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.
I do have that email from CAA counsel, but not on my iPad as I write from Lisbon.
However, I don’t think that £1, €1, 1p or €0.01 was mentioned by value, just that there is no minimum. This is also quite clear in the legislation.
The fringe case (after reading all pros and cons here) is that of Unmanned air taxis…
What happens if I can buy an air taxi (e.g. Volocopter) and “pilot” it remotely?
In effect, I’d be operating under the Uber model of flight.
Is there any clause in there about being physically present in the cockpit during the flight?
In those (future) cases, I could absolutely see myself waking up and doing flight planning and observing a screen as a client rode my air taxi somewhere in the city.
That will also be a serious case where public meets private and the air (taxi) industry will want to get rid of competition.
Having an Uber Air service managing all the air taxis would be feasible.
In reality though, that too will (most likely) not happen, as air travel is too expensive.
When the Volo doesn’t have be certified, and costs about 1.5x what a car does, then it will start becoming an issue.
AF wrote:
The fringe case (after reading all pros and cons here) is that of Unmanned air taxis…
These unmanned vehicles are not regulated yet. Until there is appropriate regulation, we can’t know what the rules will be. I am sure that there has to be some sort of certified organization behind the operation of unmanned transport vehicles.
Key problem still being: how do we hold a robot vehicle / drone responsible should something happen.
Not a big problem in my view. It will be regulated so there will be certified companies behind. Those companies will have to provide sufficient insurance coverage. Audi recently introduced the new A8 which has autonomous functions at a higher level than any previously certified car (still disabled on public roads until legislation is adjusted). They announced that they are going to take responsibility for all damages caused by the software.
I operate a (relatively speaking) dangerous business and I have to demonstrate to my clients that I have adequate insurance coverage. That is all pretty standard stuff.
They announced that they are going to take responsibility for all damages caused by the software.
They have to. In all of civilised world, you can’t contract out of liability for injury or death, and in the 1st World you can really get out of anything lesser either 
Audi may as well guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow.
And still they are the first company to make such a clear statement and get a lot of news coverage about it.
There is a big difference between a manufacturer and what is basically a dating agency
The dating business would be extremely unhappy with any liability let alone strict liability eg for disease caught or stalking etc.
I asked the Audi guy when he showed me the A8 at the IAA why they don’t offer what Tesla offers since quite some time.
He dryly answered, they don’t want their cars to drive people under lorries, referring to the blogger who lost his head. And he said that every software update by Tesla voids their official operating permit.
The A8 is indeed an amazing car, only the legal prerequisites aren’t ready for some it’s features
Another fringe case would be the transport of cargo as “cost sharing”. If said passenger who wanted to pick up a parcel in Calais (or any other passenger) just hands you the parcel, the flight becomes illegal (or does it?). I mean from an aviation law perspective. ;)
But why would parcels need a higher level of protection than people?
