Flytenow Hearing

[MauleSkinner]

FlyteNow's position is that you don't have to worry about whether it's "holding itself out" because there is no commercial enterprise in light of the fact that the pilot is only cost sharing, not making money off the venture.

Yup...

"It's a tree!"
"No it's not, it's green!"
"No it's not, it's a tree!"
"No it's not, it's green!"

 

[MauleSkinner]

I think that basing it on the actual number of viewers of a posting is unworkable, which is why I was talking about the number of "potential" viewers. I'm not talking about a specific number; what I'm trying to express is that it's a question of degree. Internet postings are easily accessible to the entire world; that can't be said of a physical bulletin board. Even with Internet postings, I think any criteria should take into account whether they were publicly viewable, rather than trying to come up with a specific number.

I don't think either side is talking about numbers...The FAA's position has long been basically "what is the relationship between the parties". FlyteNow says a board that anyone can "join" solely for the purpose of looking for flights meets the FAA's relationship criteria. The FAA says it doesn't.

Personally, I think FlyteNow is looking at far too limited a scope in their legal interpretation. Even if the courts decided in favor of FlyteNow, as soon as the first trip is made the FAA could start handing out violations for other aspects that FlyteNow doesn't seem to have considered.

 

[Everskyward]

Hi all,

Some great arguments raised in this thread.

Here's our take from the court hearing with audio clips.

http://blog.flytenow.com/us-court-of-appeals-takes-on-ridesharing-in-aviation.

-Flytenow

I approved your post. It was in moderation because you are new member and the post included a link. Welcome!

 

[docmirror]

Female judge; "a pilot in Flytenow is compensated" That went unchallenged at the time, but he got to it later. The pilot is not compensated, he is reimbursed for expenses, a very critical difference. She also compares the process to Uber, which is in fact a profit driven mechanism with defined pickup and drop off chosen by the pax, unlike Flytenow, also was not challenged. The atty keeps hammering on part 119, and differentiates it from part 91. But - if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck the judges are saying 'that is a duck'.

I like the 'are you friends enough?' part. That was pure gold. the female judge keeps trying to fashion 'holding out' to Flytenow, for any rational exceptions.

"A transportation is indiscriminately available" from the FAA woman WRT Flytenow. Very definitely wrong as I understand the process. She didn't answer the judges question directly about the Facebook posting. Her answer was 'it depends'. Bad, bad law plan.

Male judge asks 'how is this open to the public?' FAA lady goes into a rambling explanation of the hows, and methods of procedure, sounded weak. '10 FB friends are ok to rule on, 10,000 FB friends not ok, may be holding out.' BS? FAA lady references a AC, and calls it definitive for common carrier definition?

I was not swayed either way, but my take from the FAA position is clearly this; 'holding out means what we say it means and we say this means holding out'. They are being arbitrary, and want to leave the landscape of decision-making in the hands of the administrator which can pick and choose what operations are holding out or not.

After having listened to the judges questions, it's also clear to me that NO ONE in the general judicial environment has any idea at all what GA pilots are all about. I would advise Flytenow to review their counsel choice and get an actual pilot first, and atty second. I think our own Mark atty could have done a more credible job of refuting the FAA lady on her waffling about holding out, and I would also hammer that 'friends enough?' deal as being specious.

So, maybe I was swayed a bit toward Flytenow, but I don't think they got the brass ring, but it was a good showing.

 

[The-Flying-Lawyer]

I was not swayed either way, but my take from the FAA position is clearly this; 'holding out means what we say it means and we say this means holding out'. They are being arbitrary, and want to leave the landscape of decision-making in the hands of the administrator which can pick and choose what operations are holding out or not.

This is, incidentally, what the judges are trying to determine in this case. If the court finds the agency's action is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law", it must hold that action to be unlawful and set it aside. 5 U.S.C. § 706.

After having listened to the judges questions, it's also clear to me that NO ONE in the general judicial environment has any idea at all what GA pilots are all about. I would advise Flytenow to review their counsel choice and get an actual pilot first, and atty second. I think our own Mark atty could have done a more credible job of refuting the FAA lady on her waffling about holding out, and I would also hammer that 'friends enough?' deal as being specious.

I volunteered back in the Spring

 

[The-Flying-Lawyer]

Hi all,

Some great arguments raised in this thread.

Here's our take from the court hearing with audio clips.

http://blog.flytenow.com/us-court-of-appeals-takes-on-ridesharing-in-aviation.

-Flytenow

I haven't had time to listen yet, but this is a very clear explanation of your argument. I especially liked your exposition of the fundamental problem we keep batting back and forth:

Secondly, the FAA doubled down on its position that the breadth of communication transforms conduct that is otherwise non-commercial (expense-sharing) into commercial conduct (common carrier). Conversely, our argument, consistent with the common law definition, is that the determination of whether an enterprise is a common carrier hinges on whether it exists to make a profit, independent of the size of its audience. If a pilot shares expenses and is thus not engaged in an enterprise for profit, then he or she should be free to communicate without restriction, because the flight does not fall under commercial advertising regulations.

 

[PPC1052]

They did have to address the FAA's argument that 'holding out' is a corollary to the cost sharing allowance. Holding out, as a concept, is as old as the hills and is central to all of this so I think they were always going to be forced to address it.

I can "hold myself out" all I want to give free flights. I can advertise that all I want. I can't sell flight services, regardless of whether I advertise or not, without the appropriate commercial flight operating certificate. My point is that simply advertising is not, and should not be the test. If it loses that argument, then FlyteNow loses. But I don't think it should have tried to take on the argument that it was advertising to the public, because I think that was a loser argument.

 

[PPC1052]

Where I think FlyteNow has a problem, and the U.S. attorney did not do a great job pointing this out, is that FlyteNow is a commercial enterprise that is providing flights--they are just doing it without paying their pilots. They claim that they are just bringing the pilot and the passenger together, just like a ride board. But they take a fee for this, and are there to make a profit, which makes FlyteNow a commercial air operation. I suspect at the end of the day, this is what the Circuit Court will hang its hat on to rule against FlyteNow.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Everytime I take someone they are well aware of the risks and understand if I cal no-go. The Angel Flight board is the same exact type of holding out just no money is being exchanged.

There's another difference - politics.

If you look back, the FAA originally said that Angel Flight was an operation that required an operating certificate based on the "compensation" generated by the charitable deduction. The good news was that the letter was in response to an inquiry by Sen Phil Gramm and just over a month later, the FAA reversed itself.

But the reversal never said the original interpretation was incorrect, just that "as a matter of policy" due to the charitable nature of the flights, compensation limited to the charitable deduction would be permitted.

 

[acrophile]

Where I think FlyteNow has a problem, and the U.S. attorney did not do a great job pointing this out, is that FlyteNow is a commercial enterprise that is providing flights--they are just doing it without paying their pilots. They claim that they are just bringing the pilot and the passenger together, just like a ride board. But they take a fee for this, and are there to make a profit, which makes FlyteNow a commercial air operation. I suspect at the end of the day, this is what the Circuit Court will hang its hat on to rule against FlyteNow.

If a local business charges me $5 per month to post flights on a bulletin board in their lobby, is that a problem? How about if it's an online bulletin board and I pay the hosting service? And as for the cost-sharing, suppose passengers chip in via PayPal, which is a commercial venture.

None of that is impermissible for private pilots, as long as passengers pay no more than their pro rata share.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Where I think FlyteNow has a problem, and the U.S. attorney did not do a great job pointing this out, is that FlyteNow is a commercial enterprise that is providing flights--they are just doing it without paying their pilots. They claim that they are just bringing the pilot and the passenger together, just like a ride board. But they take a fee for this, and are there to make a profit, which makes FlyteNow a commercial air operation. I suspect at the end of the day, this is what the Circuit Court will hang its hat on to rule against FlyteNow.

I'm not privy to the internal policy discussions of the FAA's legal group but you point out something I have seen before. If you recall the case in which a pilot helped out a restaurateur friend by flying his customers to a Super Bowl party when the charter crapped out on him (it has been discussed on the forum in the past), I always found it interesting that the decision was based on the pilot receiving compensation in the form of potential future goodwill (a nebulous concept at best) to fit it under 61.113(a) prohibition acting as PIC for compensation, rather than simply fitting it under the prohibition against acting as PIC of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation.

You point out the same thing here. It is interesting.

 

[dtuuri]

But the reversal never said the original interpretation was incorrect, just that "as a matter of policy" due to the charitable nature of the flights, compensation limited to the charitable deduction would be permitted.

Same thing as the right turn when entering downwind leg, IMO. They can pick and choose where not to enforce the rules for practical reasons. ANY monetary benefit is obviously a profit of some value for the pilot, but the FAA tried to write pilots a safe harbor for expense sharing among their friends. Now, folks want to abuse that privilege and in the process may torch the safe harbor as well.

dtuuri

 

[docmirror]

I think I might have a solution, but it's possibly afoul for similar reasons. I'll lay it out, and let y'all poke holes.

Flytenow is no question in this for the commercial gain. They are a for-profit subscription service that caters to pilots who want to partially defray the cost of their expense, and to do that, will pay Flytenow a small subscription fee to advertise nationally. The two fly's in the ointment are the fee based model to Flytenow, and also the size of the audience. So here's what I came up with.

First, the economic model changes. Flytenow allows all pilots to join and post locations and times for free. They(Flytenow) sells advertising, whether flight related, or otherwise just like any other hosting service currently does, and the revenue comes from the advertisements, and not from the subscribers. This may not be as financially gainful to start with, but depending on the audience both pilots and pax could be a lucrative source of revenue that is completely separate from both pilots and pax. No comm enterprise at all, except the web hosting income from ancillary revenue(ads).

The audience issue is a bit tougher. But, I think in this case the answer is balkanization. Flytenow-TXDFW, Flytenow-CALOS, Flytenow-CASAN, etc. This is the Craigslist model. An entry will look like this:
**********************Flytenow-TXDFW**************
Destination: Colorado Springs, CO
Dest airport: KCOS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Departing Airport: T67 Hicks, N Fort Worth
Estimated Date/time: 9/30/15 @ 07:00
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aircraft: Cessna 172
Seats avail: 1
Speed: 120MPH
Time enroute: 5 hours
Stops: 1 possible
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pilot facts: Male; 43;
Private Pilot, Inst Flight Rule rated
1220 hours

Or something like that. This sounds like it will solve both of the FAA hold out issues, but they could come back and change it again, then it's like it always is - moving target.

YMMV, pro driver closed course, contents have shifted, objects in mirror, may cause anal leakage.

 

[The-Flying-Lawyer]

Not a bad idea - I've had the same thoughts myself on the revenue side. I'm not sure balkanization would have any practical effect, since you're only going to look for flights originating near where you live anyway, but I think the fact that it might change the analysis under FAA's interpretation illuminates its arbitrariness.

 

[Christian cg]

You are incorrect in that the postings and registrations of the pilots on flytenow are always 100% free, no fees whatsoever, only the passenger, when the flight sharing has occurred, pays a fee to Flytenow of $20.00 for the service.

 

[PPC1052]

You are incorrect

Who is incorrect? Your post isn't clear.

 

[Mopauly]

As they should. Commercial carriers are held to a higher standard of training that you are as a private pilot. They are required to do recurrent training. The maintenance on the airplane is held to a higher standard.

The idea of Flytenow is a joke, it's 135, plain and simple. Good thing they're going to run out of money long before the FAA does.

I agree with this fellow. GA is pretty much already the wild west, tough to imagine this making it better for GA overall.

 

[petrolero]

I can "hold myself out" all I want to give free flights. I can advertise that all I want. I can't sell flight services, regardless of whether I advertise or not, without the appropriate commercial flight operating certificate. My point is that simply advertising is not, and should not be the test. If it loses that argument, then FlyteNow loses. But I don't think it should have tried to take on the argument that it was advertising to the public, because I think that was a loser argument.

I get what you're saying - they could have just said "we stipulate that it is holding out that a flight is available, we do not stipulate that it amounts to or has the appearance of a commercial operation." QED.

That might have been more effective.

 

[petrolero]

Where I think FlyteNow has a problem, and the U.S. attorney did not do a great job pointing this out, is that FlyteNow is a commercial enterprise that is providing flights--they are just doing it without paying their pilots. They claim that they are just bringing the pilot and the passenger together, just like a ride board. But they take a fee for this, and are there to make a profit, which makes FlyteNow a commercial air operation. I suspect at the end of the day, this is what the Circuit Court will hang its hat on to rule against FlyteNow.

Nah, FlyteNow is getting paid to provide the website. It isn't getting paid for flying. In fact, FlyteNow presumably would get paid whether flights happen or not - through subscriptions to the website.

 

[petrolero]

I agree with this fellow. GA is pretty much already the wild west, tough to imagine this making it better for GA overall.

Right no way would we ever need to defray high costs or fly more.

 

[JeffDG]

Nah, FlyteNow is getting paid to provide the website. It isn't getting paid for flying. In fact, FlyteNow presumably would get paid whether flights happen or not - through subscriptions to the website.

And much FAA precedent on point...think CFIs who are not paid to fly, but to teach, hence permitting them to instruct on a 3rd Class

 

[MauleSkinner]

Nah, FlyteNow is getting paid to provide the website. It isn't getting paid for flying.

Same as the operators that require a 119 operating certificate.

In fact, FlyteNow presumably would get paid whether flights happen or not - through subscriptions to the website.

not according to what they said in the hearing...they only get paid if somebody gets a flight.

 

[Mopauly]

Right no way would we ever need to defray high costs or fly more.

It's not cheap. And yes it probably could use some reform but I don't think an "uber" of the air without the extra training, currency, and maintenance requirements is good for anyone. Remember, it still only takes the equivalent of a "C" to pass aviation exams. I really think it should be stricter.

 

[Brad Z]

Imagine if you could start a quasi taxi company where the drivers will provide their own car and drive your customers and expect compensation at roughly half of what their actual costs really are, basically because they really like driving. You could charge really low rates to the customer yet still take a nice chunk of the proceeds.

Put wings on that business model and you basically have Flytenow.

Sure, the pilots are posting flights that they're going on anyway, but I suspect there'll be a lot of folks posting flights to popular destinations like MVY, ACK, the beach, etc. with hopes of picking up a "fare". The real test will be if the flight still launches even if there are no passengers. Back in the day when I was an eager time builder (and wasn't as wise to 61.113 as I am today), I would have killed to build time at only 1/2 to 1/4 of the club rental rates.

On the other side of the transaction, the passengers figure the company has somehow vetted the pilots. The general public doesn't understand the huge difference in safety between 91 and 135. To them, it must be the same as the difference in safety between some dude driving a car, and some dude driving a taxicab.

To me, Flytenow isn't violating anything, really, but facilitating a whole lot of illegal 135 operators.

 

[Flytenow]

I haven't had time to listen yet, but this is a very clear explanation of your argument. I especially liked your exposition of the fundamental problem we keep batting back and forth:

Thanks, TFL you singled out the most important point here.

The back and forth you mention is indicative of the confusion imparted by the Letter Ruling. When we petitioned the FAA for an interpretation (because they threatened enforcement against our pilot members) we set out how our platform is built to ensure common purpose (i.e., only pilots can post flights, may refuse for any or no reason and at any time, etc.) and yet that was never addressed in the Letter Ruling. Instead, the FAA took the unprecedented position that merely posting made all pilots common carriers. What's more, is that the FAA agrees that the Letter is a final order (has the force of law), so our only ability to challenge rests in pre-enforcement review by the Circuit Court of Appeals.

With respect to holding out, there has never been a single regulatory prohibition on "holding out" in the absence of compensation (a common carrier needs to be engaged in an enterprise for profit), which is completely consistent with the Levy Interpretation (that the FAA now disavows). If expense sharing - 61.113(c) - means anything at all, it means you are free to communicate to identify a common purpose in your flight.

General Aviation is dying. We are pilots and built Flytenow to expose people to flying. We got our certificates because we were lucky enough to know a pilot. Most people don't.

For those who support Flytenow, thank you. For those who don't, we all agree that the rule of law should prevail. If the FAA wants to limit expense-sharing communication, then they should pass a law according to the proper Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking process.

 

[Everskyward]

On the other side of the transaction, the passengers figure the company has somehow vetted the pilots. The general public doesn't understand the huge difference in safety between 91 and 135.

I would say there isn't a huge difference in safety when comparing like equipment. I don't think privately owned jets flying part 91 have a worse safety record than the same airplanes flying 135.

 

[docmirror]

One of the knives surely killing part of GA is over-regulation. I, and many others are concerned that Flytenow could be the cudgel used to shut down any kind of cost sharing. If Flytenow is allowed to operate as it is envisioned today, and there are 2 fatalities within a few months or a year that are Flytenow customers, that will be the end of that. You will then get your NPRM, you will get commentary from the entire flying public, and then the FAA will ignore whatever the GA community wants, and implement a much more draconian mechanism than what we have now.

The long term hats at the FAA have long term memories. And if Flytenow is successful in slapping the FAA down, it will simmer, and fester, and be a thorn in the side of the FAA until they can point with the vibrating finger of 'we told you so; AHA! SEE! People used Flytenow, and crashed and they are dead, dead, dead! HAH - You should have listened to us. but no - you had to protect your liberty, you had to FIGHT us. Wel we are not going to be IGNORED, Dan. Now, the worm will twist. NO cost sharing! NO free rides. Everything that isn't paid for is considered compensation, and you'll also be taxed.' Etc. Ad-infinitum.

 

[Mopauly]

One of the knives surely killing part of GA is over-regulation. I, and many others are concerned that Flytenow could be the cudgel used to shut down any kind of cost sharing. If Flytenow is allowed to operate as it is envisioned today, and there are 2 fatalities within a few months or a year that are Flytenow customers, that will be the end of that. You will then get your NPRM, you will get commentary from the entire flying public, and then the FAA will ignore whatever the GA community wants, and implement a much more draconian mechanism than what we have now.

The long term hats at the FAA have long term memories. And if Flytenow is successful in slapping the FAA down, it will simmer, and fester, and be a thorn in the side of the FAA until they can point with the vibrating finger of 'we told you so; AHA! SEE! People used Flytenow, and crashed and they are dead, dead, dead! HAH - You should have listened to us. but no - you had to protect your liberty, you had to FIGHT us. Wel we are not going to be IGNORED, Dan. Now, the worm will twist. NO cost sharing! NO free rides. Everything that isn't paid for is considered compensation, and you'll also be taxed.' Etc. Ad-infinitum.

My conversations with my FSDO and leaders at Aviation safety seminars has been quite different - as I understand it the FAA is trying to move away from the heavy handed approach when dealing with violations, and is more about getting people to be compliant, a new era of approach if you will. It's not the exact case here but the idea I've gotten of how the FAA is trying to be better.

Personally I'm not going to go up against the organization that gives me the freedom and ability to do what I do. It's easier for me to find ways to work within the rules then it is to break them. Show me another country where we have this much freedom in GA. Rather than fight over interpretation and legalese, I would suggest Flytenow try to work with the hand that feeds you.

In recent years there have been new pilot classes created that require less training; why can't the same apply here? There has to be middle ground somewhere between regulation and actually trying achieve the goal.

This could be something that helps to carve out a whole new way for people to get around with out a full blown commercial flight or an expensive charter. My 2 cents - approach the FAA with a sensible plan and an open mind, not a lawyer and a courtroom. Work with them to change the system and you'll help change the world.

 

[PPC1052]

I get what you're saying - they could have just said "we stipulate that it is holding out that a flight is available, we do not stipulate that it amounts to or has the appearance of a commercial operation." QED.

That might have been more effective.

You said what I was trying to say, but better. Thanks.

 

[bflynn]

Yeah, but the exception you mention is the whole issue.

To me, the real issue is whether it is a prohibited commercial enterprise where money is changing hands, but no profit is possible because you are really just sharing costs.

I thought the disappointing part of the oral argument is that this wasn't hit head on. If I were FlyteNow's attorney, I might have simply said, "yes, the web site is advertising, and it is therefore 'holding out.' But 'holding out' of what? It is not holding itself out as a 'commercial air carrier.' It is not holding itself out as a 'common carrier.' We know that there is no commercial air operation here because there is no profit. Defraying some of the costs by cost sharing does not change that. The essence of a commercial operation is that it is for profit. With FlyteNow, the pilots simply reduce the amount of their own expenses. But at the end of the day, the pilots themselves still must pay for the privilege of conducting the flight. That is wholly distinguishable from the situation where the pilots get paid, and make a profit, on each flight." This is essentially what FlyteNow's counsel was arguing, but he got bogged down in that question by the judge as to whether what it does is distinguishable or not from the holding out by air carriers, such as Delta. And he did not do a good job of convincing the court that it's advertising is more like posting to a group of friends, rather than advertising to the public.

I believe this ship sailed at least a decade ago.

 

[Palmpilot]

I believe this ship sailed at least a decade ago.

Fortunately, there's no time limit on the right to petition for a redress of grievances.

 

[docmirror]

Personally I'm not going to go up against the organization that gives me the freedom and ability to do what I do.

I appreciate your point of view, but you and I have a very, very different understanding of the nature of rights, and liberty. Of course, there is a lot of recent history with people thinking that liberty is some kind of construct of an authority external to one's self.

Good luck with that.

 

[docmirror]

Fortunately, there's no time limit on the right to petition for a redress of grievances.

ding, ding, ding, ding.

Yahtzee!

Tell him what he's won Johnny Gilbert.

This is the 'why' I want Flytenow to win. However, there is always a cost to the exercise of one's liberty, and so far - society is anti-risk of any kind, and specifically anti-risk vis-a-vis gen aviation.

 

[PPC1052]

I believe this ship sailed at least a decade ago.

Your statement is somewhat vague, but I am curious as to your thought process in making this statement. Can you explain why you think that ship has sailed? I presume you are referring to the FAA's own interpretations, but I don't know for certain. If so, FAA interpretations are entitled to deference, but the FAA doesn't get the last word, which is why this is before a federal court. Has there been binding court precedent that would foreclose that argument before this circuit?

 

[bflynn]

Yeah, but the exception you mention is the whole issue.

To me, the real issue is whether it is a prohibited commercial enterprise where money is changing hands, but no profit is possible because you are really just sharing costs.

...We know that there is no commercial air operation here because there is no profit. ...The essence of a commercial operation is that it is for profit.

Your statement is somewhat vague, but I am curious as to your thought process in making this statement. Can you explain why you think that ship has sailed? I presume you are referring to the FAA's own interpretations, but I don't know for certain. If so, FAA interpretations are entitled to deference, but the FAA doesn't get the last word, which is why this is before a federal court. Has there been binding court precedent that would foreclose that argument before this circuit?

Profit is a necessary part of a successful business, but not required in a business. The argument that lack of profit = no business is a non-starter, especially in the airlines business.

BTW, I was wrong, the ship sailed almost 3 decades ago. AC 120-12A was published in 1986. That's not to say that it's correct, but it is the long established rule that you need to get around.

 

[petrolero]

Personally I'm not going to go up against the organization that gives me the freedom and ability to do what I do. It's easier for me to find ways to work within the rules then it is to break them. Show me another country where we have this much freedom in GA. Rather than fight over interpretation and legalese, I would suggest Flytenow try to work with the hand that feeds you.

We are not here because the FAA is there. It's the other way around.

I would prefer as permissionless a society as possible. I don't want to constantly have to ask 'mother may I' to every idea.

My 2 cents - approach the FAA with a sensible plan and an open mind, not a lawyer and a courtroom. Work with them to change the system and you'll help change the world.

You don't imagine that FlyteNow went directly to court do you? This is the culmination of a lot of attempts to work with them. How can you change the system if the system doesn't care about your ideas (legal and sensible though they may be)?

Thank goodness the Wrights didn't have to ask the government for permission to fly their airplane or we'd still be walking.

I appreciate your point of view, but you and I have a very, very different understanding of the nature of rights, and liberty. Of course, there is a lot of recent history with people thinking that liberty is some kind of construct of an authority external to one's self.

Good luck with that.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I would prefer as permissionless a society as possible. I don't want to constantly have to ask 'mother may I' to every idea.

You don't imagine that FlyteNow went directly to court do you? This is the culmination of a lot of attempts to work with them. How can you change the system if the system doesn't care about your ideas (legal and sensible though they may be)?

Thank goodness the Wrights didn't have to ask the government for permission to fly their airplane or we'd still be walking.

FlyteNow didn't need to ask permission, either, but they chose to do so...seems a little strange, since they so firmly claim to believe that what they want to do is unquestionably legal.

 

[dtuuri]

I would say there isn't a huge difference in safety when comparing like equipment. I don't think privately owned jets flying part 91 have a worse safety record than the same airplanes flying 135.

Care to cite where you get that from? According to this article, Air Taxi's are about ten times worse than corporate (column 3 vs. 6).

dtuuri

 

[PPC1052]

Profit is a necessary part of a successful business, but not required in a business. The argument that lack of profit = no business is a non-starter, especially in the airlines business.

BTW, I was wrong, the ship sailed almost 3 decades ago. AC 120-12A was published in 1986. That's not to say that it's correct, but it is the long established rule that you need to get around.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

I agree that profit isn't always present with a business. But, that happens by accident, not by design. Imho, a system that is set up where a profit is not possible by design, you do not have a commercial enterprise. You have something else. Here, where there is just sharing of expenses, a profit is not possible by design for the pilot. I think that is a distinction worth noting. Maybe it carries the day, and maybe it won't. But if not, there is no way Flytenow can win. As I said previously, I think the facts support the conclusion by the FAA that FlyteNow holds itself out to the public be virtue of its access to the public, and virtually unlimited access to the public.

 

[PPC1052]

Care to cite where you get that from? According to this article, Air Taxi's are about ten times worse than corporate (column 3 vs. 6).

dtuuri

Unless I am mistaken as to what you're saying, I think your stats support her assertion. At least the part where she says that privately owned jets don't have a worse record than air taxi. I guess you could quibble with her statement that the stats show their record to be about the same.