Flight sharing sites (general discussion) (merged)

Could someone familiar with Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (link) explain why no exemption from the requirement to hold an operating licence is necessary for typical cost-shared flights? These are properly categorised as commercial air transport notwithstanding the derogation within the Air Operations Regulation, article 6 point 4a, permitting them to be conducted in accordance with Part-NCO.

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 does not require a valid operating licence for local flights which is interpreted as meaning “a flight not involving carriage of passengers, mail and/or cargo between different airports or other authorised landing points”. Surely A–B cost-shared flights therefore require an operating licence?

Qalupalik wrote:

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 does not require a valid operating licence for local flights which is interpreted as meaning “a flight not involving carriage of passengers, mail and/or cargo between different airports or other authorised landing points”. Surely A–B cost-shared flights therefore require an operating licence?

Maybe this letter from EASA to Wingly, signed by Patrik Ky, can shed some light?

It is also clear from EASA’s discussions with flight sharing sites such as Wingly, resulting in the EASA flight sharing charter that EASA’s interpretation is that an operating license is not needed.

[ PDF local copies ]
easa_charter_annex_pdf
easa_pdf

Since practically every country always allowed cost sharing, this may be achieved with historical national exemptions. For example the UK has for many years had the “summary of public transport” statement. A have the old copy here and some replacement regs. But I may be misunderstanding the Q

Does the Agency have the authority to exempt a person from Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008?

It appears a pragmatic solution in UK has been to interpret the overall context of the regulation as not applying to operations like these. This point of view is given in ‘Summary of the Meaning of Commercial Air Transport, Public Transport & Aerial Work’, Office of the General Counsel, September 2014 (link) para 1.7.

1.5 European law does not use the term public transport. It uses the term commercial air
transport (CAT). This is defined as the carriage by air of passengers, mail and/or cargo for
remuneration and/or hire.

1.6 Any undertaking operating for such a purpose was required by EC Regulation 2407/92 to
hold an operating licence1. This Regulation formed part of the “Third Package” which
liberalised air transport within the Community. It requires Community carriers carrying out
CAT to hold an operating licence – an economic approval. There are various financial and
insurance requirements which must be met to obtain such a licence. (This Regulation has
now been revoked and replaced by EC Regulation 1008/2008 but this particular requirement
is unchanged.)

1.7 Having regard to the purpose of EC Regulation 2407/92, the description of a CAT operation
has been interpreted as capturing the typical commercial passenger carrying flight but not the
other types of operation coming within public transport. (In most European countries these
other types of operation are regulated as “aerial work” rather than as a variety of public
transport or CAT.)

What is the general feeling on this subject today?

Have flight sharing sites moved forward, or is the interest slowing down?

Apart from an ongoing and apparently vigorous debate in the French aeroclub scene social media, one hears less and less about it…

Isn’t it the other way round? The likes of MyDays etc.. offering „shady“ flights that are NOT cost shared?

I think the noise is fizzling out as more and more people realise that it’s a non-issue.

The mistake a lot of folks made in approaching the issue was that they took the starting point that a PPL cannot be paid to fly and incorrectly interpreted it to mean that a PPL must pay the costs of their flying. Of course there is no such rule, and once you accept that then the issue goes away so long as the passenger is not paying the pilot and choosing the date/time/desintation.

Do you mean that paid flight sharing is fizzling out, or it is carrying on but with a lower media profile?

so long as the passenger is not paying the pilot and choosing the date/time/desintation

That’s exactly what is current regulation does allow

I think that people are quietly getting on with it. Most of the fuss, as far as I can see, was kicked up by commercial pilots and AOCs who (for whatever reason) thought that ‘business’ was being stolen from them. Clearly it is not.

Read again carefully….

Graham wrote:

so long as the passenger is not paying the pilot and choosing the date/time/desintation

They cannot remunerate the pilot for his/her time/skills/efforts. They can pay for aircraft costs, fuel, landing fees etc. because that is not the same thing as paying the pilot. Lots of long-established law (tax law) makes it clear that paying someone and paying their expenses are fundamentally different things.

To make cost sharing an actual issue which would even require the authorities to issue the guidance they have, there would need to be a regulation which effectively said “A PPL may not be paid to fly, nor may a third party pay the costs of their flying. A PPL is required to pay the full direct operating cost of each aeroplane hour which they log.”

The whole thing hinges on a lot of people thinking that a regulation says (or means) something that it doesn’t. There are lots of examples of this in various regulatory debates, for instance those who insist that if you instruct at night you are by definition ‘teaching night flying’, those who insist that if you fly an ILS in visual conditions it is a ‘practice approach’, and those who insist that unless they are an instructor the PIC must sit in the left seat.