Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




MCOpilot
05-02-2018, 05:43 AM
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Flight-Sharing-Back-In-Play-230636-1.html

Another attack on our profession coming. I would suggest calling your states constituents to garner their support in putting this to bed. If air commerce is so important that we can’t strike at whim, it should be so important that we won’t allow “barnstormers” to carry passengers without appropriate certification.


rickair7777
05-02-2018, 07:06 AM
Not worried. Would it be abused? Yes, people will try. But no way you could break even on this, much less get an ROI on PPL training.

After some get-there-itis fatalities, either congress will kill it or the media will do an expose. I'm starting to think the flying public needs to be given a little more rope... end result will be they'll appreciate us professionals more.

PasserOGas
05-02-2018, 07:41 AM
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Flight-Sharing-Back-In-Play-230636-1.html

Another attack on our profession coming. I would suggest calling your states constituents to garner their support in putting this to bed. If air commerce is so important that we can’t strike at whim, it should be so important that we won’t allow “barnstormers” to carry passengers without appropriate certification.

Meh. Not as big of a threat as joint ventures or the entire sub-contracting (regional) industry.


HuggyU2
05-02-2018, 08:07 AM
The sky is falling!!

I'm starting to think the flying public needs to be given a little more rope... end result will be they'll appreciate us professionals more.
That's a good way to put it.

hilltopflyer
05-02-2018, 09:24 AM
Sounds like an amazing idea. Let's get a 50 hour private pilot advertising that he will fly who ever on a plane he has no business flying. Or in weather he has no business flying in.

labbats
05-02-2018, 05:16 PM
Caveat Emptor

Han Solo
05-03-2018, 03:28 AM
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Flight-Sharing-Back-In-Play-230636-1.html

Another attack on our profession coming. I would suggest calling your states constituents to garner their support in putting this to bed. If air commerce is so important that we can’t strike at whim, it should be so important that we won’t allow “barnstormers” to carry passengers without appropriate certification.

Call my state's constituents?

rickair7777
05-03-2018, 06:29 AM
Call my state's constituents?

Actually that might work. It would just take a lot longer...

PowderFinger
05-03-2018, 09:06 AM
FAR 134.99 charters have been around for years.

Diligently reading accident reports I run across one or two a year that fall into this category. Some of the subtle giveaways are reading flight logs when they are included. Another clue is when the FAA categorizes the operating certificate as 'None' as opposed to FAR 91 or FAR 135.

One of the most blatant examples I ever personally witnessed was at an operator in Sunny Florida where I flew part time for a few months. The primary operation was a flight school and much of it catered to students from France. The owner also had a 135 certificate with one airplane on the certificate and me and one or two others listed as pilots. I flew both primary instruction and some charter in the plane that was on the certificate.

Because of the one plane on a real certificate the owner could advertise charter service.

If the plane on the certificate was not available the owner would put the customer/s in another plane. If I was approached to fly it I would refuse. Others did not. If none of the pilots on the certicicate were available or willing, he would let a student fly the charter (provided they had at least a private certificate).

One of the most marginal students i ever flew with at the school ... she was French, private certificate or maybe a wet commercial ... Low time either way ... Took a Cherokee 6 charter. I would not fly the plane due to known airworthiness issues and not on the certificate ... One other guy refused to fly it as well.

Of course she is at a major now ... Very senior 767 f/o in EWR ... permanent f/o from what I have heard.

We had two 134.99 operators at my current field. Both twin Cessnas. The 421 finally had a gear collapse so now just one operator in a 340.

This stuff goes on by word of mouth. With flight sharing it will still be FAR 134.99 but they will be able to advertise.

Hilltopper89
05-03-2018, 10:47 AM
Actually that might work. It would just take a lot longer...

I don’t have time to call all 10 million of my state’s constituents.

PowderFinger
05-03-2018, 11:08 AM
I don’t have time to call all 10 million of my state’s constituents.

Lucky me ... Only 3 million

SonicFlyer
05-03-2018, 04:30 PM
Another attack on our profession coming. I would suggest calling your states constituents to garner their support in putting this to bed. If air commerce is so important that we can’t strike at whim, it should be so important that we won’t allow “barnstormers” to carry passengers without appropriate certification.
Why do you hate freedom? :confused:

NeverHome
05-07-2018, 03:18 AM
Why do you hate freedom? :confused:

I don’t think they hate freedom. Rather, asking ourselves how far freedom goes? Should someone have the right to intentionally harm someone else? Most would say no (variety of reasons). Well now the question becomes: if there is a very high probability that someone will hurt someone else, should we permit that? Again I think the answer is no.

The older I get, the more I see in aviation, the more I realize experience is best way to safer flying (though not foolproof).

SonicFlyer
05-07-2018, 09:38 AM
I don’t think they hate freedom. Rather, asking ourselves how far freedom goes? Should someone have the right to intentionally harm someone else? Most would say no (variety of reasons). Well now the question becomes: if there is a very high probability that someone will hurt someone else, should we permit that? Again I think the answer is no.Disconnect, two obviously different issues.

Intentionally harming someone is one thing, someone engaging in voluntarily risky behavior is another.

rickair7777
05-07-2018, 10:13 AM
Disconnect, two obviously different issues.

Intentionally harming someone is one thing, someone engaging in voluntarily risky behavior is another.

That distinction gets pretty thin if the "voluntary risk" applies to passengers who probably didn't volunteer for it...

GogglesPisano
05-07-2018, 05:29 PM
That distinction gets pretty thin if the "voluntary risk" applies to passengers who probably didn't volunteer for it...

In Sonic’s libertarian utopia, every citizen has his own lawyer to examine every contract he encounters in life. And performs his own due diligence and risk assessment before engaging in any activity. Because we can’t trust the government for any of this stuff, freedom and all.

StrykerB21
05-10-2018, 11:26 AM
I don't have any issue with this.

aeroengineer
05-11-2018, 11:17 AM
Not worried. Would it be abused? Yes, people will try. But no way you could break even on this, much less get an ROI on PPL training.

After some get-there-itis fatalities, either congress will kill it or the media will do an expose. I'm starting to think the flying public needs to be given a little more rope... end result will be they'll appreciate us professionals more.

I agree that profit in the traditional sense won't be worthwhile in this endeavor. What I see is a lot of low time pilots using it as a cheaper alternative to get to 1500. How safely they can do it is the open question.

captjns
05-12-2018, 06:53 AM
I agree that profit in the traditional sense won't be worthwhile in this endeavor. What I see is a lot of low time pilots using it as a cheaper alternative to get to 1500. How safely they can do it is the open question.

What’s the difference if they pay $$$ per hour on their own versus sharing to build the hours. Safety and judgement or lack thereof has no boundaries.

aeroengineer
05-13-2018, 10:52 AM
What’s the difference if they pay $$$ per hour on their own versus sharing to build the hours. Safety and judgement or lack thereof has no boundaries.



If I can put me and 3 non-pilot college buddies in a Cherokee Six and wander the country then the only thing I'm sharing is cost and not the flight time. With an online board I could repeat with trips to any spring break destination with a new set of "friends" each week. At least that's how I see it.

I completely agree with your assertion that safety and judgment or lack thereof has no boundaries. It appears Europe is doing something similar and as far as I can tell hasn't had any major issues but we'll see.

ShyGuy
05-13-2018, 11:37 AM
The FAA disagreed with that interpretation. That's why both FlyteNow and AirPooler were both killed off by the FAA. By advertising on a board for a trip, the line was crossed. The reality was people were using ride-sharing type services to split costs, but if they found no interest for a trip, they would cancel the trip and schedule it elsewhere they could get some 'friends' to show up for to split the cost. The feds considered that as scheduling services and withholding services, and shut down the ride sharing programs for splitting costs for flying as a private pilot. Be very careful advertising on a board your trip for spring break.

aeroengineer
05-13-2018, 02:41 PM
The FAA disagreed with that interpretation. That's why both FlyteNow and AirPooler were both killed off by the FAA. By advertising on a board for a trip, the line was crossed. The reality was people were using ride-sharing type services to split costs, but if they found no interest for a trip, they would cancel the trip and schedule it elsewhere they could get some 'friends' to show up for to split the cost. The feds considered that as scheduling services and withholding services, and shut down the ride sharing programs for splitting costs for flying as a private pilot. Be very careful advertising on a board your trip for spring break.

Point of clarification. I'm past college a ways so I was using a hypothetical LOL. I agree that's why the FAA shut the sites down but I believe that was the point of the bill in Congress was to allow some latitude for aircraft with eight or fewer seats. I know it probably won't be easy for the FAA to police once it takes effect.

SonicFlyer
05-13-2018, 03:35 PM
The FAA disagreed with that interpretation. That's why both FlyteNow and AirPooler were both killed off by the FAA. By advertising on a board for a trip, the line was crossed. The reality was people were using ride-sharing type services to split costs, but if they found no interest for a trip, they would cancel the trip and schedule it elsewhere they could get some 'friends' to show up for to split the cost. The feds considered that as scheduling services and withholding services, and shut down the ride sharing programs for splitting costs for flying as a private pilot. Be very careful advertising on a board your trip for spring break.

Yay for economic protectionism... big government always tries to protect big business and never the little guy. :mad:

rickair7777
05-13-2018, 04:52 PM
Yay for economic protectionism... big government always tries to protect big business and never the little guy. :mad:

There are plenty of little guys who put in time, effort, money, and pain to acquire CPLs and 135 certs.

Most pax who might use an ASEL ride hailing service are little guys.

JamesNoBrakes
05-13-2018, 07:36 PM
There are plenty of little guys who put in time, effort, money, and pain to acquire CPLs and 135 certs.


Yes. The idea is that the public traveling by aviation should expect certain standards, levels of safety, etc. That's the whole point. It's not about protecting the big guys, it's about preventing loading up half of your family and then crashing in a fireball right after takeoff.

SonicFlyer
05-13-2018, 09:25 PM
Yes. The idea is that the public traveling by aviation should expect certain standards, levels of safety, etc. That's the whole point. It's not about protecting the big guys, it's about preventing loading up half of your family and then crashing in a fireball right after takeoff.
And if you believe that, then Al Gore has some carbon credits to sell you :rolleyes:

Qotsaautopilot
05-14-2018, 04:51 AM
Yay for economic protectionism... big government always tries to protect big business and never the little guy. :mad:

Considering we all work for the “big business” I’m all for protecting us.

Qotsaautopilot
05-14-2018, 04:53 AM
Yes. The idea is that the public traveling by aviation should expect certain standards, levels of safety, etc. That's the whole point. It's not about protecting the big guys, it's about preventing loading up half of your family and then crashing in a fireball right after takeoff.

I think it’s both but I agree.

rickair7777
05-14-2018, 06:05 AM
And if you believe that, then Al Gore has some carbon credits to sell you :rolleyes:

The idea that piston GA ride-hailing is going to put a dent in airline travel is ludicrous. If you could do unregulated on-demand ride hailing with a full 737 that might be different, but that's not possible.

155mm
05-14-2018, 06:15 AM
It's ironic Senator Mike Lee, a Lawyer, is proposing such a bill when Lawyers have some of the highest accident rates in general aviation. I feel real safe now! Also, this is the same guy that opposed Flint, Michigan getting federal funding to clean up their water situation. I'm sure the brown water is fine to drink and bathe with on my FNT overnights.

Americans keep re-electing these idiots and that's precisely why we need term limits!

rickair7777
05-14-2018, 07:50 AM
It's ironic Senator Mike Lee, a Lawyer, is proposing such a bill when Lawyers have some of the highest accident rates in general aviation. I feel real safe now! Also, this is the same guy that opposed Flint, Michigan getting federal funding to clean up their water situation. I'm sure the brown water is fine to drink and bathe with on my FNT overnights.

Americans keep re-electing these idiots and that's precisely why we need term limits!

There's only one thing worse than no term limits.... a congress full of rank amateurs getting played by the beltway civil-service bureaucrats.

tomgoodman
05-14-2018, 08:01 AM
Considering we all work for the “big business” I’m all for protecting us.

Right! The next time somebody accuses us of restraining trade in order to boost our incomes, say: “Of course we do. Bwa haa haa!” :p



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1