Private pilot passengers cost sharing question #98791

cowman

cowman

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
5,453
Location
Danger Zone
Display Name
Display name:
Cowman
I just thought of this thumbing through some oral exam prep stuff.... more of an interesting question than anything practical but...


(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
Click to expand...

I've taken that to mean for practical purposes that if my wife and I get in my airplane with another couple and we fly somewhere the other couple could pay for half of the fuel.

But wait... my wife is in fact a completely separate human being from myself, the pilot. So wouldn't this mean my "pro rata share" could be considered 1/4? In that case, then couldn't the other couple pay 3/4 of the cost of fuel since I'm still kicking in my "pro rata share"?

As I said, more of an academic question as I don't think I'd ever do this but I'm curious if my interpretation is correct.
 
seriously? :confused:

In the 'real world' if you 'double date' in the plane then it's reasonable to expect the other party to pay for half the expenses.

If you went to dinner would you think it would be 'fair' for them to pay for 3/4 and you pay for 1/4.

I mean come on - this is just silliness...
 
Try getting a 1/4 share from your wife.
 
kenjr said:
seriously? :confused:

In the 'real world' if you 'double date' in the plane then it's reasonable to expect the other party to pay for half the expenses.

If you went to dinner would you think it would be 'fair' for them to pay for 3/4 and you pay for 1/4.

I mean come on - this is just silliness...
Click to expand...

... which is why I said it was purely academic.

Although, as I think about this.. change that to me + 3 friends and would seem more clear... I have to pay 1/4.

The wife thing really would seem to come down to how the FAA views a married couple.
 
I've never seen anything from the FAA on point, so I guess your wife could be the other couple's guest. That said, I'm sure that if the other couple complains about you demanding 3/4 of the cost from them, they'll find a way to bust you. Maybe their argument would be that you made paying your wife's share a quid pro quo condition for taking them in the first place, and that's compensation to you (at least as long as you and your wife are financial joint tenants), thus making it air transportation for compensation/hire in violation of Part 119.

If y'all want to beat this one to death, go ahead, but I'm done with it.
 
cowman said:
The wife thing really would seem to come down to how the FAA views a married couple.
Click to expand...

Assuming the issue has not been previously ajudicated or subject to some form of lawmaking, per U.S. v Mead it would come down to the courts, not the FAA.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Assuming the issue has not been previously ajudicated or subject to some form of lawmaking, per U.S. v Mead it would come down to the courts, not the FAA.
Click to expand...
How do you figure that? The FAA gets first crack at interpretations of the FAR's, and only if someone files an appeal of the FAA's decision does the court get involved. Of course, on that basis, everything the FAA (or anyone else in this country) does comes down to the courts.
 
Speculate all you want, but for Jebus's sake DON'T ASK THE CHIEF COUNSEL!!!!!!!
 
JimNtexas said:
Speculate all you want, but for Jebus's sake DON'T ASK THE CHIEF COUNSEL!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Based on my research:

The courts do not give any special deference to agency letters of interpretation, (since 2001) they are likely to consider the subject matter de novo, so little harm is involved in asking. Such letters provide a clue as to whether an agency will take action and the arguments they are likely to use in court. Not much more.

The courts will give weight to such a letter only as to "the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control." Pretty much as one would expect.

In the end the deciding factor is supposed to be whether the regulation is being employed in a way consistent with the statutes the agency administers.
 
...the bigger question here is who is really going to care? When is this ever going to be a real problem? You are all going to the same place for the same reason and splitting the costs. If it's 60/40 or 75/25 who freggin cares?
 
If I take someone for a $1000 hamburger they are aware that they buy the meal. Simplest way to do it I know of.
 
cowman said:
But wait... my wife is in fact a completely separate human being from myself, the pilot. So wouldn't this mean my "pro rata share" could be considered 1/4? In that case, then couldn't the other couple pay 3/4 of the cost of fuel since I'm still kicking in my "pro rata share"?
Click to expand...

I think that's right. How your three passengers split up their 3/4 share of the cost is entirely up to them; there's no requirement that they split it evenly among themselves. As long as the other couple understands and agrees that they're paying for your wife's share of the flight, they can pay the full 3/4.
 
The intent of the regs is not to force everyone to go Dutch, but to prevent thinly veiled part 135 operations. Don't set up a bogus air charter operation and you'll have nothing to worry about. Seriously, this one has been beat to death.
 
tmyers said:
If I take someone for a $1000 hamburger they are aware that they buy the meal. Simplest way to do it I know of.
Click to expand...

Yup. Just took my bro-in-law down to the coast for golf/lunch last week. I paid for the trip and he bought the round of golf and lunch. Done.

As someone mentioned, the nuances hare are unlimited. On my checkride my DPE didn't try to come up with some bizarre scenario to trick me.

As long as you aren't flying people around for money you're good.
 
Don't ask, don't tell. FAA isn't overly worried about PPLs getting the occasional free tank of gas or picking up the $300 dinner tab on a $200 flight, they are worried about them running outright illicit charter services.
 
Your question also suggests a more general cost-sharing strategy. Say you're taking a friend flying who wants to pay for as much of the flight as possible, and you want to accept as much as you legally can. You can increase your friend's lawful contribution by recruiting additional passengers to fly for free. You could even pay them a little to accompany you, and still make a profit from their presence!
 
acrophile said:
Your question also suggests a more general cost-sharing strategy. Say you're taking a friend flying who wants to pay for as much of the flight as possible, and you want to accept as much as you legally can. You can increase your friend's lawful contribution by recruiting additional passengers to fly for free. You could even pay them a little to accompany you, and still make a profit from their presence!
Click to expand...

Not a more retarded thought on the subject have I ever heard....:rofl::rofl::rolleyes:
 
This issue is not about what you charge people to ride in your airplane, you can charge them whatever you want, who is going to know?

What this issue is about is a thing called integrity. You made an agreement with the FAA that you would honor their rules and regulations if they would give you a pilots licence. You expect them to give you a pilots licence if you can satisfy their gauntlet of tests and exams. They expect you to be of honorable character and be a person who will abide by your agreement.

If you want to find ways of getting around your agreement, perhaps you should consider taking up some other sort of pastime, simply because if you don't want to abide by this particular regulation, what other regulations will you want to find your way around?

I personally hate rules and regulations, considering the overwhelming numbers of them that we are forced to live under, however, since I live here, I abide by them, at least the ones I'm aware of. I have never even had a traffic ticket in over fourty years. I never had any sort of incident while flying. I think I can attribute it to the fact that I played the game as I was expected to play it.

If you don't like a rule, regulation, law, or policy, do what you can to get it changed, but above all else, live and fly honorably.

-John
 
Last edited:
Where would u get the math they would be 3/4 shouldn't it be 1/2 your wife is part of you not them. I'm not even getting your reason for them to pay 3/4
 
Henning said:
Please, American culture is based on what you can get away with.
Click to expand...

Which explains why a mans handshake is no longer considered his bond. It also explains why we now have to live under millions of laws, regulations, rules and policies It explains why we have such huge government bureaucracies. It explains why FARS has now blossomed into what it is today.

Are you saying that Americans lack in integrity, character, and honor?

I guess that also explains our leadership then, doesn't it.

-John
 
John Baker said:
Which explains why a mans handshake is no longer considered his bond. It also explains why we now have to live under millions of laws, regulations, rules and policies It explains why we have such huge government bureaucracies. It explains why FARS has now blossomed into what it is today.

Are you saying that Americans lack in integrity, character, and honor?

I guess that also explains our leadership then, doesn't it.

-John
Click to expand...

In the general context, yes.
 
Henning said:
She is? Surgically or through DNA?
Click to expand...

Isn't' it funny how a simple period changes the whole meaning of ones sentence? Even our own president doesn't know how to properly use one.:D
 
skidoo said:
Isn't' it funny how a simple period changes the whole meaning of ones sentence? Even our own president doesn't know how to properly use one.:D
Click to expand...

Missing a simple period can change one's entire life.:rofl:
 
John Baker said:
This issue is not about what you charge people to ride in your airplane, you can charge them whatever you want, who is going to know?

What this issue is about is a thing called integrity. You made an agreement with the FAA that you would honor their rules and regulations if they would give you a pilots licence. You expect them to give you a pilots licence if you can satisfy their gauntlet of tests and exams. They expect you to be of honorable character and be a person who will abide by your agreement.

If you want to find ways of getting around your agreement, perhaps you should consider taking up some other sort of pastime, simply because if you don't want to abide by this particular regulation, what other regulations will you want to find your way around?

I personally hate rules and regulations, considering the overwhelming numbers of them that we are forced to live under, however, since I live here, I abide by them, at least the ones I'm aware of. I have never even had a traffic ticket in over fourty years. I never had any sort of incident while flying. I think I can attribute it to the fact that I played the game as I was expected to play it.

If you don't like a rule, regulation, law, or policy, do what you can to get it changed, but above all else, live and fly honorably.

-John
Click to expand...

Well, the intent and spirit of the regulation is clearly to prevent people from running a charter service which what we're talking about isn't so we're complying with the spirit and intent or the rule and we're complying with the letter of the rule which says "pro rata share" .

What's the integrity issue? It looks to me like we're talking about doing what whoever wrote that rule probably intended in the first place.

I would personally have the reg changed to something like "shall not accept more than the actual cost of the flight" which to me makes more sense than this "pro rata" business but it is what it is.
 
The regulation does not say anything about what the pilot can charge, and does not set a maximum on the amount he can charge.

It set a minimum on what the pilot must pay. That being (Number of people onboard)^-1

So, if there are 4 people onboard, the PIC must pay 4^-1, or 1/4 of the total cost.

Who pays what to whom is not covered in the regulation.
 
John Baker said:
What this issue is about is a thing called integrity. You made an agreement with the FAA that you would honor their rules and regulations if they would give you a pilots licence.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who this is addressed to, but the discussion in this thread is exactly about how to abide by the regulations (but without imposing MORE restrictions on oneself than the regulations actually do).

If you simply want your friend to pay for the whole flight and you're willing to flout the regulations, you just accept the payment and caution your friend not to tell anyone. Then the nuances we've been discussing don't even come up. The only reason to discuss or consider these nuances is if you DO want to follow the regulations.
 
cowman said:
Well, the intent and spirit of the regulation is clearly to prevent people from running a charter service which what we're talking about isn't so we're complying with the spirit and intent or the rule and we're complying with the letter of the rule which says "pro rata share" .
Click to expand...

Nicely put.
 
I always wonder how anyone could get busted. I guess if you have an ad in the paper and are selling rides or something.

As a general rule I take people up and I pay for everything. Just because in most cases I would have been flying anyway and they are just coming along for a ride I was already planning.

One time, I took a friend w/ me and he gave me $50/ I said "no thank you" He said "I insist" we went back and forth and he just left the cash in the plane when he got out I haven't lost much sleep over it.

I would never "charge" anyone. I get a lot out of being able to share flying with people. On the other hand nobody has ever approached me and asked "Hey do you mind flying me to XYZ?" I have always asked people to tag along.
 
The way people get busted is that the 135 operator across the ramp catches wind and turns them in.
 
cowman said:
I would personally have the reg changed to something like "shall not accept more than the actual cost of the flight" which to me makes more sense than this "pro rata" business but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

I can sort of understand the FAA not wanting a private pilot to fly for free in exchange for providing transportation. But they could just require the pilot to cover at least 1/n of the cost when flying an n-person plane, regardless of the number of passengers actually on board. That would eliminate the strange financial incentive to recruit additional passengers.
 
John Baker said:
What this issue is about is a thing called integrity. You made an agreement with the FAA that you would honor their rules and regulations if they would give you a pilots licence. You expect them to give you a pilots licence if you can satisfy their gauntlet of tests and exams. They expect you to be of honorable character and be a person who will abide by your agreement.
Click to expand...

What you're saying makes a lot of sense, but my integrity is satisfied by following the rules as written, not by following some ridiculous invention of a chief counsel or their kangaroo court. And I know whether I'm trying to conduct a 134.5 operation or not.

On the other hand, in my experience, passengers who want to pay a pro-rata share of the expenses are rare enough so that I'm really in no danger of getting sanctioned over this!
 
marcoseddi said:
Where would u get the math they would be 3/4 shouldn't it be 1/2 your wife is part of you not them. I'm not even getting your reason for them to pay 3/4
Click to expand...

The reg says you have to pay 1/4 of the cost if there are a total of four people on board. It doesn't say anything about having to pay for your wife's transportation. And if the other two passengers are willing to pay for your wide's transportation, I think it would depend on whether you live in a community property state. If you do, then it could be argued that 1/2 of what they are paying for her transportation accrues to you, and you would have a problem. If you live in a non community property state, then I don't see the problem.

Don't anybody depend on any of that, however! :D
 
Henning said:
Please, American culture is based on what you can get away with.
Click to expand...

It's possible to practice integrity for your own sake. When you do that, whether integrity is widely practiced in the society you live in or not becomes irrelevant.

I'm not saying that I always live up to the demands of integrity; I'm just discussing what the most effective motivation for integrity is.
 
Palmpilot said:
my integrity is satisfied by following the rules as written
Click to expand...

I think there are cases where that's not enough--cases where finding loopholes, and satisfying the letter of the law while violating its spirit and purpose, might reasonably be considered unethical (even though not illegal).

But as cowman explained with admirable clarity, the approaches under discussion here comply with both the letter AND the purpose of the compensation regulation (the purpose being to prevent private pilots from operating de facto taxis or charters). So the accusations of lack of integrity in this case are unfounded and false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top