is required.
The more landings and takeoffs, the more mechanical issues as well.
A lost trip that requires a refund is a big deal for small operators.
One person who is familiar with the situation says of Lomakin, “He is a good person and a man of faith who bit off more than he can chew.”
The litigation, they say, underscores the ease of filing lawsuits and the cost of defending them.
Broker Daniel Harris of Ironbird Partners tells Private Jet Card Comparisons, “I have done successful trips with Foundation Aviation,” adding, “Tim even helped me out with an ASAP (last-minute trip request).”
Others say the situation with Foundation Aviation is black-and-white.
They are upset.
They claim that how Foundation handled their trips is not typical of other operators they work with.
The broker lawsuits against Foundation Aviation allege that after Lomaken promised refunds in writing, he never followed through.
The lawsuits show how brokers and operators are constantly trying to fit together pieces of a jigsaw puzzle whose edges keep changing.
Judgments against Foundation Aviation now total over $800,000, while a January 2026 lawsuit seeks over $1 million in punitive damages after the operator cancelled two charter flights.
Austin Business Finance received a final judgment last August for $450,731.44, plus court costs.
The lawsuit named Firm Foundation Aviation, LLC, Taad Aviation, LLC, Timothy D. Lomakin, and Alissa C. Lomakin, jointly and severally.
Timothy Lomakin is CEO, while Alissa Lomakin is executive vice president.
Lomakin, an industry veteran, founded the company in 2020.
Foundation Aviation is a dba for Firm Foundation Aviation.
It is based in Brea, California.
Representatives of Austin Business Finance did not respond to a request for comment.
Hillsboro Aviation, Inc. won a judgment in January 2026 against Firm Foundation Aviation, LLC for $40,383.80.
That lawsuit took place in Washington County, Oregon.
Hillsboro Aviation did not respond to a request for comments on its lawsuit.
Charter and jet card broker JetSet Group sued Foundation Aviation back in March 2025.
It won a default judgment for $39,779.13 in Orange County, California, this past January.
The most recent lawsuit was filed on Feb. 13, 2026.
Aviation Charters, Inc. alleges it paid Foundation Aviation $53,745 for a flight from Trenton, New Jersey, to Miami and then a second flight from Naples, Florida, to Trenton.
Its lawsuit alleges Foundation Aviation cancelled the second leg due to “maintenance or mechanical issues.”
Aviation Charters had to secure a more expensive recovery flight.
It says Foundation Aviation has not refunded it for the second leg.
A lawsuit earlier in January by ATI Jet alleges “a well-established scheme.”
ATI Jet, which operates under the name Jetvia, filed the lawsuit in Texas on Jan. 26, 2026.
It seeks over $1 million in damages, including punitive damages, from Foundation Aviation.
In Jetvia’s lawsuit, it lists off multiple cases against Foundation Aviation.
It points to the March 18, 2025 lawsuit by JetSet Group, a March 25, 2025 lawsuit by MGFG150 LLC, another lawsuit filed Aug. 18, 2025 by Tailoredspace Brea LLC, a 2025 lawsuit by Thoro Corp., a lawsuit from Liberty Funding Source from 2025, the lawsuit from Hillsboro Aviation, Inc. filed Oct. 6, 2025, plus a lawsuit by Genesis Wing LLC, filed against Foundation Aviation on Jan. 16, 2026.
The Tailoredspace Brea, LLC lawsuit seeks $320,000, alleging that Firm Foundation Aviation, LLC, “failed and refused” to pay the fees owed for office space.
Foundation Aviation disputes elements of the lawsuit, which continues in California.
In a November 2025 filing, lawyers for Foundation Aviation wrote:
‘When Firm Foundation’s business began to experience financial difficulties, it took proactive steps to explain the situation and work with TailoredSpace to attempt to resolve any payment issues. During negotiations, the parties discussed and agreed upon a path forward, as Firm Foundation wanted to stay on the property. But when Firm Foundation’s executives were on a business trip, TailoredSpace informed Firm Foundation that it must vacate the property so TailoredSpace could enter into an agreement with a new tenant. Firm Foundation complied and vacated before the requested date. As a result, TailoredSpace immediately rented Firm Foundation’s former space, thereby immediately mitigating its damages.’
Liberty Funding Source’s lawsuit resulted in a default judgment of $296,057.70 in Niagara County, New York.
Lawyers for Liberty Funding did not respond to a request for comments.
The Thoro Corp. lawsuit states that Foundation Aviation repaid $229,436 from a receivables loan but still owed $74,986.20.
A representative of Thoro Corp. did not respond to an email seeking comments.
The Genesis Wing, LLC lawsuit alleges it paid Foundation Aviation $30,000 in full for a one-way charter flight on behalf of a customer.
The Dec. 14, 2025, contract was for a flight from Puerto Rico to New York.
It was scheduled to depart Dec. 16, 2025, at 7:15 pm, according to the filing.
The broker alleges Foundation delayed the flight until 3 pm the next day, citing crew “duty time limitations.”
After the delayed departure, the aircraft suffered a cracked windshield in-flight and diverted to Orlando, Florida.
A Foundation Aviation charter contract obtained by Private Jet Card Comparisons via another lawsuit states, “If a flight does not reach its destination or if all legs of an itinerary are not completed due to weather, mechanical interruption, or aircraft or crew unavailability, client agrees to pay charges for the completed portion of the trip.”
The Genesis Wing lawsuit alleges Lomaken wrote the broker, “I will get with accounting to do the math on the partial completion and revert back to ya.”
It continues, “No portion of the charter was completed, and no refund calculation was ever provided,” adding, “Defendants ceased responding to plaintiff’s inquiries regarding a refund.”
Genesis Wing says it suffered at least $63,000 in damages.
DOWNLOAD: Genesis Wing, LLC vs. Firm Foundation Aviation, LLC
The JetSet Group lawsuit alleged that the broker had booked a flight for a client with Foundation Aviation.
JetSet Group had provided a credit card to Foundation Aviation to hold the trip with plans to pay by wire.
However, an issue with JetSet’s bank prevented the wire from being processed.
JetSet Group alleges that Foundation Aviation cancelled the flight despite having a credit card to guarantee payment.
Foundation Aviation then blamed the cancellation on JetSet, according to the lawsuit.
It kept the money when the wire cleared, according to the complaint.
Some brokers wait as long as possible to wire funds in case the operator cancels.
That way, they have the funds on hand if they have to find a replacement aircraft.
Operators have to have faith that if they fly the trip without receiving the wire payment, the bank won’t later reject their attempt to charge the credit card.
JetSet’s lawsuit also addressed the time it spent on the back-and-forth.
Between communicating with Foundation Aviation, its client, and finding and contracting with another operator, JetSet Group says it spent 26 hours.
The lawsuit by Jetvia followed Foundation Aviation’s alleged cancellation of both legs of an $80,000 charter trip.
For the first leg, Foundation Aviation cancelled the trip due to a mechanical issue.
It shows the risk of wiring funds only to have the operator cancel after receiving payment.
It provides insights into both the financial risks of ad hoc charter contracts and the back-and-forth that often occurs behind the scenes to ensure a customer’s flight runs smoothly.
Per the Jetvia filing:
‘The first leg of the trip was scheduled to depart at 11:11 a.m. on December 26, 2025. At approximately 7:00 a.m. that morning—just hours before departure—Foundation Aviation notified Jetvia of a mechanical issue with the jet. By approximately 9:00 a.m., Foundation Aviation advised that it might need to locate a recovery aircraft from another source or have Jetvia do so. Two hours before departure, Foundation Aviation still did not have a viable aircraft for Jetvia’s client. Ultimately, Foundation Aviation determined that the jet’s anti-skid system was compromised and that the aircraft could not safely fly. The flight was officially cancelled at 11:08 a.m.—three minutes before scheduled departure.’
The filing alleges, “As the return date approached, Foundation Aviation again demonstrated its unreliability by informing Jetvia that the return flight would be delayed by an additional three to four hours.”
It continues, “Given the chaos surrounding the outbound leg, Jetvia’s client reasonably lost confidence in Foundation Aviation’s ability to perform at all.”
Jetvia had initially sought to have the $40,000 for the outbound flight refunded.
It alleges that after being notified of the delay for the return flight, the two parties “mutually” agreed to cancel that leg.
It then sought a refund for the full $80,000.
Jetvia’s filing notes the often strict cancellation terms of ad hoc charter flights, which can catch consumers by surprise.
Jetvia’s lawyers write, “Under the agreement, a ‘100% non-refundable pre-payment [is] required upon booking, unless the trip is cancelled by Foundation Aviation,” before adding, “In other words, if Foundation Aviation cancelled, Jetvia was entitled to its money back—no ambiguity, no delay, no games.”
Still, Jetvia says Foundation Aviation did not refund the money.
The Jetvia lawsuit states:
‘Jetvia made repeated, good faith demands for repayment. Foundation Aviation, however, has refused to return the funds or even commit to a date certain for repayment. Having exhausted all reasonable efforts to resolve this matter without litigation—and with serious financial stability question of Foundation Aviation—Jetvia is left with no choice but to file this action to recover the money it paid (and that Foundation Aviation has no right to keep).’
Jetvia had said it incurred the cost of providing replacement aircraft for its customer on both legs.
The Jetvia filing includes a screenshot of a message that it claims is from Lomaken regarding the refund.
It reads, “I’ll make sure the 80k is fully refunded to you,” followed by, “I’m not gonna ruin the rest of my day over this topic.”
Jetvia’s lawsuit offers a scathing assessment of Foundation Aviation.
Jetvia claims the aircraft in question had a $2.4 million lien from the bank that financed its purchase and a $28,707.99 lien from Titan Aviation Fuels for unpaid fuel charges.
The filing continues:
‘As Jetvia dug deeper, it became clear this was not an isolated failure or an unfortunate one-off. Foundation had done this before. Other customers reported the same last-minute cancellations, the same vague excuses of ‘mechanical issues,’ and the same refusal to return funds—only later to discover that the aircraft was flying other customers during the same time.’
The lawsuit highlighted posts from other brokers in social media groups complaining of similar situations: having trips canceled due to claimed mechanical issues and then either failing to refund the money paid or delaying the refund.
Citing the half-dozen lawsuits, Jetvia claims it “is simply the latest target in a well-established scheme.”
El Paso, Texas-based Jetvia said the delay caused by securing a replacement aircraft and then changing operators for the return flight was not well received by its customer.
Its lawyers wrote, “When it was all said and done, the departure was delayed by several hours, severely damaging the client experience and Jetvia’s relationship with its customer.”
Jetvia says it wants “at least $100,000 in compensatory damages.”
The claim also seeks consequential damages, as well as exemplary damages exceeding $1 million.
DOWNLOAD: ATI Jet dba Jetvia vs. Firm Foundation Aviation, LLC
Foundation Aviation has five private jets available for charter per the FAA’s most recent list of operators published in February.
There are three Gulfstream GIVs and a pair of Hawker 400s.
An FAA official confirmed the five aircraft (Tail numbers N442GJ, N470CT, N48GL, N188SA, and N583AJ) that appear on the FAA Part 135 list.
Only one of the aircraft on Foundation’s charter certificate appears on a page listing aircraft on its website.
Only N583AJ appears on Foundation Aviation’s website.
That same page (see below) shows five private jets that aren’t on its charter certificate.
That includes another Gulfstream GIV (N960DP), a Falcon 2000 (N507DJ), a Citation Sovereign (N516DB), a Gulfstream (N150JN), and a Hawker 800 (N780RE).
Included is at least one aircraft currently flying charter flights by another operator.
Per the FAA, N516DB is currently listed under Haskin Aviation LLC’s charter certificate. It has flown a dozen legs so far this month, according to FlightAware.
N150JN has not flown since December. N960DP last flew eight months ago. Neither N960DP nor N150JN appears on the latest FAA charter list from last month.
The list was recently removed due to inaccuracies.
The FAA tail search, a separate feature on the government website that tracks private jet ownership, lists N780RE as on hold.
Firm Foundation is still listed as the owner of N507DJ per the FAA website.
The FAA says its tail registration lookup is “updated each Federal working day at midnight.”
On the most recent FAA charter list, the Falcon 2000 is shown on the charter certificate for SLX Logistics, LLC. Its tail has been blocked from tracking, per FlightAware.
An FAA official says that featuring airplanes on an operator’s website that are no longer on its charter certificate does not violate any FAA regulations.
READ: FAA to ‘deactivate’ public Part 135 list until ‘current and accurate’
During CJI in Miami last November, Nicholas Air CEO Nicholas Correnti said smaller operators were being put in financial jeopardy by OEMs focused on selling new private jets rather than servicing existing fleets.
Industry executives say the longer a model has been out of production, the less support there is for the operator.
Over the past 18 months, FlyExclusive has been selling older jets and revamping its fleet with newer aircraft.
Chairman Jim Segrave said older aircraft were out of service as much as 70% of the time.
During an earnings call last year, he said, “The older Gulfstreams were the biggest drag.”
Foundation Aviation’s three Gulfstream jets date from 1990, 1991, and 1992.
Older aircraft types that are still a mainstay in charter fleets are sometimes branded as hangar queens due to high maintenance downtime.
However, Josh Allen of Charter Flight Support, which tracks such things, says, “One of the insights from our data is that aircraft age isn’t the primary driver of reliability.”
He says, “Floating fleets are nearly twice as likely to experience an AOG event compared to home-based aircraft.”
AOG is an industry term for a maintenance issue away from base that can lead to delays or cancellations.
Allen says that’s because floating fleets, where aircraft constantly reposition to pick up the next customers, clock more hours.
Brokers say the floating fleets often have the best pricing.
Still, Allen says, “Reliability ultimately comes down to how an aircraft is operated and maintained, not simply how old it is.”
A lawsuit by Flexjet against Honeywell highlighted how delayed repairs can be costly, even with newer jets.
Honeywell makes the engines that power several key aircraft types in the Flexjet fleet.
Flexjet had a contract with Honeywell to service the engines.
The fractional operator said the cost of each grounded airplane was $30,000 per day in extra charter costs.
Flexjet, like many guaranteed jet card and fractional programs, is contractually obligated to provide a replacement aircraft at no additional cost to the client.
When it doesn’t have an available aircraft in its fleet, it needs to charter a replacement private jet from another operator.
Flexjet Chairman Kenn Ricci noted that the cost and time taken up by the litigation can be daunting.
Its lawsuit against Honeywell lasted three years.
Ricci says legal bills were in the $30 million range.
According to court dockets, judgments against Foundation Aviation were entered after it failed to respond to lawsuits in New York, Texas, and Oregon.
For plaintiffs, even after winning in court, they still have to collect.
READ: 16 reasons to use a private jet charter broker
Lomakin launched a podcast two years ago.
Replicating the popular style of podcasts that draw large audiences, Lomakin shares stories of life in business aviation, including the challenges of operating safely and profitably.
Ironically, it is called the Turbulence Podcast.
The most recent episode appears to have been 11 months ago.
Lomakin is far from new to the industry.
He had previously served as chief operating officer, director of operations, and chief pilot for other Part 135 operators before launching Foundation Aviation.
More lawsuits could be coming.
Multiple brokers say they each paid Foundation Aviation tens of thousands of dollars for flights it didn’t perform.
The stories vary; however, the common thread alleged is that their payments were never returned.
In several cases, they say Lomakin initially agreed to refund the trips.
The brokers say they are out of those funds.
They say they protected clients by paying another operator for a recovery flight.
The net result was that they lost money, client confidence, and wasted time.
Several who shared their stories but did not want to be identified said the biggest reason they have not yet pursued litigation is time and the belief that, if they won, they wouldn’t be able to collect.
Brokers typically rely on repeat and referral clients to maintain their business.
They say the flight delays strain their relationships with end consumers.
Many brokers say they maintain do-not-use lists of charter operators.
Those lists are often based on reliability concerns or past payment issues.
Some operators say brokers will use unreliable operators because prices are lower, allowing them to make a better margin on the flight.
Brokers say that’s not the case, as they would risk losing the client.
However, because airplanes often have to reposition, creating an empty leg, correlating price and reliability is difficult.
Unlike the scheduled airlines, there is no independent public data for on-time performance or flight cancellations.
What’s more, a once reliable operator can suddenly become unreliable, multiple brokers say.
So, how long does a customer need to wait during a delay before they can switch to another operator and still get a refund from the first?
A Foundation Aviation charter contract reads in part, “FFA agrees to undertake to provide the transportation services with due diligence but does not guarantee any speed, route, departure, or arrival time or date.”
As Jetvia noted in its lawsuit, there was a 100% cancellation penalty unless Foundation cancelled the flight.
Some operators specify that after a delay reaches a specific number of hours, the client can cancel without penalty.
Others don’t specify a specific window.
Brokers not involved in the Foundation Aviation litigation say it’s critical to understand the terms of the operator contract versus the flexibility of their client to endure a delay.
They also say that their individual relationships with an operator play a critical role in working through these situations.
For flyers, it is important to read the contract you are signing with your broker.
Broker contracts can specify that an operator’s terms supersede their contract with you when terms conflict.
You will likely find that an ad hoc charter contract does not obligate your broker to fund the extra costs of a replacement flight.
Not speaking about specific operators, Shackelford aviation attorney David Mayer says, “If a contract appears to exculpate the operator or broker broadly for failing to perform and/or contains unreasonable disclaimers or indemnities in favor of the operator or broker, a customer should, at best, be circumspect about using the broker or operator’s services.”
READ: A lawsuit spotlights financial risks of ASAP private jet charter flights
In a separate podcast in 2024, hosted by Harris of Ironbird Partners and featuring Lomakin as a guest, the host asked him about the red flags brokers should look for when vetting operators.
Lomakin said in part, “Are they engaged in a ton of lawsuits? Are there a lot of clients suing these people?”
He also notes, “This is the United States of America. Anybody can sue for anything, whether right or wrong, (so) innocent (until) proven guilty.”
Lomakin said he would respond after consulting with his attorney, but did not provide further comment.
READ: Ad hoc Private Jet Charter: The anti-jet card solution has risks, too
Find the perfect solution for your private aviation needs
Save Time. Buy Confidently.
Receive an apples-to-apples comparison of programs that meet your needs from more than 500 jet card and fractional options covering 65 points of differentiation and over 40,000 data points.
