How The FAA Shot Down 'Uber For Planes' (fee.org)

SonicSpike quotes a report from the Foundation for Economic Education that first appeared at Forbes: Imagine traveling from Boston to Martha's Vineyard in under an hour and for less than $70. Believe it or not, this option was available from Flytenow's website or app, by looking for a general aviation pilot who was making that trip, and then splitting the cost with that pilot and whoever else was sharing the flight. Entrepreneurs were bringing private air travel to the masses until Flytenow's leadership met with members of the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure that they were complying with all laws and regulations. Instead of embracing this service, the FAA used tortuous logic to ban Flytenow and other online flight-sharing websites because it considered these to be "common carriers" (such as Delta Airlines). Private pilots cannot possibly comply with the myriad regulations that apply to the large airlines. In what follows, Flytenow founders Alan Guichard and Matt Voska explain why the federal government should make the FAA allow flight sharing to get off the ground.

Comments

Oh hell no

[Anonymous Coward]

Those regulations are in place for a reason. Your Uber ride can be an unlicensed, uninsured deathtrap as it is: dropping out of the sky and killing innocents because you were too lazy to follow FAA regulations is an entirely new level of stupidity.

Re:Oh hell no

[Fwipp]

Right, just like the Uber driver was already planning on driving from my house to the airport. I just hopped in because he happened to be going that way.

Re:Oh hell no

[Pascoea]

I think this may be a little different though. The economies of "splitting the cost" don't favor the pilot if they weren't intending on making the flight anyway. If an Uber driver was forced to pay for half the cost of the trip you would see a drastic reduction in the number of "ride sharing" (fake taxi company) drivers.

As long as there are mechanisms to prevent this from turning into "the uber of the sky", I think I'd be OK with it. But you know damn well that the number of pilot that happened to be flying between Chicago and Las Vegas three times a day would increase exponentially...

Re:Oh hell no

[ColaMan]

"Weather's pretty marginal and normally I wouldn't go, but there's a guy willing to go halves in the cost soooooo...... just this once"

Re:Ohh what? wait a sec..!

[djbckr]

There are several facets to this issue. First, I'm a licensed private pilot. The regulations for private pilot are rather different than for ATP (Airline Transport Pilot), so the phrase "Private pilots cannot comply with the regulations of the large airlines" is somewhat misleading.

Now, the question comes to be: Is this pilot doing a "For Hire" service. This really is the crux of the issue. If the pilot *truly* is going somewhere and you want to go with them and split the cost of the trip, this is perfectly legal. However once you (the pilot) cross the line of going places because someone wants to go somewhere, that would be a For-Hire service. This gets a little gray because the pilot can't charge the cost of the trip, but must "share" expenses, legally. This can get somewhat hard to prove. However, if you are a pilot that does for-hire transport, then you must have a commercial license (not ATP), which again has some different regulatory requirements (pilot performance, medical, etc) than a private pilot.

I think I'm on board with the FAA on this one. Uber drivers are for-hire, really - I don't think anyone could rightfully say you're just hitching a ride. "Uber for planes" is the same thing.

No Profit...Ever!

[sycodon]

In order to carry a passenger for hire and make a profit you have to have your commercial ticket. Period.

Private pilots ride sharing, not matter the circumstances, are not allowed to make a profit. Period.

So their only reason for doing something like this is to cut their expenses. It would make no sense for a private pilot to start making daily runs to Chicago if they only broke even on expenses and actually lost money considering their time. And not many people are about to trade a nice comfy seat traveling at 5000 MPH for a cramped, drafty, noisy cockpit unless there is no service available or they are just a fan of small planes.

So the FAA's reason's are flawed. No one will start flying others around for profit...that's illegal. Many people DO make regular runs in their aircraft and allowing this service would have the benefit of boosting general aviation.

I suspect this is more about taking away a $250 fare from the airlines.

Re:No Profit...Ever!

[bobbied]

In order to carry a passenger for hire and make a profit you have to have your commercial ticket. Period.

Further nit pick...

As a private pilot you CAN share expenses with a passenger, but the emphasis is on "share" meaning that the pilot must have some reason, other than the passenger is paying, to go someplace. You cannot be paid for your time or collect a penny more than ACTUAL costs as a private pilot to take somebody (other than yourself) or something someplace. Unless the pilot is shouldering at least some of the costs, it's getting really close to the grey area, especially if you don't have any previous or ongoing relationship with your passenger.

So your life long friend can pay your expenses when you fly him out to go fishing someplace. You could even drop a bag off that he forgot on his trip to grandma's house and accept reimbursement of expenses. However, you cannot meet some stranger at the airport, collect a stack of cash and then transport them and their luggage someplace. You cannot run a business that involves flying people or cargo as a private pilot.