Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Hangar Talk (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/hangar-talk/)
-   -   Blackbird flightsharing raises $10M (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/hangar-talk/120612-blackbird-flightsharing-raises-10m.html)

Hawker445 03-14-2019 06:35 PM

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.

PerfInit 03-15-2019 06:12 AM

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...

rickair7777 03-15-2019 10:56 AM

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.

diamnd15 04-30-2019 04:38 PM

bump...has anywhere heard what the FAA thinks of this?

SeamusTheHound 04-30-2019 04:48 PM

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.

BobbyLeeSwagger 09-16-2019 07:19 AM

Just got an email from them.. Agree with you guys.. Sounds sketch at best.

Hawker445 09-17-2019 09:47 PM


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.

JasonBlair 12-19-2019 09:44 AM

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

SonicFlyer 12-19-2019 11:33 AM

Yep, leave it to the government to stifle competition, innovation, and the ability for consumers to choose.

tomgoodman 12-19-2019 02:13 PM


Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 2941827)
Yep, leave it to the government to stifle competition, innovation, and the ability for consumers to choose.

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:

SonicFlyer 12-19-2019 02:25 PM


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:

The amount of rules are not directly correlated to the number of crashes.

tomgoodman 12-19-2019 03:12 PM


Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 2941927)
The amount of rules are not directly correlated to the number of crashes.

Yes they are. Crashes almost always lead to new rules, or better enforcement of old ones.

SonicFlyer 12-19-2019 04:02 PM


Originally Posted by tomgoodman (Post 2941947)
Yes they are. Crashes almost always lead to new rules, or better enforcement of old ones.

Except that these rules involved here are about protectionism, not safety.

rickair7777 12-19-2019 04:20 PM


Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 2941972)
Except that these rules involved here are about protectionism, not safety.

I think it's directly relevant to safety... there are already enough shady characters in GA as it is, no need to give them more flexibility to broaden their horizons while covering their trail.

If you already have a 135 cert, you're free to advertise any way you like.

Rama 12-19-2019 09:42 PM

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.

SonicFlyer 12-20-2019 11:14 AM

No, not in this case.

Hawker445 12-21-2019 09:23 PM


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.

SonicFlyer 12-22-2019 08:39 AM


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.

So now you're saying that ever pilot needs a psych exam? :rolleyes:

Hawker445 12-22-2019 12:35 PM


Originally Posted by SonicFlyer (Post 2943356)
So now you're saying that every pilot needs a psych exam? :rolleyes:



If you say so.

aeroengineer 05-18-2020 11:14 AM

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:

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.

rickair7777 05-18-2020 11:26 AM


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.

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.

aeroengineer 05-18-2020 12:36 PM


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.

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.

rickair7777 05-18-2020 02:32 PM


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.

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.

SonicFlyer 05-18-2020 03:04 PM


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.

No, don't you know, people are too stupid to make their own decisions or decide how much risk is appropriate for themselves?

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.

aeroengineer 05-19-2020 05:44 AM


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.

Oh I agree its an unlicensed charter ops because the FAA says so. I say drop the pretext and let people fly where they want whether it's a common destination or not. Limit the size of the aircraft is fine by me. Along the same line I recall that the FAA stated that they have found 3 contracts as private carriage but they had found 11 contracts as common carriage. I guess a bright line would take away their power to regulate as they see fit. Maybe the FAA should be more concerned about keeping the 737 MAX from killing people by the dozens than a guy flying a Cessna 206 from Texas to Florida. I see page after page of people on APC losing their minds over government regulations because let's face it it affects their life and bottom line even though the restrictions are in place for the "public interest" Look at police speed traps. All couched in public safety but oh how the cities love it as the money rolls in. Finally, who are we kidding? 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.

rickair7777 05-19-2020 06:33 AM


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.

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.

As Briefed 05-19-2020 06:54 AM


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.

You seem completely ignorant to the number of twin and even single engine pistons that are already available in the market for said demographic.

aeroengineer 05-19-2020 08:14 AM


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.

I'm saying a carve out for say aircraft 6 seats or less not requiring a type rating. Anything above or outside of that is Part 135 etc and everyone operating those aircraft are under the same rules. I'm not suggesting otherwise. Certainly people are free to choose a Part 135 Operator and their associated fleet/size of aircraft. Admittedly this doesn't touch the pseudo-regulatory side known as insurance. As far as software doing the scheduling the plane doesn't fly any differently because of the how it was scheduled. Now do I realistically think this will actually take place? Outside of something like The Aviation Empowerment Act other Congressional action not likely.


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