Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the take-to-the-skies dept.

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.

9 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Oh hell no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Oh hell no by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Excepting that, as with traditional ride sharing, as opposed to hiring, the pilot was making that flight anyways, and he's fully certified for general flying, just not taking paying passengers.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Oh hell no by Fwipp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Oh hell no by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, yes. GA pilots have a much worse safety profile that commercial carriers. Much worse.

      That's because the FAA has long allowed you to take more risks by yourself than with paying passengers. The big issue (aside from the FAA's inability to cope with the modern world) is that there is definately a slippery slope between casual ride sharing and flying somewhere with passengers for a buck. You aren't supposed to make money flying passengers with the current ride sharing rules - but commercial airlines have lost money for years. Should we allow them to run unregulated passenger services because they don't make money?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Oh hell no by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      It depends.

      If the pilot is a private pilot, they are not allowed to fly for money, period. The FAA has allowed a small exception to that, in that it is possible to split the immediate incidental costs (fuel, other consumables) for the flight with other passengers in the plane, provided everyone is paying their share.

      So yes, you get less than half the trip cost - because you're only allowed to ask for effectively gas money (and oil - some engines chew through a quart an hour). You're not allowed to split costs like maintenance or other per-flight hour costs (e.g., if you rent the plane). So maintenance and other costs are borne completely by the pilot.

      Where it gets tricky is the intent of the flight. Did the pilot make the flight plans and then asked if anyone wanted to come? Or did someone ask him to fly there and the pilot made up an excuse.

      E.g., if the pilot was flying from LA to Las Vegas to spend the weekend gambling, and then a friend asked if he could come along as he has to attend a wedding there, that is OK. It is not OK if the friend asks if he could go to Vegas to attend the wedding, then the pilot makes plans to play some slots (excepting of course, if the pilot was to accept no remuneration - perhaps they just wanted to fly for fun and gave their friend a free ride).

      The other part is that the person asking to come along must be known to the pilot in advance - i.e., a friend, associate already known. It can't be two random strangers who were matched up on a website, for example. This is the "tortured" part of the interpretation, but it's been around long enough and interpreted that way for years.

      Note that all of this flies out of the window if no money changes hands - without remuneration, the pilot is free to do anything he wishes. This is how charities like Hope Air and the like work - they at most offer the pilot a tax credit for the portion of the flight, but most pilots will instead just fly the patient or animal for free.

      Effectively, private pilots are not supposed to do it for money - it's just the FAA has allowed a very narrow exception to accommodate some common requests. The "Uber for the sky" companies are trying to take that exception and turn it into a commercial license alternate.

      The FAA can just as well close the exception because it was created as a privilege for private pilots.

      And of course, if you're a commercial pilot, then you won't be as cheap because you went through the extra training and want to make some money back as real income

    5. Re:Oh hell no by Miamicanes · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Small (especially single-engine) planes are SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more likely to crash than large jets, and pilot experience has very little to do with it.

      Don't believe me? OK, search Google for the last single-engine plane crash within 100 miles of your home. Chances are, unless you live in the middle of nowhere, there's been at least one within the past 2-3 years. Now... when's the last time a commercial jet crashed within 100 miles of your home (9/11 doesn't count)?

      I live in South Florida. We've had exactly THREE nearby commercial jet crashes within the past 50 years... ValuJet flight 592 in 1996, Fine Air flight 101 in 1997, and Eastern Airlines flight 401 in 1972. One was the result of criminal corporate malfeasance, one was the result of breathtaking stupidity (an overweight cargo jet whose contents shifted during takeoff), and one was the result of pilot error that modern flight control systems make nearly impossible. Both MIA and FLL average at least one jet taking off or landing per minute, for approximately 18 hours per day, every day. Literally millions of people fly to and from South Florida on commercial flights every day, with a 50-year fatality rate that averages out to almost zero.

      Now, contrast that with crashes of single-engine private planes. FXE (Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport) has had at least 3 crashes since 2009. I used to work at an office adjacent to one of its runways, and LITERALLY heard a plane crash about a quarter mile away while sitting at my desk. Another plane ran off the runway and ended up in a nearby parking lot. Another crashed into a residential neighborhood a mile away. And that's just one airport in Broward County. I think both of Miami's general-aviation airports (Opa-Locka and Miami Executive) have had at least 3 crashes apiece in the past 5 years, too. And I'm not even counting the planes that fall into the Caribbean between South Florida and the Bahamas.

      Compared to commercial jets, single-engine private planes are deathtraps, and the FAA knows it. It doesn't have the political capital to ban them outright, but it's not going to allow several times as many people to put themselves (and others) at risk by allowing an Uber-like service to encourage more private flights with more passengers on board. It's either going to rigidly enforce its ban on commercializing private planes, or increase the regulatory requirements ON private planes to compensate... and if it encountered too much resistance over maintenance and equipment regulations, it would move to severely restrict the operation of private single-engine planes in urban airspace.

  2. No Profit...Ever! by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:No Profit...Ever! by FoolishBluntman · · Score: 5, Informative

      A nit pick.
      A commercial pilot's license lets you be hired to take cargo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      An ATP (Airline Transport Pilot) license is required to take passengers for hire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      And of course a type rating for the type of plane you're flying.

    2. Re:No Profit...Ever! by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Funny

      And not many people are about to trade a nice comfy seat traveling at 5000 MPH for a cramped, drafty, noisy cockpit...

      Especially since 5000 MPH is over twice as fast as an SR-71 and is way the fuck faster than any commercial aircraft available. New York to Los Angeles in 30 minutes is kinda hard to beat.