"FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies"

I'm annoyed by the decision, but not even slightly surprised.

I was finding the AirPooler position hard to see ever since they announced it. How is that not "holding out?" They pair you with a set of passengers you don't know, and charge them. Until a few months ago, AirPooler claimed their approach was legal. It didn't look that way on the surface. Now I know it was wishful thinking.
 
I actually find the letter confusing - it says that you can share expenses, but only if you aren't holding out.

Ok - so if you can't ask someone to fly with you, how do they get on board to share the expenses? If you say "Hey, instead of driving, how about if I fly us down to the beach and we'll split the gas", isn't that holding out to a subset of the public?
 
bflynn said:
I actually find the letter confusing - it says that you can share expenses, but only if you aren't holding out.

Ok - so if you can't ask someone to fly with you, how do they get on board to share the expenses? If you say "Hey, instead of driving, how about if I fly us down to the beach and we'll split the gas", isn't that holding out to a subset of the public?
Click to expand...

There is a big difference. When you and your buddies are going to get a burger and you offer to fly and split expenses, that is not holding out. When you are going somewhere and advertise to random strangers on the internet to fill your empty seats, that is holding out to the public.

This ruling is absolutely no surprise it all. And it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone else either. I'm surprise it lasted as long as it did.
 
This was discussed at length in another thread just a week or so ago. The big difference is between sharing a ride with friends who are going to the same place together, and putting up what is essentially an ad for strangers to join you and pay you for it.

The exact nature of how the deal gets made got argued back and forth a bunch with some people being way more OCD about it than others, but it seems pretty obvious to me that if the people you're flying aren't your friends or relatives it's not a flight you can share expenses on.
 
Here's the real link to the opinion: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...on-JonesDay - (2014) Legal Interpretation.pdf

[flame suite on] Honestly, the FAA did us a favor. When 120 hour pilots who log only a couple dozen hours a year start running weekend jaunts to the Vineyard, it's just a matter of time before someone is pressured to fly in weather they cannot handle, and crash a plane. It's one thing when the passenger was somebody's frat brother or cousin, but when it turns out to be a newlywed that spent $129 each for a ticket in the back seat of the Cessna, the news WILL have a field day with it.

This is drama we really didn't need. If you want to offer pro-rata rides to your circle of friends, this opinion doesn't prevent that. Advertise to the world? That's a no no.
 
I don't understand.

Here is an example that will happen later today: I am flying out to pick my daughter up from camp. I let the camp coordination center know that I have a couple of extra seats in back, and that if they have any parents who can't make it in to pick their kids, I'd be happy to fly them back with me so they can pick them up locally.

This is all sort of rushed because the camp has shut down early and evacuate due to the Mendocino fires. The kids were supposed to stay for longer. I figured why not offer this in case some parents get stuck. I just thought I was being nice and offering a free ride to - you guessed it - total strangers.

Is this somehow illegal? I've done this a couple years back flying my daughter back from camp and took one of the counselors back home en-route. Did I break the law?
 
onwards said:
I just thought I was being nice and offering a free ride to - you guessed it - total strangers.
Click to expand...

Free, so totally irrelevant. And a common purpose, no different than a lunch run, if you were to split expenses.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Free, so totally irrelevant. And a common purpose, no different than a lunch run, if you were to split expenses.
Click to expand...

Oops, looks like I missed the part about the company charging people :goofy:
 
Aircraft ride sharing for cash is no different than the faux taxi cabs that individuals are advertising, or the faux hotel accommodations that condo owners are offering.

In all of these cases, these innovative business models are an effort to avoid paying the usual and customary costs of doing those businesses, which are primarily taxes.

In our hotel's case, the condo owners on line represent a grave threat, since they have an immediate 13% cost advantage. (The cost of our hotel/motel tax.). In the taxicab's case, it's even less fair, with ride sharers not paying taxes or insurance costs.

As with all onerous taxes, the free market always finds a way around paying them. Until the government crushes them, of course.

Then, they move into the Black Market.
 
CFI.William said:
That settles that...

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAA-Bans-GA-Ride-Sharing-Companies222609-1.html

I'm sure this will **** off a bunch of people. But...I doubt it'll stop anyone from doing illegal cost sharing.
Click to expand...

The act of offering aircraft transport to strangers in exchange for compensation is no different than what commercial carriers are doing.

The ruling is correct.

Remember, the FAA only allows pro rata expense sharing on flights where people are going on the ride for a common purpose.

Strangers in ride sharing are not going to the same place for the same purpose. The only thing they are sharing with the pilot is the transport, and that's basically what common carriers offer it's customers.
 
onwards said:
I don't understand.

Here is an example that will happen later today: I am flying out to pick my daughter up from camp. I let the camp coordination center know that I have a couple of extra seats in back, and that if they have any parents who can't make it in to pick their kids, I'd be happy to fly them back with me so they can pick them up locally.

This is all sort of rushed because the camp has shut down early and evacuate due to the Mendocino fires. The kids were supposed to stay for longer. I figured why not offer this in case some parents get stuck. I just thought I was being nice and offering a free ride to - you guessed it - total strangers.

Is this somehow illegal? I've done this a couple years back flying my daughter back from camp and took one of the counselors back home en-route. Did I break the law?
Click to expand...
The fact that there's no money involved means there's no problem at all. Keep in mind that the whole AirPooler operation is (or was) a business venture in which a middle-man takes a cut of the money when strangers pay for a seat on a private plane flown by a private pilot. The whole question was whether the "pro rata seat cost" deal was sufficient to bring this under the 61.113(c) "expense sharing" exception to the prohibition on Private Pilots receiving compensation -- and the "holding out" is what sank that idea. Since you're offering a free ride with no other compensation attached, the "holding out" issue never arises.

Even if one of those other parents offered to chip in for your gas, I think there's a big difference between posting an offer on the internet to take anyone going your way for a ride in exchange for money, and making an offer in a private context to fellow-camp parents to give them a ride on a trip you're already planning to make. I think the FAA would agree that you could accept that pro rata share of the direct cost of the flight, but the only way to know for sure is to ask them.

But since you would have done this for free, there was never any issue of violating 61.113, assuming you have no business relationship with the other parent which might be leveraged by this favor as compensation.
 
CTLSi said:
The act of offering aircraft transport to strangers in exchange for compensation is no different than what commercial carriers are doing.

The ruling is correct.

Remember, the FAA only allows pro rata expense sharing on flights where people are going on the ride for a common purpose.
Click to expand...
Good so far.
Strangers in ride sharing are not going to the same place for the same purpose. The only thing they are sharing with the pilot is the transport, and that's basically what common carriers offer it's customers.
Click to expand...
There you run astray. The FAA has said in writing that for 61.113(c) purposes, they need not all be traveling to that destination for the same reason, only that they each have reason to be traveling there at that time. So, if the pilot is going to see a ball game and the passenger is going to attend a wedding in the same city on the same day, that meets the "common purpose" requirement.

Where the AirPooler model fell afoul of the regulations was that the pilots were "holding out" to the general public an offer of air transportation for hire. It was the fact that anyone in cyberspace could accept that offer which made it a problem for even an ATP, no less a Private Pilot. And that's why it's OK to do this with friends and relatives, but not with someone you didn't know before they accepted your blind offer.
 
Ron Levy said:
Keep in mind that the whole AirPooler operation is (or was) a business venture in which a middle-man takes a cut of the money when strangers pay for a seat on a private plane flown by a private pilot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I totally missed that. I thought it was some sort of online bulletin board.

Ron Levy said:
But since you would have done this for free, there was never any issue of violating 61.113, assuming you have no business relationship with the other parent which might be leveraged by this favor as compensation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have no intention of asking for anything nor know any of the other parents... I just let the camp know since they are driving my daughter down to the airport to meet with me that they are welcome to bring down 1-2 other kids as well. I know I'd be appreciative of an offer like that under these circumstances.

But this whole discussion brings up another question - when I picked up that counselor two years back to fly her back home with us (from Big Bear to the bay area), the camp offered or rather decided to deduct $100 from my daughter's camp fee, which I accepted without thinking about it. The flight itself cost over $700 in fuel alone, so it was definitely within the pro-rata rule, but it had not occurred to me until just now that this could have fallen under the compensation thing. Was that a violation? if so, is there a way to resolve it?
 
If any of the resident totalitarians have an erection that lasts for longer than 4 hours (due to this decision) please seek medical attention.
 
onwards said:
But this whole discussion brings up another question - when I picked up that counselor two years back to fly her back home with us (from Big Bear to the bay area), the camp offered or rather decided to deduct $100 from my daughter's camp fee, which I accepted without thinking about it. The flight itself cost over $700 in fuel alone, so it was definitely within the pro-rata rule, but it had not occurred to me until just now that this could have fallen under the compensation thing. Was that a violation?
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. I can see arguments both ways. You weren't holding out, you had common purpose, and the money was inside the pro rata limit, but someone else paid you for giving the ride, and that's the only possible issue I see. My gut feel is it wasn't illegal, but it's too hard a question for a Friday afternoon to research/think about it further.

if so, is there a way to resolve it?
Click to expand...
Yes -- don't post anything about it on the internet. Believe me, the FAA has better things to do than a) hunt you down for what was at worst a minor indiscretion two years ago, and then b) figure out if it really did violate the rules.
 
Ron Levy said:
Good so far.
There you run astray. The FAA has said in writing that for 61.113(c) purposes, they need not all be traveling to that destination for the same reason, only that they each have reason to be traveling there at that time. So, if the pilot is going to see a ball game and the passenger is going to attend a wedding in the same city on the same day, that meets the "common purpose" requirement.

Where the AirPooler model fell afoul of the regulations was that the pilots were "holding out" to the general public an offer of air transportation for hire. It was the fact that anyone in cyberspace could accept that offer which made it a problem for even an ATP, no less a Private Pilot. And that's why it's OK to do this with friends and relatives, but not with someone you didn't know before they accepted your blind offer.
Click to expand...

My emphasis was on the 'stranger' angle. Which is what they are saying too. If friends are going to the same city for two different events, that qualifies as a common purpose and since they are friends, the ride itself is a common experience among friends.

Stretching that to include strangers is obviously too close to just plain commercial hire.
 
Ron Levy said:
Good so far.
There you run astray. The FAA has said in writing that for 61.113(c) purposes, they need not all be traveling to that destination for the same reason, only that they each have reason to be traveling there at that time. So, if the pilot is going to see a ball game and the passenger is going to attend a wedding in the same city on the same day, that meets the "common purpose" requirement.

Where the AirPooler model fell afoul of the regulations was that the pilots were "holding out" to the general public an offer of air transportation for hire. It was the fact that anyone in cyberspace could accept that offer which made it a problem for even an ATP, no less a Private Pilot. And that's why it's OK to do this with friends and relatives, but not with someone you didn't know before they accepted your blind offer.
Click to expand...
Where do you find this in the letter? I've only read it once, but I didn't notice anything in the discussion of common purpose regarding whether the pilot knows the passengers. I found the letter to be inconsistent and conclusory. She describes bona fide common interest as being when the pilot and passenger both have a reason to go someplace, but then simply assumes this is not the case with airpooler.
 
onwards said:
I don't understand.

Here is an example that will happen later today: I am flying out to pick my daughter up from camp. I let the camp coordination center know that I have a couple of extra seats in back, and that if they have any parents who can't make it in to pick their kids, I'd be happy to fly them back with me so they can pick them up locally.

This is all sort of rushed because the camp has shut down early and evacuate due to the Mendocino fires. The kids were supposed to stay for longer. I figured why not offer this in case some parents get stuck. I just thought I was being nice and offering a free ride to - you guessed it - total strangers.

Is this somehow illegal? I've done this a couple years back flying my daughter back from camp and took one of the counselors back home en-route. Did I break the law?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. The problem only arises when someone hands you money for the ride. If you are paying for it all, you can take whomever you please for whatever reason.
 
bflynn said:
I actually find the letter confusing - it says that you can share expenses, but only if you aren't holding out.

Ok - so if you can't ask someone to fly with you, how do they get on board to share the expenses? If you say "Hey, instead of driving, how about if I fly us down to the beach and we'll split the gas", isn't that holding out to a subset of the public?
Click to expand...

You really don't see a difference between talking to a friend and mass advertising to people you never even heard of?

I think the opinion focus on the fact that there are two completely different questions:

• The difference between private and commercial pilots.
• The difference between private and commercial operations.

It's in the question of whether the operation is commercial in nature that the issues of holding out the availability to transport as significant segment of the public (Keep in mind that all Part 121 airlines and Part 135 schedule carriers are doing is offering, for a fee, to transport people to places the carrier is going anyway.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't there another interpretation some time ago that basically said the website was not illegal, and each operation would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis?
Or something like that, but I might be remembering it wrong.
Or maybe the other site was not collecting any money and it was just a message board type thing.
 
midlifeflyer said:
(Keep in mind that all Part 121 airlines and Part 135 schedule carriers are doing is offering, for a fee, to transport people to places the carrier is going anyway.
Click to expand...

Really?

If a flight were completely empty in both directions except for the flight crew, the carrier would still go?

In a few cases, repositioning an aircraft is needed, but to say that airlines would fly their routes under all circumstances where safe flight is possible is not plausible.

Sorry, Mark, this one is a bit stretched. Airlines and charter carriers are in business to fly people and cargo from one place to another, not to go between cities with passengers and cargo as a side effect.
 
MAKG1 said:
Really?

If a flight were completely empty in both directions except for the flight crew, the carrier would still go?

In a few cases, repositioning an aircraft is needed, but to say that airlines would fly their routes under all circumstances where safe flight is possible is not plausible.

Sorry, Mark, this one is a bit stretched. Airlines and charter carriers are in business to fly people and cargo from one place to another, not to go between cities with passengers and cargo as a side effect.
Click to expand...

Yes, that happens occasionally. Particularly for carriers with EAS contracts.

Here's a test: what would prevent Cape Air from going on Airpooler and advertising their flights from Boston to MVY? The only difference is they wouldn't have to figure pro rata cost since they hold a part 135 certificate.
 
Lindberg said:
I didn't notice anything in the discussion of common purpose regarding whether the pilot knows the passengers. I found the letter to be inconsistent and conclusory. She describes bona fide common interest as being when the pilot and passenger both have a reason to go someplace, but then simply assumes this is not the case with airpooler.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my impression as well. The cited AC mentions "holding out" as what distinguishes a common carrier from a private carrier. But the letter instead treats "holding out" as what distinguishes a carrier from a non-carrier. I see no basis in the CFRs (or the AC) for that construal, and the FAA's letter mentions none.
 
Henning said:
No, not at all. The problem only arises when someone hands you money for the ride. If you are paying for it all, you can take whomever you please for whatever reason.
Click to expand...


I'd like it to be that simple, but isn't there some stipulation about other forms of compensation? The example I heard was a salesman taking a client (or potential client?) for a plane ride as a way to woo him and win his business. No money changes hands for the flight, but additional consideration is given to the guy's company, thus making this an illegal flight.

Or do I have that wrong? (It's really frustrating that things are so unclear that a group of pilots seemingly wanting to know what is/isn't allowed can't come to a consensus.)
 
mjburian said:
I'd like it to be that simple, but isn't there some stipulation about other forms of compensation? The example I heard was a salesman taking a client (or potential client?) for a plane ride as a way to woo him and win his business. No money changes hands for the flight, but additional consideration is given to the guy's company, thus making this an illegal flight.

Or do I have that wrong? (It's really frustrating that things are so unclear that a group of pilots seemingly wanting to know what is/isn't allowed can't come to a consensus.)
Click to expand...

Not any example I ever saw an interpretation stating. Under those rules it would be illegal for me to take a girl flying on a date since there may be a 'Quid pro quo' involved.

The compensation part more has to do with a private pilot exercising what would normally be commercial pilot duties but not taking pay. In those cases the flight time itself is still viewed as compensation.

Not quite sides of the same coin, but they live in the same bag.
 
Private enterprise will prevail,no matter what the government says.
 
frfly172 said:
Private enterprise will prevail,no matter what the government says.
Click to expand...

If hadn't been for cheap stupid people killing other cheap stupid people, government would never have gotten involved. They just take the wrong approach and try to stop it rather than encourage it.

We could survive the population problem if it was just medicine causing it. What is making the problem unbearable is safety legislation. The population on the whole is getting dumber by the day.
 
I believe the title of the article..and the title of this thread are a misnomer.

The FAA can't "Ban GA Ride Sharing Companies" can they? It seems that all they could do is track posts and chase those who successfully link up.

Or am I missing something?
 
timwinters said:
I believe the title of the article..and the title of this thread are a misnomer.

The FAA can't "Ban GA Ride Sharing Companies" can they? It seems that all they could do is track posts and chase those who successfully link up.

Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Yep, you're missing RICO, it's amazing how broadly that statute is interpreted.
 
MAKG1 said:
Really?

If a flight were completely empty in both directions except for the flight crew, the carrier would still go?
Click to expand...
Yes. They need to get to the destination to pick up passengers or reposition for availability. Of course, if your hypothetical world is a place where there are no passengers anywhere...

Guess you didn't fly commercially much shortly after 9/11.
 
Last edited:
I rode a Lufthansa 747 from Chicago to Frankfurt that had 7 passengers on it, 4 of them were my family. It was also loaded with cargo down below that still made the flight money. The seats aren't the only things that get filled with revenue.
 
timwinters said:
I believe the title of the article..and the title of this thread are a misnomer.

The FAA can't "Ban GA Ride Sharing Companies" can they? It seems that all they could do is track posts and chase those who successfully link up.

Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
in theory they could. Keep in mind that the original FAA Chief Counse opinion on Angel a Flight was that the organization needed an operating certificate. This was change, but fir political reasons, not legal ones.

Once you get there, the FAA has the ability to levy some pretty substantial fines and perhaps even obtain a federal court injunction against tha activity.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The NTSB decision holding a private pilot for violating 61.113 because he flew passengers for a bar's Super Bowl party with the hopes of future business good will has been discussed more than once.
Click to expand...

An important further detail is that the passengers whom the pilot ferried (and whom he did not know) did pay for the transportation (though the pilot himself apparently did not receive any of that money).
 
Just curious...the requester here, is that the same Rebecca MacPherson who signed such nutball interpretations as the Mangiamele interpretation as the "Acting Asst Chief Counsel"?
 
Henning said:
Under those rules it would be illegal for me to take a girl flying on a date since there may be a 'Quid pro quo' involved.
Not quite sides of the same coin, but they live in the same bag.
Click to expand...


What if I started a ride share for hookers only . The Quid Pro Quo would be illegal. Would the two illegal activities cancel each other out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top