Wingly flight sharing site (merged)

S57 wrote:

Having said all that, I think Wingly could do a lot more to help ‘users’ understand the nature of cost sharing and the implications of flight/pilot safety.

They are discussing this regularly. I had a conversation 2 days ago with one their community managers, who basically told me they’ll be raising the license and experience limits for such flights, as a result of the growing success of the platform. I think the bashing here is basically someone’s private little war and doesn’t carry very far.

Although the site gives details of licences held

That’s actually a really good point, because in EASA-land a CPL is virtually worthless unless working for an AOC holder. So the only relevant thing is a PPL/LAPL (which you must have anyway to fly a plane, though I guess in the UK one could do this on the NPPL) and an IR, but most customers won’t know what these are.

I think the bashing here is basically someone’s private little war

I think it is a valid point of view. It’s a good discussion.

S57 wrote:

Andover Calais • between 07.10.2017 – 28.10.2017
Required Seats: 1 • Further information for this request • Message User
Published: 05.10.2017, 19:52h
Just need to go to Calais to pick up a parcel and return

What’s the problem? Just a typical drug run over the Channel. Much less suspicious using different planes via Wingly than always going with the same airplane and eventually getting busted…

I bet somebody is already developing a PHP script to periodically check Wingly for “parcel pickup” type flights

Peter wrote:

That’s actually a really good point, because in EASA-land a CPL is virtually worthless unless working for an AOC holder. So the only relevant thing is a PPL/LAPL (which you must have anyway to fly a plane, though I guess in the UK one could do this on the NPPL) and an IR, but most customers won’t know what these are.

I think it is relevant and is the point I was trying to make. I think Wingly would do well to explain what these licences mean and the differences. Just because someone has a CPL does not mean they can’t offer flights for cost sharing. From a passenger’s point of view I think it is should be relevant. For example…

• For a nervous flyer, or someone wanting to take a loved one on a flight, the knowledge that someone has a CPL and therefore is more thoroughly trained and tested might offer peace of mind
• For the guy with the business meeting someone with an IR might be a good choice as it increases the chance of getting there
• For the drug runner the fewer licences probably the better because they will be less likely to ask questions

Patrick wrote:

TThierry wrote:

this is where the unfair competition to real companies is.

While there is a slim chance of overlap, I don’t think this will realistically happen. The client profile of professional air charter/taxi companies (I actually have no idea) is so completely different from people who give Wingly a go.. It’s almost funny to imagine.

I totally agree with Patrick here. In addition to the fact that cost sharing flights and on-demand air taxi appeal to different demographics, my example of the flight from Rouen to Cuers illustrates that the pilot incurs a great expense, so he will need some additional incentive to accept the cost and conduct the flight. That will naturally limit the number of such flights conducted for the sole purpose of cost sharing.

In my example I assumed that the cost of the flight was split equally among the occupants, but there is nothing in the regulations that says it must be the case. Actually the CAA have stated that it is OK for the pilot to pay only one euro (or pound). @Timothy has the details since he was the one that asked the question.

We discussed this in the clubs board. It took us all of 5 minutes. If it’s good enough for the EASA, it’s good enough for us.
During summer we get 2-5 requests per week by email from someone who wants to take a tour over his house or make a gift to a relative. It’s no different.

Aviathor wrote:

there are pilots who advertise flights at an hourly rate which by far exceeds the operating cost of the airplane

That’s definitely something wingly should adress. Easily done from the plane type, as pointed out earlier.
Peter wrote:

you will have to interrogate the advertiser and find out where he is renting the plane from

When you advertise a flight or answer on a flight request, you have to fill in the plane’s reg. From there, it’s very straightforward.

On the contrary, there are many pilots who are willing, if they have the opportunity, to conduct a flight only because they can fly more and pay less by transporting passengers.

To me this is part of my personal freedom. It is not the authorities’ business “if I would have taken the trip without passengers aswell”.

What would happen, in such a case, if the pilot had an accident and the insurance company investigated the flight in order to avoid paying the bill? what if they discovered that the pilot conducted the flight only with the aim of transporting paying passengers, not at all for himself?

That is ridiculous. How could anybody prove what my motivation was? It is absolutely legal to do “training flight” for example.

I had a look at the Wingly FB page. It’s a pretty slick effort.

In response to someone asking for a cost breakdown, to make sure the flight is legally within the cost sharing regs, they say:

You can be rest assured this flight is taking place under cost sharing regulations. We have a lot of checks and balances in place for this.