Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

FAA Bans 'Uber for Planes' Startups

posted by janrinok on Monday August 18 2014, @03:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the are-pilots-allowed-to-accept-'gifts'? dept.

AnonTechie writes about a TechCrunch story::

There will be no "ZimRide for airplanes", according to an FAA ruling released today that prohibits private pilots from publicly offering seats on their planes in exchange for gas money, including via startups like AirPooler and Flytenow.

The decision strikes a blow to the sharing economy, and comes in response to AirPooler formally requesting a clarification of the gray area it was operating in. Banning this form of planesharing (like ridesharing for aircraft) could keep people safe by preventing them from hopping in with rookie pilots. However, it will also make it more expensive for pilots to fly since they can't share costs, reduce travel options for passengers, and kill off an entire category of startups.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
FAA Bans 'Uber for Planes' Startups | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 21 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Username on Monday August 18 2014, @03:53AM

    by Username (4557) on Monday August 18 2014, @03:53AM (#82470)

    Very wise law, otherwise companies can bypass regulations by hiring non-comericial pilots to fly passengers in smaller aircraft.

    They skies are only safe when you have well rested and trained pilots flying well maintained aircraft.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by morpheus on Monday August 18 2014, @05:16AM

    by morpheus (1989) on Monday August 18 2014, @05:16AM (#82483)

    I am assuming you think that commercial pilots are always well rested and that airplanes flown for air carriers are always well maintained? I assure you, this is not always the case (I speak from personal experience). There are a myriad of rules prohibiting hiring of private pilots to transport passengers for compensation and commercial carriers would not even think about doing that. This ruling is simply closing an apparent loophole whereby a private pilot may share expenses with his/her passengers provided he decided to go to his destination on his own and the passengers simply joined in. The FAA simply stated that it is still compensation and is merely exempted from the `no flying for hire for private pilots' rule. The sticky point here is unlike in the situation when one is splitting expenses with friends to fly somewhere, in the case of these new companies the pilot announces his destination publicly and simply waits for somebody to join in. FAA interprets this as `holding out' thus making it a violation of two important rules: this behavior is no longer exempted for private pilots because it does not fall under the (very specific) exemptions for private pilots concerning compensation, and it puts such operations under the requirements of the laws governing air carriers. So even if the person has a commercial certificate (or ATP) and can receive compensation for flying, he/she would still be violating the rules applicable to air carriers.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by frojack on Monday August 18 2014, @06:13AM

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 18 2014, @06:13AM (#82493) Journal

      Pretty sure it was sarcasm....

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.