It’s the same in all of EASA member states (not sure about the non EU members like Switzerland because it comes as a EU law). The UK document is good because the rules were quite strict in the UK so a lot has changed and the CAA did a great job at explaining the changes.
For Germany nothing much has changed. The previous restricting EU cost sharing law was ignored by Germany by means of an illegal middle-finger-decree from the Federal Ministry of Transport.
And is it true that in the US you are not allowed to get any money when transporting passengers on a private flight?
The document seems to be from the UK. Do you know if this is the same in all EASA countries or if they implemented additional rules?
As far as I know, this is the same in all EASA countries since this became effective about a year ago. I’m not aware of any exceptions.
Next to the discontinuation of the “no advertising” requirement, what has changed is that the “share” does not have to be pro rata anymore. So as long as the pilot pays “a share”, it’s legal according to the regs. That may be as little as 1 EUR. There cannot be any profit made, though, obviously.
In the US you cannot get any money from the passengers
I believe the US still has the “common purpose” requirement in place. I.e. you can cost share if you and your passengers have a common purpose for the flight (i.e. invited to the same wedding). You cannot cost share if only you are invited to a Wedding in Las Vegas and your passengers are just going gambling.
Patrick wrote:
You cannot cost share if only you are invited to a Wedding in Las Vegas and your passengers are just going gambling.
I believe that scenario is fine and quite common actually (“I have to fly to XYZ for business tomorrow, do you want to come along and spend the day at XYZ?”). You have a common purpose (“fly to Las Vegas”). What that common purpose is meant to protect against is pilots flying passengers to a destination they want to go to, i.e. fly for hire. The same goes for soliciting passengers.
Under EASA it is now extremely liberal and that’s good. There is no difference between a car and a private plane really or between an AOC and a taxi driver. The old rules were from a time when you could operate an AOC with a Seneca. Today, nobody would hire an air taxi company with a stinking red fake leather Seneca so you’re not competing against AOCs. Money can’t be made in that business anyway so no danger there either 
To be honest I’m not very happy about this new website. It is an “EXIST” project which means the taxpayer spends between 50.000 and 100.000 Euro on this project. This money is intended to start businesses which will eventually pay taxes, employ people etc. But what are the chances in this case?
They (the chances) are close to zero, because GA of our type will never have the critical mass that is necessary.
They (the chances) are close to zero, because GA of our type will never have the critical mass that is necessary.
Disagreed. How about hooking up such a service with one of the existing ride sharing platforms (that definitely have a critical mass), displaying alternative flight shares as an option to ride shares if available for the selected trip? That could be a game changer.
Patrick wrote:
How about hooking up such a service with one of the existing ride sharing platforms (that definitely have a critical mass), displaying alternative flight shares as an option to ride shares if available for the selected trip? That could be a game changer.
I am not sure – car ride sharing is mainly about low cost travelling, speed is not a leading factor and fun will probably also not attract a lot of people from those platforms.
I think if it exposes more people to GA it is a positive thing provided the pilot
1 Doenst show off doing stalls etc
2 Fly in conditions non conducive for people to get air sick
3 Scare passengers Flying low with thermals around.
If they see that flying is a unique form of travel that can save them time to out of the way places which are difficult to get to with
other forms of transport.
Yes you can charge for common purpose flights provided they are covering a portion of the expenses. I always include my seat in the equation.
Technically my seat should be more expensive because its in the 1st class section but since Im not issuing tickets it doesn’t come up.
They seem to be popping up like mushrooms all over Europe these days…
@Aviathor is very right. In this post, I reported this new French flight sharing site: COAVMI.
Since then, I found two other competing flight sharing sites only for France:
http://www.aerotransactions.fr/la-charte-du-co-avionnage-8235
http://aerostop.free.fr/aerostop_v2/
This is not going to work well…
