FlyteNow Sues FAA (Uber for pilots)

midlifeflyer

midlifeflyer

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
18,409
Location
KTTA, North Carolina
Display Name
Display name:
Fly
Folks will probability recall the discussions about the two Chief Counsel opinions regarding the proposed FlyteNow and AirPooler operations to set up a bulletin board for private pilots to post planned flights and for other people to pick a flight to go an and share the expense.

FlyteNow has sued the FAA over the interpretations with the support of the Goldwater Institute think tank. There are a few stories out there on it most pretty short. For anyone interested in reading FlyteNow's formal legal position, the Goldwater Institute posted it on their website: Petitioner's Brief

It's long - over 70 pages double-spaced, including some of the references. It goes further and makes a number of legal arguments but, to summarize a bit, the primary argument is (1) shared cost flight is a "traditional" pilot privilege; (2) shared flight requires some forms of communication between pilot and passengers. which the FAA has always permitted; and (3) the FlyteNow model follows all of the existing rules and interpretations, with; (4) only thing the twin interpretations in fact doing being prohibiting Internet communication (which they argue implicates first Amendment privileges among other things).

Being a legal brief, those statements are not just the opinion of the writer. They are supported by reference to FAA materials and interpretations, cases, and some historical documents. Just as a matter of history, some migh find the "traditional" sharing privilege argument and supporting material kind of interesting.
 
Interesting, the last photography interpretation also went over the line.
 
Sue us some freedom. Decaying empires are so much fun.
 
I wish them luck, but I don't give them much hope. While perhaps common carriage is not specifically spelled out in the FARs, the FAA has published a consistent view in the advisory circulars and the term is used throughout the DOT regulations in a way not inconsistent with the FAA interpretations.

Of course, I'm all for the FAA making the regs mean what they say so compelling the FAA to actually define things rather than leaving it up to talmudic interpretation isn't a bad thing.
 
Well, the Supreme Court has already said money is speech, and therefore protected by the First Amendment, so who knows? But absent some bizarre twist like that, for the reasons F'Ron mentioned, I don't see this as anything but a get-rich exercise for the plaintiff's attorneys. At worst, I see the FAA eliminating that paragraph from 61.113 so nobody can share expenses, period.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Well, the Supreme Court has already said money is speech, and therefore protected by the First Amendment, so who knows? But absent some bizarre twist like that, for the reasons F'Ron mentioned, I don't see this as anything but a get-rich exercise for the plaintiff's attorneys. At worst, I see the FAA eliminating that paragraph from 61.113 so nobody can share expenses, period.
Click to expand...
The only thing suggesting it's not merely a get rich scheme for the attorneys is the involvement of a major think tank that could just as easily said, "we don;t really care about this one."

I have the same general concern as you about the potential removal. But, if you read (wade?) through the argument and appendix, that's apparently been tried before.
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, the Supreme Court has already said money is speech, and therefore protected by the First Amendment, so who knows? But absent some bizarre twist like that, for the reasons F'Ron mentioned, I don't see this as anything but a get-rich exercise for the plaintiff's attorneys. At worst, I see the FAA eliminating that paragraph from 61.113 so nobody can share expenses, period.
Click to expand...

Or they will do what the Coast Guard did a few years ago and change the rules to make a bit more sense.
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, the Supreme Court has already said money is speech, and therefore protected by the First Amendment, so who knows? But absent some bizarre twist like that, for the reasons F'Ron mentioned, I don't see this as anything but a get-rich exercise for the plaintiff's attorneys. At worst, I see the FAA eliminating that paragraph from 61.113 so nobody can share expenses, period.
Click to expand...

How is it a "get-rich" exercise for the attorneys? I don't know, but I suspect, that Flyte-Now is worth approximately $0 if this case is a loser. Likely the attorneys' best chance of getting paid is to win. And as you correctly surmise, that will take a lot of work.

Also, this isn't really about money as speech. The speech at issue is speech speech, i.e., "I'm going to Maryland on January 7, does anyone want to come along?"
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
How is it a "get-rich" exercise for the attorneys? I don't know, but I suspect, that Flyte-Now is worth approximately $0 if this case is a loser. Likely the attorneys' best chance of getting paid is to win. And as you correctly surmise, that will take a lot of work.
Click to expand...

I doubt an attorney is handling this on contingency, I'm pretty sure the are on retainer.
 
The power of the FAA and many other agencies has come under scrutiny for their expansion. The courts, and more importantly the public are getting tired of the administrative power grabs without congressional backing, or even oversight. This case like some of them against the EPA and DHS have a central common theme, although they are not related in any way as a legal premise. Just too much control being exercised on the thinnest of margins.

Using the NOTAM process to make policy, using the TFR system to permanently close airspace are other examples of admin over-reach. With the cost sharing rule history, the FAA is working to protect the gen-pop, and that's generally a good thing. But the splitting of hairs, where the split always goes both sides to the agents of regulation is getting old.

The facts in this case are up for debate, but from a larger perspective, all the little generals in these fed agencies need to be taken down a notch. The FAA is among the worst transgressors. I can't imagine an agency head telling congress that their mandates for policy are not going to be implemented, or are going to be years late. If we had any balls left at all in the govt, the administrator would be fired, and the next one, and then next until the FAA brass understood where their bread is buttered. The fact is now that no one at the FAA or other agencies has any fear of being fired, or even any responsibility for their agencies agenda. Very darn sad.
 
Lindberg said:
How is it a "get-rich" exercise for the attorneys? I don't know, but I suspect, that Flyte-Now is worth approximately $0 if this case is a loser. Likely the attorneys' best chance of getting paid is to win. And as you correctly surmise, that will take a lot of work.
Click to expand...
I've never heard of an attorney taking a case on contingency when there weren't large damages to be recovered. There certainly aren't such damages here, and I don't see them doing this one pro bono.

Also, this isn't really about money as speech. The speech at issue is speech speech, i.e., "I'm going to Maryland on January 7, does anyone want to come along?"
Click to expand...
Nothing says you can't say that. The FAA just says that if you do, you can't take money from them, and that doesn't infringe on your right of free speech, only with providing air transportation for hire/compensation without complying with the applicable sections of Title 14 of the CFR, which is not a Constitutional right. If there was no money changing between the pilots, passengers, and/or the ride board, the FAA wouldn't care about it. IOW, to misquote a former President of ours, "It's the money, stupid!" Take the money out, and it's completely legal, although I suspect that would pretty much end FlyteNow's interest.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
If we had any balls left at all in the govt, the administrator would be fired,
Click to expand...
By whom? Congress certainly doesn't have that authority, only the President and SecTrans, and I don't think they disagree with what the Administrators has done on these issues or they would already have fired him/her already.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've never heard of an attorney taking a case on contingency when there weren't large damages to be recovered. There certainly aren't such damages here, and I don't see them doing this one pro bono.

Nothing says you can't say that. The FAA just says that if you do, you can't take money from them, and that doesn't infringe on your right of free speech, only with providing air transportation for hire/compensation without complying with the applicable sections of Title 14 of the CFR, which is not a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...
Yeah cause administrative law never infringes on the Constitution.:rolleyes2: Nope that'd be wrong, Murica wouldn't stand for it.:sad:
 
Ron Levy said:
By whom? Congress certainly doesn't have that authority, only the President and SecTrans, and I don't think they disagree with what the Administrators has done on these issues or they would already have fired him/her already.
Click to expand...

You answered your own question. Also provided the reason they don't. Power reinforces power. The president knows if he takes the agency to task, he's aligning with the congress to demand accountability. Since the pres never wants to align with congress - we have what we have. Regulation by a bunch of crats rather than representation by elected officials. Some people like it that way.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Yeah cause administrative law never infringes on the Constitution.:rolleyes2: Nope that'd be wrong, Murica wouldn't stand for it.:sad:
Click to expand...
It's happened before that some sort of regulation has infringed on the US Constitution, but it's never stood up upon legal challenge before the US Supreme Court, who are the supreme arbiters of what is or is not constitutional -- see Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) on that point. Clearly, FlyteNow is looking for that Federal judicial review, but once the Federal courts make their final decision and it ends with the regulation upheld, then by that precedent, it does not "infringe on the Constitution". And I'd be very surprised if it ends any other way, although if it does, then I see the regulation being rewritten to take care of that, in which case the entire exercise will have been both pointless and expensive. I just don't see a Constitutional right for pilots to take money from passengers, although at the end of that day, that's a question for the nine wise souls to decide.
 
Public interest law groups (some are law firms and others are not but have legal departments or captive law firms) take these cases all of the time. Believe it or not, a lot of these are pro bono although in most of these cases, if there are any costs or fees recovered they go to the public interest group or law firm.

How do they do it? Some of these groups are part of larger groups such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Riverkeepers and other enviros. Others are smaller such as a groups that represent whistleblowers (Government Accountability Project) and others. Most of them are also IRC 501(c)(3) or similar corporations so they fund raise their costs including legal costs.

Why do they do it? Reasons vary. Some organizations especially their lawyers are "true believers" meaning they believe in the cause and most believe that the ends justify the means necessary to get there. Others groups and firms are more practical and just want to "right" what they perceive to be a "wrong". Still others do it for the publicity and exposure high profile cases can bring to their organizations and to themselves. In some instances, it's the only way to get a shot at arguing a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court which for some attorneys is a really big deal.

I can tell you from nearly 30 years of litigating against these kinds of groups and their firms (including two cases that had petitions for review denied by the U.S. Supreme Court) they are tough, smart and very capable. The "true believers" are especially difficult because they generally can't spell compromise must less understand it.

I think this group will give the FAA and its Chief Counsel's Office along with the DOJ attorneys a run for the money. I also think like many federal agencies, the FAA has overreached substantially in some of its regulations, and the First Amendment allegations in this case are not trifling to a federal court. So who knows - draw the right federal judge and anything can happen.
 
Jumpmaster said:
Public interest law groups (some are law firms and others are not but have legal departments or captive law firms) take these cases all of the time. Believe it or not, a lot of these are pro bono although in most of these cases, if there are any costs or fees recovered they go to the public interest group or law firm.
Click to expand...
The Goldwater Institute is such an outfit, but The Aviation Law Firm is not.
 
As I mentioned, the captive firm may be compensated by the Goldwater Institute for costs but may also be simply looking for big case exposure and is therefore doing it either on a substantially reduced fee basis or for free. Never can tell for sure. I have one case that I am defending right now where the captive law firm attorney is a classmate of a member of the enviro group. The enviro group has some money but this is going to be a very expensive case so I doubt they could pay fees even at reduced rates. There is no fee shifting possibility in my case meaning even if they prevail, there is no basis for them to collect costs and fees so a contingency fee arrangement is out.

My only point is you can't assume the attorneys are in it for the money since often times there is no money. Not to suggest these attorneys are altrustic because they are often not; just that there are reasons beyond money that motivate some. I know since I have done fair amount of pro bono work in my career as have many lawyers I know including some FAA attorneys.
 
Jumpmaster said:
As I mentioned, the captive firm may be compensated by the Goldwater Institute for costs but may also be simply looking for big case exposure and is therefore doing it either on a substantially reduced fee basis or for free. Never can tell for sure. I have one case that I am defending right now where the captive law firm attorney is a classmate of a member of the enviro group. The enviro group has some money but this is going to be a very expensive case so I doubt they could pay fees even at reduced rates. There is no fee shifting possibility in my case meaning even if they prevail, there is no basis for them to collect costs and fees so a contingency fee arrangement is out.

My only point is you can't assume the attorneys are in it for the money since often times there is no money. Not to suggest these attorneys are altrustic because they are often not; just that there are reasons beyond money that motivate some. I know since I have done fair amount of pro bono work in my career as have many lawyers I know including some FAA attorneys.
Click to expand...

When you do pro bono for a non profit, you basically get to write what you would bill off your taxes as charitable contribution, correct?
 
I have a very close friend in the Porsche club who is a litigation atty. We discussed the fees and pro-bono work on several occasions. It was his opinion that the tilting at windmill process is often given to jr partners to oversee, with a small staff of young associates to chew on. He also said that the fedguv and the state are some of the best targets because they have the crappiest attys on staff. Sadly, the judges in most cases, including this one is going to be hard pressed to go against the fedguv, so it's an uphill battle all the way. What the fed attys lack in talent, they make up for in volume. He called it 'wallpapering' a firm by submitting dozens of briefs/motions made up by dozens of staff lawyers that all have to be answered.

The only protection the citizen has anymore is through the court system. No longer can we rely on legislatures to do the right thing, they are bought and paid for, and it ain't anyone here paying the face time.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've never heard of an attorney taking a case on contingency when there weren't large damages to be recovered. There certainly aren't such damages here, and I don't see them doing this one pro bono.
Click to expand...
Even if the attorneys are being paid their normal fees, you still haven't explained how this is a "get rich" exercise. At best, they're being compensated for work performed....

Nothing says you can't say that. The FAA just says that if you do, you can't take money from them, and that doesn't infringe on your right of free speech, only with providing air transportation for hire/compensation without complying with the applicable sections of Title 14 of the CFR, which is not a Constitutional right. If there was no money changing between the pilots, passengers, and/or the ride board, the FAA wouldn't care about it. IOW, to misquote a former President of ours, "It's the money, stupid!" Take the money out, and it's completely legal, although I suspect that would pretty much end FlyteNow's interest.
Click to expand...
The FAA's big issue with FlyteNow was alleged holding out.
 
midlifeflyer said:
FlyteNow has sued the FAA over the interpretations with the support of the Goldwater Institute think tank.
Click to expand...

AHEM...

The suit seems to make the fundamental mistake of treating an interpretation letter as a "final agency action". I haven't seen any court cases where such letters are treated as such - normally such suits are "won" by the government. FlyteNow will need to first get its nose bloodied by the FAA before a court is likely to consider any "final agency action" to have taken place.

See for example:
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/357/357.F3d.632.02-1682.html

In the above case, a company by the name of Air Brake (substitute FlyteNow) sued the NHTSA (substitute FAA) over the contents of one of its chief counsel interpretation letters (substitute "ride sharing system" for "antilock brake system". This was (will probably be) the result:
Soon after NHTSA posted the first of these letters on its website, Air Brake filed this action challenging the Chief Counsel's conclusion as well as the Chief Counsel's authority to issue the letter. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of NHTSA, reasoning that interpretive letters issued by NHTSA's Acting Chief Counsel do not constitute "final agency action" subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. We agree that the tentative conclusions reached in the letters, which are based in part on Air Brake's representations about its antilock brake system and which NHTSA acknowledges are neither binding on the industry nor entitled to any administrative deference, do not constitute final agency action regarding the meaning of Standard 121 or Air Brake's compliance with that standard. At the same time, however, the letters do reflect final agency action with respect to the distinct question whether the Chief Counsel has authority to issue them, because the practice does not lend itself to further review at the agency level and has legal consequences. Yet because the practice of permitting NHTSA's Chief Counsel to issue advisory opinions in response to inquiries from the public does not exceed the Chief Counsel's authority (and indeed has much to recommend it), we affirm the district court's judgment in favor of the Government.
​
 
Henning said:
When you do pro bono for a non profit, you basically get to write what you would bill off your taxes as charitable contribution, correct?
Click to expand...

Not exactly. You would have to actually bill and collect it, then give the cash back to the charity to deduct it. Instead, you just don't pick it up in income in the first place.
 
docmirror said:
The only protection the citizen has anymore is through the court system. No longer can we rely on legislatures to do the right thing, they are bought and paid for, and it ain't anyone here paying the face time.
Click to expand...


You may think that, but you're dead financially if you actually have to use the legal system.

Attorneys won't even take most cases that won't pay out more than the median annual salary of half of our Citizens.

See my thread on Small Claims Court limits and whether they should be significantly raised.

I wouldn't call a system that will automatically bankrupt half our Citizens if they need it, and use it, "protection" from much. Certainly not a government that pays itself and its attorneys from loans orders of magnitude larger than their income from the same Citizenry.
 
The real story here is the funding of the lawsuit. Follow the money.
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, the Supreme Court has already said money is speech, and therefore protected by the First Amendment, so who knows?
Click to expand...
They said political contributions are protected speech. Further, they didn't outright ban restrictions on political contributions, but rather limits such activities as to avoid corruption. The issue in McCutcheon was the argument that the contribution limits were enacted to limit the amount of money in the campaign system.
 
flyingron said:
I wish them luck, but I don't give them much hope. While perhaps common carriage is not specifically spelled out in the FARs, the FAA has published a consistent view in the advisory circulars and the term is used throughout the DOT regulations in a way not inconsistent with the FAA interpretations.

Of course, I'm all for the FAA making the regs mean what they say so compelling the FAA to actually define things rather than leaving it up to talmudic interpretation isn't a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, this should be spelled out in the CFRs instead of expecting pilots to wade through all the chief counsel opinions to find the applicable interpretation.
 
docmirror said:
The power of the FAA and many other agencies has come under scrutiny for their expansion. The courts, and more importantly the public are getting tired of the administrative power grabs without congressional backing, or even oversight. This case like some of them against the EPA and DHS have a central common theme, although they are not related in any way as a legal premise. Just too much control being exercised on the thinnest of margins.

Using the NOTAM process to make policy, using the TFR system to permanently close airspace are other examples of admin over-reach. With the cost sharing rule history, the FAA is working to protect the gen-pop, and that's generally a good thing. But the splitting of hairs, where the split always goes both sides to the agents of regulation is getting old.

The facts in this case are up for debate, but from a larger perspective, all the little generals in these fed agencies need to be taken down a notch. The FAA is among the worst transgressors. I can't imagine an agency head telling congress that their mandates for policy are not going to be implemented, or are going to be years late. If we had any balls left at all in the govt, the administrator would be fired, and the next one, and then next until the FAA brass understood where their bread is buttered. The fact is now that no one at the FAA or other agencies has any fear of being fired, or even any responsibility for their agencies agenda. Very darn sad.
Click to expand...

This isn't a power grab. This is some private company coming in and trying to do something not permitted, or at best very questionable. And the FAA gave them an opinion that it would be a violation of the regs.

I disagree that the facts are in dispute. Flytenow says there are Constitutional issues:

I don’t see any Constitutional issues here. The basis of the suit, as I understand it, is:

“the FAA’s decision to shut down Flytenow violates the First Amendment and Due Process rights of the company, its owners and members, and that the agency’s rules are unconstitutionally vague.”

I don’t see any due process issues. In fact, MacPherson is not an Administrative Law Judge Ruling fro the NTSB–it is a letter of interpretation from the chief counsel of the FAA. As such, it is not law but an indication of what the FAA would do in an enforcement action. It is also not an CFR. So where is the Due Process issue?

The NTSB usually does agree with the FAA Chief Counsel in the letters of interpretation (but not always). And you are wise to follow them as if they were regulation (which I would advise anyone to do). Letters of interpretation have been overturned by the NTSB and Federal Courts before, but it is not common. This letter was based on years of consistent application of the regulations. Thus, I do think it is vague.

See what I posted earlier about amending the CFRs:

David7700 said:
Flytenow modifies business model in face of FAA ruling



My thoughts:

This wasn’t a “ruling”. It was a letter of interpretation from the FAA chief counsel indicating how the FAA would likely rule in an enforcement action. Letters of interpretation have been overturned by the NTSB and Federal Courts before, but it is not common. This letter was based on years of consistent application of the regulations.

The biggest problem with the regulations–the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) applying to aviation–is that nowhere do they set forth the definition of common carriage, which is a common law notion. Because this is common carriage (1. Holding out 2. to transport persons or property 3. from one place to another 4. for compensation), the 61.113 exception does not apply. The CFRs (notably, 61.113) do not make any mention of this idea of “common purpose” either. That is from prior letters of interpretation and NTSB cases, etc.

The CFRs need to be amended to put into the regulations these rules that pilots are to beheld accountable to. It is not realistic to expect private pilots to wade through mountains of letters and NTSB/Federal court decisions to discover what they are and are not permitted to do, especially in an area that is of a fairly high concern to so many. In this process, if the flight-share companies can get clarification that what they are doing is OK, then all the better. But we all need clear rules set out in the CFRs for us all to follow without reference to letters that are not listed or included with the CFRs.

As to the idea that all the flight share companies are doing is taking the airport or FBO bulletin board to the internet, I think the FAA has said that a bulletin board may be considered holding out. I have never seen posts like this on a bulletin board at my airport, but it seems like the practice does go on with the FAA turning a blind eye unless the pilot is blatantly acting as an illicit charter company.

See Haberkorn and the Article, Come Fly with Me, in the Sept/Oct 2010 issue of FAA Safety Briefing, mentioned in Haberkorn:

Haberkorn Letter:

“The holding out can be accomplished by any “means which communicates to the public that a transportation service is indiscriminately available” . . . There may also be a holding out without advertising, where a reputation to serve all is sufficient to constitute an offer to carry all customers. Whether or not the holding generates little success is not a factor ”

Come Fly with Me, in the Sept/Oct 2010 issue of FAA Safety Briefing:

“This doesn’t mean that you can’t ask people to fly with you and share some of the costs, but the sole purpose of your flight can’t be just to transport your passengers from one point to another. Asking your flying buddies if they want to split the costs of flying to Oshkosh with you and flying with friends to that resort on the coast you’re all going to share and sharing the flying costs—those would be okay. However, sharing expenses with a passenger on a flight to a place you would not otherwise be flying to would be a problem.”

“Hold the Line on Holding Out

“Holding out” can be as complex as publishing a flight schedule for a major airline or as simple as posting a notice on an FBO bulletin board (or the Internet) telling everyone you’re the one who will fly them to that prime vacation resort and make their dreams come true. Many FAA inspectors also like to fly for pleasure, and they read those bulletin boards, too. They might not be too happy with your advertisement for Old Bessie’s “charter service” when they find out you don’t have a part 135 certificate, but at least they won’t take you to task for promising to make your prospective client’s dreams come true.

Many pilots believe that they can easily avoid the compensation or hire restrictions of the regulations by making other arrangements. The FAA, however, interprets “compensation” very broadly. For example, the FAA has long held that logging flight time for the conduct of a flight is compensation. Most of us, and especially those of us seeking that coveted left seat at a major air carrier, know how valuable flight time can be. So, if someone requests that you use your superior piloting skills to take them to that resort of their choice and you decline any monetary payment, but still log that flight time while not paying the costs of operating the aircraft, you’ve received compensation.

Goodwill obtained from providing a flight has also been determined to be compensation. Everyone knows how valuable a favorable news article or celebrity endorsement can be. Bartering can be considered compensation, too. You may want to think twice before you take someone flying in exchange for spending a weekend at their beach house."
Click to expand...
 
Jumpmaster said:
Public interest law groups (some are law firms and others are not but have legal departments or captive law firms) take these cases all of the time. Believe it or not, a lot of these are pro bono although in most of these cases, if there are any costs or fees recovered they go to the public interest group or law firm.

How do they do it? Some of these groups are part of larger groups such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Riverkeepers and other enviros. Others are smaller such as a groups that represent whistleblowers (Government Accountability Project) and others. Most of them are also IRC 501(c)(3) or similar corporations so they fund raise their costs including legal costs.

Why do they do it? Reasons vary. Some organizations especially their lawyers are "true believers" meaning they believe in the cause and most believe that the ends justify the means necessary to get there. Others groups and firms are more practical and just want to "right" what they perceive to be a "wrong". Still others do it for the publicity and exposure high profile cases can bring to their organizations and to themselves. In some instances, it's the only way to get a shot at arguing a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court which for some attorneys is a really big deal.

I can tell you from nearly 30 years of litigating against these kinds of groups and their firms (including two cases that had petitions for review denied by the U.S. Supreme Court) they are tough, smart and very capable. The "true believers" are especially difficult because they generally can't spell compromise must less understand it.

I think this group will give the FAA and its Chief Counsel's Office along with the DOJ attorneys a run for the money. I also think like many federal agencies, the FAA has overreached substantially in some of its regulations, and the First Amendment allegations in this case are not trifling to a federal court. So who knows - draw the right federal judge and anything can happen.
Click to expand...

The Goldwater Institute is representing Flytenow in its suit against the FAA. The Goldwater Institute is arguing that the FAA’s decision to shut down Flytenow violates the First Amendment and Due Process rights of the company, its owners and members, and that the agency’s rules are unconstitutionally vague because it cannot provide legally-required “fair warning” of what communication activities of private expense-sharing pilots are allowed or not.
Click to expand...

Founded in 1988 with the blessing of the late Senator Barry Goldwater, the Goldwater Institute’s mission is to advance freedom and protect the Constitution.
As a non-profit organization funded solely by individual donations, we stand on principle, not politics. Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, we believe in the power of the states to restore America to the founding principles that made it a beacon of opportunity, prosperity, and freedom.
We research and develop ideas that help states use their constitutional powers to protect their citizens’ liberties. And when governments overstep their constitutional authority, the Goldwater Institute defends citizens in court.
Click to expand...

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/institute
 
hook_dupin said:
Is a "legal services for equity" deal common? The only thing valuable in a start-up is equity. I could see a smart firm taking a chunk to take this on.
Click to expand...

Generally you cannot do that ethically...it's the same as an attorney wanting the book/movie rights to a big case in lieu of payment, doesn't really work well for the client.

They *possibly* could hire one of the attorneys themselves with a $1 salary and all stock options, but the bar assoc'n disciplinary board may see right through that...
 
docmirror said:
I have a very close friend in the Porsche club who is a litigation atty. We discussed the fees and pro-bono work on several occasions. It was his opinion that the tilting at windmill process is often given to jr partners to oversee, with a small staff of young associates to chew on. He also said that the fedguv and the state are some of the best targets because they have the crappiest attys on staff. Sadly, the judges in most cases, including this one is going to be hard pressed to go against the fedguv, so it's an uphill battle all the way. What the fed attys lack in talent, they make up for in volume. He called it 'wallpapering' a firm by submitting dozens of briefs/motions made up by dozens of staff lawyers that all have to be answered.

The only protection the citizen has anymore is through the court system. No longer can we rely on legislatures to do the right thing, they are bought and paid for, and it ain't anyone here paying the face time.
Click to expand...

This may or may not be true at big firms. But at many big firms here, it is older or retired partners who do the pro bono work.

At small firms, it is not true. According to our ethical guidelines, it is the ethical duty of every lawyer in VA to do some pro bono work, though some do and some do not (it is not strictly mandatory).

In the Flytenow case, the public interest group may have its own lawyers or it may pay players. I have not seen, but would like to see a copy of the suit. I will pull that now off Pacer.
 
Ron Levy said:
Nothing says you can't say that. The FAA just says that if you do, you can't take money from them, and that doesn't infringe on your right of free speech, only with providing air transportation for hire/compensation without complying with the applicable sections of Title 14 of the CFR, which is not a Constitutional right. If there was no money changing between the pilots, passengers, and/or the ride board, the FAA wouldn't care about it. IOW, to misquote a former President of ours, "It's the money, stupid!" Take the money out, and it's completely legal, although I suspect that would pretty much end FlyteNow's interest.
Click to expand...

I haven't read up on any of this or the FAA opinion etc so maybe this has already been pointed out numerous times, but I imagine a greatest distinction between traditional pilot pro-rata cost sharing and a FlyteNow model is that there's now a third party taking a cut of $$ on each ride -- i.e. FlyteNow. That seems like a big enough difference that the FAA will get what they want on this one.
 
Irish_Armada said:
I haven't read up on any of this or the FAA opinion etc so maybe this has already been pointed out numerous times, but I imagine a greatest distinction between traditional pilot pro-rata cost sharing and a FlyteNow model is that there's now a third party taking a cut of $$ on each ride -- i.e. FlyteNow. That seems like a big enough difference that the FAA will get what they want on this one.
Click to expand...

No--it was holding out--plain and simple.
 
The Flytenow brief is an interesting read. I do not have time to post my thoughts right now, but I will on each of their positions. i don't see them prevailing on any of them:

1. Whether the FAA’s MacPherson-Winton Interpretation, concluding that pilots participating on the Flytenow website are engaged in common carriage, is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.

2. Whether the FAA’s MacPherson-Winton Interpretation violates Sections 553 and 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act as codified, 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 706, and/or 14 C.F.R. Part 11, because it constitutes a substantive rule or a change in interpretation to 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(c) or the term “common carriage,” which was promulgated without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process.

3. Whether the FAA lacks regulatory authority to restrict private communications over the Internet.

4. What, if any, deference is owed to the FAA’s interpretation and sudden change of position articulated in the MacPherson-Winton Interpretation?

5. Whether the MacPherson-Winton Interpretation violates the free speech rights of Flytenow and its members in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

6. Whether the FAA defines “common carriage” so broadly, and singles out Flytenow and its members, but not others similarly situated, for unequal treatment, that it violates the equal protection and due process components of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

7. Whether the FAA’s interpretation of the “holding out” element of common carriage and application of the “holding out” element to private flight operations is unconstitutionally vague.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top