AIN Blog: Is Flight-sharing Dead? (It’s all Uber’s Fault, Part 2)

It wasn’t a big surprise that the Supreme Court turned down the Flytenow case, refusing the opportunity to review the FAA’s decision that Flytenow and similar flight-sharing websites are “holding out” as commercial passenger carriers and that participating pilots must therefore become certified under commercial operating regulations.

Many people think that flight-sharing ought to be able to happen in aviation, similar to how ride-sharing companies Uber, Lyft and others have disrupted the taxicab industry. There’s a big difference, however. Most people are used to driving cars and are comfortable with the risks of driving, and they see no perceptible difference between the safety of a car driven by an average (non-commercially licensed, it should be pointed out) Uber or Lyft driver and driving themselves or with another driver. The same is not true in aviation; very few people are pilots or used to flying in light airplanes and thus not familiar with the risks. Their only exposure to general aviation is through sensational news reports about accidents. In addition, FAA regulations have long prevented “unsuspecting” members of the public from paying to fly with non-commercially certified pilots or operations. 

Flytenow launched three years ago as a means to connect pilots and passengers who wanted to share expenses when traveling to the same destination. It was Flytenow that asked the FAA for a legal interpretation of the regulations, to ensure that it wasn’t in violation. A similar outfit, AirPooler, also asked the FAA for a legal interpretation. 

The applicable regulations fall under 14 CFR Part 61, as exemptions listed in 61.113(b)-(h). Essentially, private pilots are permitted to share certain expenses with passengers, such as fuel and oil cost, airport fees and rental charges. Pilots and their passengers must also share a “bona fide” purpose for their travel, which has been interpreted to mean that they are all traveling to the same destination for the same purpose. Flytenow and AirPooler claim to have met all the regulatory requirements, yet in the case that Flytenow appealed to the Supreme Court, circuit court judge Cornelia Pillard rejected Flytenow’s arguments. 

Here is part of judge Pillard’s conclusion, which seems to reflect some of the sentiment in the aviation industry about this issue: “The FAA’s distinction between pilots offering expense-sharing services online to a wide audience and those offering expense-sharing services to a limited group is justified: holding out to the public creates the risk that unsuspecting passengers, under the impression that the service and its pilots lawfully offer common carriage, will contract with pilots who in fact lack the experience and credentials of commercial pilots. Regulators have good reasons to distinguish between pilots who are licensed to offer services to the public and those who are not, as other courts have recognized.”

What this whole subject reflects is the aviation industry’s uneasiness with the idea that the average private pilot might kill someone when flying from point A to B. I know this isn’t something pleasant to think about, but if flying in a light airplane was safer, we might not be having this discussion. It is not illegal to share expenses, and it is certainly not illegal to put a note on a bulletin board, whether on paper in meat-space or online in cyber-space. 

If we as an industry (I am including the regulators) are so worried about sending unsuspecting members of the general public up in a light airplane, then we should do something about the frankly sad safety record of light airplane flying. If we want this to be a growing industry that attracts new entrants, not just to learn to fly but also participate in flying in general, let’s start at the beginning, with more rigorous flight training, including a fanatical focus on adherence to standard operating procedures from day one. Once we improve the light airplane safety record, then we can take another look at flight-sharing and maybe press for some more reasonable interpretation of the regulations or even new regulations.