No ride sharing for you

[flyboy0681]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/appeals-court-airline-pilots-ride-share-uber-35841121

 

 

 

[peevee]

no surprise to anyone I'm sure.

[Bob_Belville]

As I understand it, you can share (direct) costs. You can't offer that to the general public under part 91. This ruling simply confirms that rule.

[midlifeflyer]

For anyone who wants to read the decision, it is at http://1.usa.gov/1UJq0ux

[Parker_Woodruff]

Now if the Court could get such a swift, binding judgment against the FAA for its failure to follow the law with the Part 23 re-write.

[Hank]

3 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Now if the Court could get such a swift, binding judgment against the FAA for its failure to follow the law with the Part 23 re-write.

Someone needs to sue to get it to a judge. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

8 minutes ago, Hank said:

Someone needs to sue to get it to a judge. 

All I'm saying is it wouldn't be this expedient if they were sued.

[M20F]

5 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

All I'm saying is it wouldn't be this expedient if they were sued.

In fairness one case is a bit more complicated than the other.  I don't think anyone thought Flytenow or the similar arrangements had a leg to stand on legally, hence the relatively quick process.

[Seth]

You can still split direct costs when flying with people, just not a public board/announcement.

 

So, what is to stop a group from creating an exclusive online presence and not giving public notice, but private notice to their group, after password login, on upcoming trips for direct cost splitting?  If it's a private group, then it is not notifying the public.  Or is this what the two websites were doing and got ruled against?

 

-Seth

[gsxrpilot]

38 minutes ago, Seth said:

You can still split direct costs when flying with people, just not a public board/announcement.

 

So, what is to stop a group from creating an exclusive online presence and not giving public notice, but private notice to their group, after password login, on upcoming trips for direct cost splitting?  If it's a private group, then it is not notifying the public.  Or is this what the two websites were doing and got ruled against?

 

-Seth

If you keep it private enough the FAA doesn't get wind of it, it's probably perfectly legal.

[flyboy0681]

7 minutes ago, daver328 said:

I recall reading articles published by AOPA regarding this subject ... Might as well throw logic and common sense out the window. I never take a penny ... just not worth it. Maybe someday after I retire and it won't affect my work? 

Same here, if I'm out with somebody whom I invited to fly, I'll just have them pay for the lunch.

[N201MKTurbo]

Just make sure it is always a cash payment, no checks, no credit cards. No paper trail.

[midlifeflyer]

5 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

If you keep it private enough the FAA doesn't get wind of it, it's probably perfectly legal.

"Legality" is not dependent on "getting caught."

[midlifeflyer]

52 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Just make sure it is always a cash payment, no checks, no credit cards. No paper trail.

You also need to not po some legitimate Part 135 operator or have an accident or other incident  to trigger an investigation. If those things happen, the  FAA might get interested enough to ask questions and your passenger might just tell the truth.

[N201MKTurbo]

Mostly talking about taking generous friends somewhere for mutual gratification (that sounds kind of dirty).

What do you do when you go to the bathroom and tell you friend to only put 10 gallons in the plane and you come back and they have topped it off?

Also, can I let my friend borrow my plane and then ride along as a non-paying passenger?

[Seth]

6 hours ago, daver328 said:

I recall reading articles published by AOPA regarding this subject ... Might as well throw logic and common sense out the window. I never take a penny ... just not worth it. Maybe someday after I retire and it won't affect my work? 

I don't either.  I sometimes will trade a flight for later where my friends cover dinner that night or a hotel room or something, but I always pay for the flight 100%

 

-Seth

[gsxrpilot]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

"Legality" is not dependent on "getting caught."

Correct, of course. What I was trying to say was that if the problem with Flytenow was the publishing of the offers then a private, non-published offer might very well be legal. And if it's a private thing just among friends, then it's unlikely the FAA would know about it either.

[gsengle]

Mostly talking about taking generous friends somewhere for mutual gratification (that sounds kind of dirty).

What do you do when you go to the bathroom and tell you friend to only put 10 gallons in the plane and you come back and they have topped it off?

Also, can I let my friend borrow my plane and then ride along as a non-paying passenger?

Oftentimes I'll tell him/her, "great, thanks for the 90 gallons, but now we are to heavy to depart"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deb]

10 hours ago, Seth said:

You can still split direct costs when flying with people, just not a public board/announcement.

 

So, what is to stop a group from creating an exclusive online presence and not giving public notice, but private notice to their group, after password login, on upcoming trips for direct cost splitting?  If it's a private group, then it is not notifying the public.  Or is this what the two websites were doing and got ruled against?

 

-Seth

From the New York Times:

Flytenow said it only provided services to people who became members and that its pilots had the discretion to reject passengers on a case-by-case basis. Writing for the court, Judge Cornelia Pillard said membership "requires nothing more than signing up" on the website. She said refusing some customers doesn't change the company's commercial purpose.

Complete article here: http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/12/18/us/politics/ap-us-flight-sharing.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

Court decision: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B73DFDB22685257F1F005456E8/$file/14-1168-1589331.pdf

 

[cliffy]

It was a dead fish from day one.

[Seth]

12 hours ago, Deb said:

From the New York Times:

Flytenow said it only provided services to people who became members and that its pilots had the discretion to reject passengers on a case-by-case basis. Writing for the court, Judge Cornelia Pillard said membership "requires nothing more than signing up" on the website. She said refusing some customers doesn't change the company's commercial purpose.

Complete article here: http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/12/18/us/politics/ap-us-flight-sharing.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

Court decision: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B73DFDB22685257F1F005456E8/$file/14-1168-1589331.pdf

 

So what if the site was non-profit with no commercial purpose except to increase pilot communication for ride sharing to lower costs and be more efficient.  No profit, someone personally paying for the forum, and pilots who have to sign in this non public, have access.  Would it still not be allowed due to this ruling?  It just seems to smack in the face of sharing rules that we know and are allowed.  I guess I just don't understand the ruling logic.

I don't plan to join or use the site, but I just don't get the logic in why they said you can't do what the law says you can do.

I guess I'm missing something.

-Seth

 

 

 

[midlifeflyer]

19 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Correct, of course. What I was trying to say was that if the problem with Flytenow was the publishing of the offers then a private, non-published offer might very well be legal. And if it's a private thing just among friends, then it's unlikely the FAA would know about it either.

I agree, As I read it (and the FAA's prior interpretations on the subject) a "private thing just among friends" is about as pure a 61.113(c) pro rata cost sharing scenario as one can imagine.

[M20F]

4 hours ago, Seth said:

So what if the site was non-profit with no commercial purpose except to increase pilot communication for ride sharing to lower costs and be more efficient.  No profit, someone personally paying for the forum, and pilots who have to sign in this non public, have access.  Would it still not be allowed due to this ruling?  It just seems to smack in the face of sharing rules that we know and are allowed.  I guess I just don't understand the ruling logic.

I don't plan to join or use the site, but I just don't get the logic in why they said you can't do what the law says you can do.

I guess I'm missing something.

-Seth

 

 

 

The issue isn't sharing, the issue is holding out.  In order to advertise or otherwise make people aware of an operation you need a certificated operation.  This has always been the case and this case changes nothing in that regard.  The easiest example is posting a note on a bulletin board at your home airport saying you are flying to Florida and asking if any others want to share the flight, that is and always has been disallowed under part 91.  

Making a private Internet forum to essentially do the same thing the bulletin board does is a horse with different spots, it is though still a horse.

People rarely if ever get in trouble for sharing expenses and I would venture all of us at one time or another have broke this FAR (fly me back from Maxwells and I will buy your gas) in one fashion or another.  The FAA has little interest in enforcing that rule.  Where people run afoul is with the holding out part, and that the FAA always seems to have a strong interest in enforcing.

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/August/20/FAA-warns-flight-sharing-services

 

[steingar]

I honestly think certificates for taxi drivers are akin to the commercial certificate, which is more or less useless.  Why should a taxi driver have a special license?  They're driving the same vehicles on the same roads.  Same for pilots.  Why should I need a special license to fly the same airplane to the same airports just because someone is paying me?  It is the same exact operation.  The rules are simply archaic and stupid.

Requiring a special license to fly an airliner makes some sense, as does having one to drive a truck or a bus.  But so long as we have outdated rules and all we can do is quote them, nothing will change.

[N201MKTurbo]

The reason is, you are allowed to kill yourself and your friends with a private license. You need a Commercial license and an ATCO certificate to kill total strangers.