Blackbird flightsharing raises $10M
https://nxtstartup.in/business-news/...JAnaTiCe4MiYs0
Am i losing my memory or have we already gone through these attempts with flight sharing? These guys have been operating for a year. At first used a service called hitch" where a pilot would (maybe they would) share their flight to and from a destination; But they removed that from their site a few months ago. Now i'm not sure what they're doing with these individuals and these "commercial pilots" If that's not wha they're doing and pairing people to actual companies with an operating certificate (like surfair and jetsuit X), I'm not even sure I understand their business model. Their CEO Rudd Davis is a complete sleaze bag from what i've been told from someone that attempted to work with him. This company is a huge red flag, a middle finger to the rest of us earning our certificates and going through extensive training so that these very people can be SAFE. I really don't understand why the FAA hasn't shut these people down. I've looked through these peoples Linkedin profiles and not a single person has any background in aviation other than attempting to get their PPL. |
www.flyblackbird.com
In reading their “terms and conditions”, they acknowlwedge and state that they are not an FAA certificated air carrier but merely a “marketplace” (sounds to me like a broker). They defer to the “Third-Party Service Providers” (flight crews and/or aircraft available for lease). Hmm... |
Idiots. Give 'em enough rope to hang themselves.
Soon enough they'll be under investigation for unlicensed charters, and buried by lawsuits filed by the family of crash victims who didn't realize their pilot was an amateur airborne uber driver. |
bump...has anywhere heard what the FAA thinks of this?
|
So apparently Blackbird is just the "marketplace" for planes that are available for rental or lease, and the renters need to employ a qualified pilot to fly, conveniently located through the list of qualified pilots associated with each plane.
They also say that you can "share" available seats with other Blackbird community members, but the rules prohibit charging those additional passengers for travel. Totally sketchy arrangement. Totally convoluted way of using Part 91 rules to do Part 135 flying. They blatantly "hold out" to the public in their advertising. Customers have no idea what they are getting into. It won't end well. |
Just got an email from them.. Agree with you guys.. Sounds sketch at best.
|
Originally Posted by BobbyLeeSwagger
(Post 2888134)
Just got an email from them.. Agree with you guys.. Sounds sketch at best.
What'd it say? They don't physically 'interview' these community pilots on their network. It's like Uber but worse. They just leave it to the flight school wherever these aircraft are being rented from. There are a number of Bay Area flight schools that banned people from using planes for this. I seriously have no idea how the FAA hasn't canned these guys. I got up to a phonecall with them. The questions the guy was asking told me he had no dang clue what he was asking since none of them have experience with this. When I was asking questions he just directed me to ask another person. Flat out told him don't ever call me again and delete every ounce of my information that he had and hung up on me. |
Letter from FAA RE Blackbird
In an FAA letter this week…
“We have considered the June 10, 2019 letter from BlackBird Air, Inc. (BlackBird), that set out many aspects of its business model and operating assumptions. The information that BlackBird has presented leads us to conclude that the pilots participating in BlackBird's platform and using its app are holding out and thus are engaged in common carriage.” Going on…. “In sum, the FAA has concluded that pilots' use of the Black:Bird platform constitutes "holding out" and participating pilots are engaged in common carriage. Because these operations are subject to part 119 certification, a pilot who holds an airline transport pilot or commercial pilot certificate must obtain and hold a certificate issued under part 135 or the pilot must be employed by a company operating the flight that is certificated under part 119.” And…. “Accordingly, please expect further investigative activity into BlackBird's operations, particularly regarding its pilot database.” Want to read more about this, view the full letter at http://jasonblair.net/wp-content/upl...ird_Letter.pdf |
Yep, leave it to the government to stifle competition, innovation, and the ability for consumers to choose.
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2941827)
Yep, leave it to the government to stifle competition, innovation, and the ability for consumers to choose.
|
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
(Post 2941920)
Those Federal busybodies and their pesky rules! Too many crashes are bad for business, and consumers would migrate elsewhere, so why not let the free market handle safety matters? :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2941927)
The amount of rules are not directly correlated to the number of crashes.
|
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
(Post 2941947)
Yes they are. Crashes almost always lead to new rules, or better enforcement of old ones.
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2941972)
Except that these rules involved here are about protectionism, not safety.
If you already have a 135 cert, you're free to advertise any way you like. |
Rules are absolutely related to safety.
121 has far more restrictions than 135 or 91 and has a far better safety record. You can argue about protection, but really 121 encompasses training, rest, inspections, certification and mechanic training as well as other safety issues. |
No, not in this case.
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2941827)
Yep, leave it to the government to stifle competition, innovation, and the ability for consumers to choose.
Referring to the P91 aspect. :confused: They don't vet these pilots, they barely interview them, Like its not even an interview. It's like Uber. Potentially complete unstable personalities flying paying people that want to go somewhere. I bet you they don't know what PRIA is. It's not innovation it's a scam and a middle finger to professional pilots. |
Originally Posted by Hawker445
(Post 2943174)
Referring to the P91 aspect.
:confused: They don't vet these pilots, they barely interview them, Like its not even an interview. It's like Uber. Potentially complete unstable personalities flying paying people that want to go somewhere. I bet you they don't know what PRIA is. It's not innovation it's a scam and a middle finger to professional pilots. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2943356)
So now you're saying that every pilot needs a psych exam? :rolleyes:
If you say so. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer View Post
Yep, leave it to the government to stifle competition, innovation, and the ability for consumers to choose.
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
(Post 2941920)
Those Federal busybodies and their pesky rules! Too many crashes are bad for business, and consumers would migrate elsewhere, so why not let the free market handle safety matters? :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by aeroengineer
(Post 3058980)
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer View Post
Yep, leave it to the government to stifle competition, innovation, and the ability for consumers to choose. In light of the last several weeks this thread arguably takes on new meaning. Lets say people without the means or desire to charter a bizjet and with a strong desire to maintain some social distancing from large groups of people, decide they want to fly somewhere in a small aircraft under a flight sharing service similar to Blackbird. For this argument all participating aircraft are limited to 6 seats and must get 100 hour inspections with commercial/ATP certificated pilots. We've all seen a lot of pushback lately against what many see as onerous government regulations depending on where you stand on an issue and how it affects a person's livelihood. My question is should people be allowed to assess risk and what is acceptable for them? I think this could be an interesting discussion. They can also take even more control of their own risk by owning/operating their own plane under 91. Government has taken a complicated, dangerous endeavor and packaged it into convenient risk-tiers for the consumer. But history has clearly shown that under-regulated commercial ops are dangerous, to the point of causing political blow-back. Kind of like pharmaceuticals are regulated, cuts down on the snake-oil. Airborne "ride-share" is aviation snake-oil. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3058989)
People are already allowed to assess their own risk by choosing 121 or 135.
They can also take even more control of their own risk by owning/operating their own plane under 91. Government has taken a complicated, dangerous endeavor and packaged it into convenient risk-tiers for the consumer. But history has clearly shown that under-regulated commercial ops are dangerous, to the point of causing political blow-back. Kind of like pharmaceuticals are regulated, cuts down on the snake-oil. Airborne "ride-share" is aviation snake-oil. |
Originally Posted by aeroengineer
(Post 3059043)
I would say it bowls down to your definition of what constitutes under regulated though I'm certainly not saying unregulated. To your point about Part 91 not everyone has the means to own their own aircraft but maybe they want the freedom to access an aircraft on their terms for transportation. I've seen a lot of comments on APC lately of what counts as acceptable loss of life in relation to the COVID crisis. If a Bonanza going down costing up to 6 lives is that acceptable? Hasn't Europe allowed flight sharing? I'll admit I don't know all the details as to what level it is regulated in Europe. Yes pharmaceuticals are and should continue to be regulated but what constitutes enough regulation? Some states have decided marijuana is medicinal and deserving of far less regulation than it once was shifting the responsibility to the user for his own health and yes to not drive impaired where that certainly effects others. As a pilot and a holder of a security clearance I'm obviously not allowed but I do know people who do use it. Nowadays ATC/ADSB and avionics like the G1000 with a simple SD card can record nearly everything that is done with an aircraft and where it goes. If the pilot commits a violation he can certainly face enforcement action with plenty of potential evidence to back it up.
Uber had the same premise initially (ride sharing). How many uber drivers are actually full-time cab drivers? Many or most. How many of the part-timers actually just happen to be going in the direction the pax wants to go? Zero. Now if they want to get a 135 cert like everyone else, then they can use whatever scheduling software they like. |
Originally Posted by aeroengineer
(Post 3058980)
. My question is should people be allowed to assess risk and what is acceptable for them? I think this could be an interesting discussion.
The government must make those decisions for them in order that everyone be safe. We can't have people just running around all free accepting risk or doing their own research or making their own decisions or anything. What do you think this is, a republic? Same goes for deciding what food they be allowed to eat. No trans fat, no sugar, no carbs, etc. It's really the government's responsibility to make sure everyone is healthy and safe, comrade. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3059151)
Everybody knows it would be unlicensed charter ops. The "premise" is that it connects like-minded travelers, some of whom have a plane.
Uber had the same premise initially (ride sharing). How many uber drivers are actually full-time cab drivers? Many or most. How many of the part-timers actually just happen to be going in the direction the pax wants to go? Zero. Now if they want to get a 135 cert like everyone else, then they can use whatever scheduling software they like. |
Originally Posted by aeroengineer
(Post 3059519)
I'm sure some 135 operators like the regulations as they are because it protects their monetary interests. Fairness I suppose in the eye of the beholder.
If you want to put 135 in the shredder, fine then everybody who's not an airline is bound only to 91 and they can use whatever scheduling software they like. |
Originally Posted by aeroengineer
(Post 3058980)
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer View Post
Yep, leave it to the government to stifle competition, innovation, and the ability for consumers to choose. In light of the last several weeks this thread arguably takes on new meaning. Lets say people without the means or desire to charter a bizjet and with a strong desire to maintain some social distancing from large groups of people, decide they want to fly somewhere in a small aircraft under a flight sharing service similar to Blackbird. For this argument all participating aircraft are limited to 6 seats and must get 100 hour inspections with commercial/ATP certificated pilots. We've all seen a lot of pushback lately against what many see as onerous government regulations depending on where you stand on an issue and how it affects a person's livelihood. My question is should people be allowed to assess risk and what is acceptable for them? I think this could be an interesting discussion. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3059568)
Of course they do, they played by the rules and invested considerable money to obtain/maintain their cert. Why should the fed hold THEIR feet to the fire while allowing some hipsters with iphone apps to do regulatory end-runs and undercut their business?
If you want to put 135 in the shredder, fine then everybody who's not an airline is bound only to 91 and they can use whatever scheduling software they like. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:32 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands