On Jan. 9, 2017, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought by Flytenow, a start-up business that uses the Internet to connect private pilots with passengers wishing to share flight expenses.
Flytenow expands on “sharing economy” services that companies like Uber and Airbnb have popularized: Websites or mobile applications allowing consumers to connect directly with private service providers.
Flytenow passengers do not pay for tickets or for the pilot’s time. Instead, they share fuel and fee costs with the pilot.
This would have been the first “sharing-economy” case the Supreme Court considered, according to officials with the Goldwater Institute, who submitted the case to the court.
This cost-sharing arrangement between private pilots and passengers has been allowed by the FAA since the 1960s, Goldwater Institute officials noted. Pilots previously found people to cost-share with by word of mouth, phone, posting notes on bulletin boards in airports, and various other means.
“Flytenow simplified the process by allowing pilots to post a preplanned trip on a website for passengers interested in sharing costs,” officials said in a prepared release. “But the FAA determined that the process of posting a planned trip on a website constituted advertising and that subjected the pilots to the same onerous regulations that pilots for a commercial airline like Delta would have to meet. This forced Flytenow to shut down.”
“The Supreme Court missed an opportunity today to correct an error made by the FAA and lower courts that will now deprive millions of Americans of a unique, convenient, and affordable travel option,” said Jon Riches, the director of national litigation and general counsel for the Goldwater Institute, and the attorney representing Flytenow. “What’s more, the court could have offered direction to lower courts that protects the First Amendment rights of people using other sharing economy platforms, like Uber and Airbnb. Hopefully the FAA will reverse its position on this issue, and hopefully the court will decide in another case to examine the important constitutional issues raised.”
Several members of Congress, led by Congressman Mark Sanford of South Carolina, have sponsored legislation that would explicitly authorize internet-facilitated flight cost-sharing.
“We are disappointed with the court’s decision this morning and we will be continuing our efforts in Congress to overturn the FAA’s ban on online flight sharing,” said Matt Voska, a co-founder of Flytenow.
Read more about Flytenow v. FAA here.
This service was started on the arrogant assumption of its founders, and poor advice of high priced lawyers that they could win this case against the FAA. The only people that did well out of this were lawyers, the only losers, the investors.
So the FAA wants to allow aging pilots to decide for themselves and the rest of us when they are no longer air-worthy, but felt it appropriate to stop flight sharing? And yes, this basically eliminates flight sharing. I fly out of an area where the likelihood of ever coincidentally or through a message board making a connection is non-existent, unless you’re going to Sun N Fun.
I was excited about this, but the reason is the same as for all government action, or- in this case- inaction- corporate influence. Not a question, nor a surprise. The surprising thing is, if you ever look into it, how LITTLE they have to pay in campaign contributions to control governmental policy. it’s really a great value! Say what you will about Bernie, he was 100% right about that.
This could have been something special.
Frankly the idea scars me of the unknowing public hitching a ride with the average Private Pilot, they hardly have the skills or proficiency to be taking what is essentially a paying passenger anywhere. There is a big difference in catching a ride in someones minivan and taking a night VFR flight in a 70’s vintage aircraft with a low time PP at the controls. This was little more than a lawyer feeding frenzy waiting to happen. The FAA was right to not allow such activity and the Supreme Court was correct to let the lower court ruling stand.
Sometimes what sounds like a good idea to make some money really isn’t and this is one of those cases…
Your scenario is a little extreme. The ideas was more like ride sharing, not some guy in an old plane trying to make extra money ferrying people around… The shared fuel expenses rule was still in effect. This was not for profit, but to simply hook people up who were going in the same direction that may or may not have know about each other.
The only difference is you find the person on the net rather than just in a cafe in town somewhere. And by the way, many GA pilots are retired ATP with thousands of hours. Your picture of GA seems a little ignorant.
Whine all you want…the FAA ruling stands. No ride-sharing allowed.