5 ms·
FAA Grounds ‘Uber for Planes’
- ubernostrum 11y agoThis was completely expected: while Uber and Lyft can mostly carry out arbitrage against the patchwork of local regulations on taxi services across the country, air travel is federal and there are no conflicting local rules to take advantage of at different times, just the FAA saying "yes" or "no" nationwide. And it also shouldn't be controversial: everybody knows Uber and Lyft are taxi services, despite their occasional "we're not a taxi, honest" dodges, and doing the same with aircraft... makes you an airline, and trying to go back and pull a "we're not an airline, honest" is not going to fly.
- trevyn 11y agoI don't care whether or not it's classified as an airline, but if I want to catch a flight with a private pilot and compensate him, fully understanding the risks and rewards of general aviation vs commercial aviation, where's the problem exactly?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cmurf 11y agoPrivate pilots by regulation cannot be compensated. Only commercial pilots can be; and even in that case the buyer must separately acquire the pilot for hire, and plane for hire. If the buyer goes to a single source for pilot and plane for hire, that is an air carrier, i.e. commercial aviation.
- Scoundreller 11y agoI think the complaint is that the law should have exempted situations where there is explicit and informed consent on what is happening. Why should only those with rich friends/family be able to a flight from A to B via private plane/pilot? If a plane is safe enough for me to fly my whole family in, why is it too unsafe to fly someone else?
- 0_00_0 11y agoYou don't need rich friends/family. People charter small aircraft all the time. The difference is those operations comply with applicable regulations while this doesn't.
- st2p 11y agoThat's not correct. See 14 CFR 61.113 (c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees. edit: the exceptions of the CFR are (b) through (h) but (c) is the most typical
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- st2p 11y agoOkay, then what would you call it?
- 0_00_0 11y agoTried to edit my other comment but accidentally deleted it. So I just skimmed over the ruling here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B73DFDB22685257F1F005456E8/$file/14-1168-1589331.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B7... and you're right (if you're getting at what I think you're getting at). The argument is that expense sharing is compensation, but it is allowed under the FARs in specific circumstance. Difference here being that the combination of holding out on a public website and receiving compensation via expense sharing put it in common carrier land. Which does seem to make sense under current rules.
- st2p 11y agoNp. And right. I hated to be pedantic but outright dismissing the fact that there are exceptions to the compensation rule is wrong. edit: wording
- cmurf 11y agoSharing operating expenses is not the same thing as compensation which connotes services rendered.
- st2p 11y ago
- tbabb 11y agoThe difference seems pretty clear: Profit. Uber/Lyft drivers aren't splitting the cost of gas with riders; they're making money from it, as evidenced by the fact that rates change hour by hour with market demand. They can claim they're not taxis, but their compensation structure says otherwise. I am not a lawyer, but if Flytenow is truly doing what they say and are facilitating riders and pilots to share cost, then it is hard to argue that it's a commercial endeavor because the pilot still loses money; just like I am not a taxi if I drive you down to LA and we split gas-- how we found each other and whether we are strangers seems irrelevant.
- cameldrv 11y agoThe FAA has a concept of "Common Purpose." You can't share expenses if the pilot and the passengers don't share a common purpose for the flight, that is, there is some other reason than just splitting the expenses for them to go together, for example, they are all going to the same meeting or on the same vacation. Generally the reason is that the regulations are far more lax for a private operation than a commercial operation, and the FAA wants you to be in a position to judge their character and judgment before you decide to fly under regulations where the FAA isn't guaranteeing much itself.
- dingaling 11y ago> >and doing the same with aircraft... makes you an airline It actually makes you an air taxi; FAA Part 135 operator. Still requires a commercial pilot's license though.
- reustle 11y agoCouldn't this technically continue to run "under the radar"? (pun intended) If this is already legal as they mentioned, but not as a "platform", you could just work on better facilitating the communication and let payments and logistics happen offline (or in private like email)
- Wingman4l7 11y agoHeck, use a cryptocurrency for extra plausible deniability on payments.
- beeboop 11y agoThe issue here is that pilots are not going to risk the licenses they've spent potentially over 100k on to make money this way.
- reustle 11y agoI think the FAA was the issue, not the pilots. Those who don't want to give rides, won't. That's pretty simple. The FAA even said that splitting the cost of rides with friends is OK, so then it will be down to proving if someone is your friend or not.
- Wingman4l7 11y agoIt's possibly a safety concern. With paragliding, which is largely self-regulated by the USHPA (FAA airspace use regulations notwithstanding), I don't believe you can technically take payment for a tandem flight unless the passenger is a student pilot, at least on paper.[1] IIRC, this is to discourage pilots with a tandem rating taking undue flight risks to make money on giving rides. [1]: https://www.ushpa.aero/4721.asp https://www.ushpa.aero/4721.asp
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoIt's depressing to me that the useful idea of a "sharing economy" has been redefined to mean "Uber and things similar to Uber."