Well if I’d known you were having the argument here I would have come here first. :)
To use a phrase nobody can say with a straight face anymore, you need to come here more often 
I bit like those Jet and TBM operators saying “it’s all part 91”.
Nobody with a brain is going to be transporting people on a cost sharing basis, because by definition they are guaranteed to lose money on every flight.
All this achieves is that it makes it easier to do GA flying for cash-strapped people who are now able to fly with people on an ad hoc basis, arranged via the internet. Let’s face it, everything else is now done over the internet 
There is no evidence I know about that the old UK restrictions about cost sharing advertising being limited to a club etc etc ever achieved the very specific thing which the CAA wanted to achieve: a block on illegal AOC. The CAA could never care less about GA cost sharing. What they don’t like is pisstaking like somebody taking 30 “cost sharing friends” to Silverstone (a race track) in a helicopter, one after the other, all day long… but nobody is going to do that unless they can make a profit, and that isn’t going to be possible unless all 30 are willing to come up with the same lie when interviewed separately afterwards (which won’t happen).
If somebody with an Aztec can cost share with 5 passengers and thus reduce their direct costs by 5/6, that is likely to increase his flying activity (assuming he was budget limited to start with, which is probably not the case for anybody flying a 30 year old Aztec ) but he is still not going to fly every day just for a laugh because after the novelty has worn off he will get fed up with it.
The guidance I have received from the CAA Counsel to date has been:
Timothy
The law allows the sharing of direct costs. It does not stipulate a proportion to be met by the pilot or operator. Neither does it prohibit advertising. But of course, by definition, such an operation cannot be conducted on a profit making basis. We are in the process of updating the CAA Information Notice on this to provide a little more information to the General Aviation community and that update provides the following information—
Cost Sharing
The pilot in command or operator of the aircraft is normally responsible for paying for the costs of running an aircraft on a flight. However, if it is a private flight the direct costs can be shared between all the occupants of the aircraft. Direct cost is described as ‘the cost directly incurred in relation to a flight, e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft. There is no element of profit.’
Who can share the costs?
The direct costs can be shared by up to six private individuals on board the aircraft each of whom must make a contribution.
How are these costs shared?
It is for the occupants to decide between themselves what proportion they should each pay. There is no minimum or maximum amount specified by the law but the pilot must pay something.
Can cost shared flights be advertised in advance?
They can, however the advertisement should make clear that it is a cost-shared flight between private individuals and should not in any way give the impression that it is a commercial flight.
Article 14 of the Air Navigation Order 2009 prohibits the advertising of a flight for the purpose of commercial air transport unless the proposed operator holds an air operator certificate. So to avoid the risk of contravening that provision any cost sharing advert should make clear that what is being offered is not a commercial air transport flight.
Peter,
Nobody with a brain is going to be transporting people on a cost sharing basis, because by definition they are guaranteed to lose money on every flight.
I have a brain, I hope we can agree that.
I love flying. I love it enough to bear the £300ph cost.
Why would I not love it even more at £1ph?
I will transport people as much as they like if they cover the costs.
I meant to add “indefinitely”, but fair enough, I guess somebody might regard it as a way to promote GA, which is a good thing.
The flying schools at your airport will soon slash your tyres though because you will strip out their pleasure flight trial lesson income
I will transport people as much as they like if they cover the costs.
Oooooh err missus. You don’t want to say things like that. I presume you meant to say “….. if they share the costs”? :)
1p, Dave, 1p
I will transport people as much as they like if they cover the costs.
Given that there are enough pilots who think the same, you could open a real airline under that scheme… Heavy use of IT and something like Uber could be created.
Given that there are enough pilots who think the same, you could open a real airline under that scheme… Heavy use of IT and something like Uber could be created.
Which brings us back to the flight sharing platform discussion… Which I suppose still lack a criticial mass to be successful.
Anyone wants to be my PAX next week from EDLE to EDFE and cost share?
Patrick,
I think the trick is not to set the agenda.
If you want to fly, but don’t mind where or when, you advertise your availability and go with their wishes. So you end up doing EDLE LFAT EDLE because they fancy a day of moules and sandcastles.
You don’t mind because (nearly) free flying is (nearly) free flying.
Which I suppose still lack a criticial mass to be successful.
I think too many people have been afraid of getting prosecuted. Also different countries have different rules. For example the one in France is not that different from the FAA “common purpose” rule, either in its effectiveness in blocking cost sharing or in its unenforceability, depending on which side you are on. I get the feeling that almost no aircraft owner in the USA cost shares, as a result of the “common purpose” requirement.
Once this new EASA rule settles down, and provided nobody takes the piss in a manner big enough to cause it to be reversed, it should be possible to have an online booking site for matching aircraft owners (or renters) and prospective passengers.
Obviously it is very provocative to the CAAs, which makes it all the more amazing that it got passed. The ability for the pilot to contribute almost nothing is an amazing concession but is also the biggest thing to encourage abuse.
The ability of a renter to make use if it will be subject to the owner (usually a school) having a view, and the ability of an owner to make use of it will depend on his local airfield politics. For example if I ever take up somebody I don’t know (not often), I make sure they have not already been around the local schools and got quotes for a pleasure flight because that would massively piss off the schools, who would immediately notice
(nearly) free flying.
It’s not nearly free flying because the pilot still has to pay the Annual and whatever other non-mileage-related costs, which on say an Aztec are likely to be about £20000/year. On a TB20, maintained by the usual company, about £5000-£10000/year depending on how old and how badly neglected. Also on a G-reg you still have the 150hr service which will be reached more easily if you do more flying, obviously, and while this should be a “direct cost” it is almost a full Annual and will bring with it the usual downtime.
Call me a black hat if you like but few things are simple
