Flight sharing advertising has always been legal in Europe, and (I guess) in the USA too.
Such sites have been around for more years than I remember. Even David (here of EuroGA) used to run such a site.
I don’t recall anyone being bothered about this.
But I think it’s obvious that such sites’ primary purpose is to facilitate cost shared flights. And that is where the new sites come in, quite openly.
mh wrote:
Those networks aren’t necessarily commercial.
Yes they are because they are little more than a reservation system for scheduling flights among strangers. And that is what the FAA contends and wants to prevent.
When someone starts taking people places they do not know and for the prime purpose of the passenger’s transportation need its a commercial operation. Pilot training and proficiency requirements, weather rules and aircraft maintenance are all far more strict and stringent for commercial services. The theory being to place a higher bar to protect the traveling public.
The euphemism ‘cost sharing’ when applied to ride-sharing websites is an attempt to re-characterize what they are doing….
USFlyer wrote:
Yes they are because they are little more than a reservation system for scheduling flights among strangers. And that is what the FAA contends and wants to prevent.
First, they can be a plattform in the sense of “Hey guys, I’m going flying, who wants to join?” – Nothing about scheduled flights. There are a couple of pages who work that way. It is not the prime purpose of passenger transportation, but of sharing the beauty of aviation. Could be a local flight around the patch, a 100$-Burger run, or a flight to a nice touristic town or landscape.
Second, for most pilots the FAA has nothing to say, in this particular topic I am very glad, because for once, EASA is much more sensible.
USFlyer wrote:
The euphemism ‘cost sharing’ when applied to ride-sharing websites is an attempt to re-characterize what they are doing….
The proposed ban on cost sharing is much more an attempt to lock people out of a great experience and prevent pilots to promote their passion.
In Germany there is a long™ tradition of scenic flights (“Gastflüge” or “Rundflüge”) performed by aero clubs to the local public, with the goal to promote aviation, give access to the view, enlarge the lobby, and get the pilots free flight time. It is a very good tool to promote aviation and the use of airfields and to negate the assertion, pilots were just a bunch of filthy rich snobs. The first 16 year old glider pilot who works hard to pay for his flying is usually a real eye opener to many people who wouldn’t have an access to aviation otherwise.
All those flights happen at cost price and the pilot usually doesn’t pay to perform those flights. I am very glad, that EASA understood the importance of these flights and that local CAAs and EASA explicitly allowed those flights with a PPL and private (=club owned) aircraft. Especially new pilots can learn a lot on those flights without emptying the pockets too much. In my opinion it is very important for new pilots to fly much and not all have the financial background to afford the number of hours they should fly. Especially in their first couple of years after obtaining the license.
For the same reason I would love a plattform that reaches critical mass to be able to promote aviation. Because unless you just want to pee in new pants to keep warm (following LeSvings picture), aviation needs more good publicity and the constant effort to share experiences with the public. Even if they later don’t become aviators themselves, they’ll have something good to talk about with their neighbours, family and friends and often they give away vouchers for such a scenic flight for their family. Just new planes wouldn’t “save” our general aviation (although I don’t believe in overall decline).
mh wrote:
“Hey guys, I’m going flying, who wants to join?”
Nice try…but not how the FAA sees it….If you are using a public venue to ‘advertise’ a flight you are ‘holding out’ for the purposes of transportation a service (and since you are presumed to take money from such passengers its a financial arrangement). It really just that simple.
you are presumed to take money from such passengers
Do you have a reference for that, USFlyer?
That would make any means of openly contacting other pilots illegal in the USA.
It’s also not true in Europe. Flight sharing advertising has never been illegal anywhere I know of.
mh wrote:
Actually, EASA doesn’t care who I share a flight with
EASA has no interest in that either, why should they? It’s all the other bureaucrats, politicians as well as lawyers who will get very interested if something goes wrong and you have advertised that can bring along any passenger willing to pay X € to ride along in your 50 year old Piper. You are offering a service to transport people from A to B, and you are charging for that service. This is a very different thing than bringing along a friend who will pay for the hotel, while you pay for the flight kind of situation.
mh wrote:
So your old regulation is more restrictive than EASAs stance on that topic
Yes and no. The old regulations simply gave you the right to act as PIC in a non profit, non commercial situation. This is easy, uncomplicated and will not create any sort of problematic situations. The new regulation also does the same regarding non profit, but includes a commercial situation (advertising). It’s the advertising bit that opens up several cans of worms and will eventually kill the whole regulation (at best). It will do this also if everything is done in a non commercial situation (among friends), because the regulation makes no differentiation. This regulation is, in my opinion, about the most stupid thing EASA has ever done.
Can anyone post the regs pre EASA governing advertising of cost-shared flights, and any restrictions on advertising of seats, in their own country?
For example the UK allowed the advertising within a flying club (e.g. a notice pinned on the notice board) and all participants had to be club members.
Patrick wrote:
f I drive from Düsseldorf to Hamburg and take some people along that I found on a ride-sharing website, I’m not running a taxi operation, am I? Should this be forbidden, too?
Well, Über is VERBOTEN in Germany, no? And what’s the difference between that and your example? The only difference probably is that the taxi companies don’t care about the long-range ride sharing, as it’s not normally part of their business.
mh wrote:
In Germany there is a long™ tradition of scenic flights (“Gastflüge” or “Rundflüge”) performed by aero clubs to the local public, with the goal to promote aviation, give access to the view, enlarge the lobby, and get the pilots free flight time. It is a very good tool to promote aviation and the use of airfields and to negate the assertion, pilots were just a bunch of filthy rich snobs.
The same exists in the US and it’s perfectly legal for a PPL do conduct these flights.
It is, of course, also perfectly legal to invite someone to come along on a flight. Where the whole thing falls down is the cost sharing aspect, and this was what got these two websites into trouble here. They were advertising flights on a cost-share basis, not on a I have a spare seat, wanna come flying basis.
LeSving wrote:
but includes a commercial situation (advertising).
Could you please specify to witch part of the regulations you are referring?
