Flytenow

Last updated
Flytenow
Company typePrivate
Industry Flight sharing
Founded2013
FounderMatt Voska, Alan Guichard, Aakash Patel, and Andrew Mass
DefunctDecember 2015
Headquarters
Boston
,
United States

Flytenow was a United States-based general aviation flight sharing company. The company developed a web platform for connecting travelers with licensed pilots conducting non-commercial flights, allowing the cost of the flight to be shared pro-rata. [1]

Contents

The company ceased operations in December 2015, following a ruling by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the practice of offering flight sharing to the general public is a commercial carrier activity requiring certain certification, and an unsuccessful appeal by Flytenow to the Supreme Court of the United States. [2]

History

Flytenow, a flight-sharing service, was founded in 2013 by two pilots, Matt Voska and Alan Guichard in Boston, Massachusetts. [3]

Flytenow's business model sought to extend an FAA-allowed practice among pilots – sharing expenses of a flight with personally-known passengers to make flights on small aircraft more cost-effective – to the more general public via the recent developments of the internet and sharing-based business models. [4] Under established FAA rules, pilots and passengers may each pay an equal share of flight operating costs, such as gasoline, oil, airport fees, and other related expenses so long as they are traveling "for a common purpose". [5] [6] This type of compensation for flights is an allowed exception to commercial flight classification.

The company aimed to build a database of licensed pilots offering their personal flights on non-commercial aircraft to the general public. Notably, as pilots did not earn money via Flytenow, the primary purpose was to share flight expenses, pro-rata, for pre-planned flights.

Travelers could search for select flights between destinations that were being offered by pilots on the service. [7] Flytenow provided travelers with information on each flight and its pilot including their license type, experience, and past flight ratings. [8] This would allow the traveler to fly on small private planes for the shared cost and would allow participating pilots the ability to defray some flight expenses. Flytenow charged a connection fee to travelers for each flight.

On February 12, 2014, Flytenow submitted an official FAA Chief Counsel request for legal interpretation of its services.

FAA ruling

The FAA ruled that pilots offering their planned flights online and receiving pro rata compensation were classed as a "common carrier". [9] [2]

Although common carriage is not strictly or precisely defined by regulation, FAA Advisory Circular No. 120-12A describes elements characterizing common carriage as "(1) a holding out of a willingness to (2) transport persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation or hire." [10]

The FAA ruled that by posting specific flights to the Flytenow website, a pilot participating in the Flytenow service would be engaged in common carriage because online posts constituted holding out services to the general public and receipt of shared expenses constituted compensation. The FAA's analysis concluded that the audience of the website was broad (the internet and users within the US), extending beyond a "limited and defined" group for a pilot to be seeking to share costs of a journey for a common purpose under the allowed exceptions to the commercial carrier rules.

This ruling meant that pilots offering flights through Flytenow would be subject to regulations akin to commercial airlines requiring heightened safety requirements, U.S. Department of Transportation Economic Authority approval, and other more stringent requirements. [11] [12]

Flytenow, with the help of The Goldwater Institute, a conservative policy think tank, challenged the FAA ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit. [13] Flytenow argued among other things that sharing expenses did not constitute compensation within the meaning of "common carriage" because long standing case law defines compensation as an "enterprise for profit". Flytenow asserted that receiving pro rata shared expenses did not amount to an enterprise for profit and therefore pilots should not be classed as a common carrier.

On December 18, 2015, the FAA ruling was upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit. [2] The court ruled primarily on the question of whether Flytenow (and pilots) were "holding out", or advertising, to the general public and therefore engaging in activity similar to a commercial carrier. The court ruled that the FAA was correct in interpreting its rules that the enabling of internet-wide users to access the website and find flights was in fact "holding out" willingness to transport passengers generally. The court also ruled on other arguments of Flytenow, including that the FAA's decisions were not infringements on the freedom of speech and equal protection. (The case did not significantly turn on the raised argument / interpretation of compensation converting an enterprise into a for-profit venture, as the court acknowledged that the sharing of flight costs is an allowed exception to commercial flight classification, even if it is called compensation.)

Flytenow appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. [14] [15] On January 9, 2017, the Supreme Court declined to hear Flytenow's case. [16] [17]

Outcome

Flytenow ceased operations in December 2015, along with other flight sharing companies which had already ceased, such as AirPooler and PilotShareTheRide.com. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) are rules prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) governing all aviation activities in the United States. The FARs comprise Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. A wide variety of activities are regulated, such as aircraft design and maintenance, typical airline flights, pilot training activities, hot-air ballooning, lighter-than-air aircraft, human-made structure heights, obstruction lighting and marking, model rocket launches, commercial space operations, model aircraft operations, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and kite flying. The rules are designed to promote safe aviation, protecting pilots, flight attendants, passengers and the general public from unnecessary risk.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Westchester County Airport</span> Public airport in Westchester County, New York

Westchester County Airport is a county-owned airport in Westchester County, New York, United States, three miles (6 km) northeast of downtown White Plains, with territory in the towns of North Castle and Harrison, New York, and the village of Rye Brook, New York. It is sometimes referred to as the White Plains Airport and is so identified by the Official Airline Guide (OAG).

The Montreal Convention is a multilateral treaty adopted by a diplomatic meeting of ICAO member states in 1999. It amended important provisions of the Warsaw Convention's regime concerning compensation for the victims of air disasters. The Convention attempts to re-establish uniformity and predictability of rules relating to the international carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo. Whilst maintaining the core provisions which have served the international air transport community for several decades, the treaty achieves modernization in a number of key areas. It protects passengers by introducing a two-tier liability system that eliminates the previous requirement of proving willful neglect by the air carrier to obtain more than US$75,000 in damages, which should eliminate or reduce protracted litigation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tweed New Haven Airport</span> Airport in Connecticut, United States

Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport is a public airport located three miles southeast of downtown New Haven, in New Haven County, Connecticut, United States. The airport is partly located in the City of New Haven, which owns the airport, and partly in the town of East Haven.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fixed-base operator</span> Company offering air-side aviation services at an airport

A fixed-base operator (FBO) is an organization granted the right by an airport to operate at the airport and provide aeronautical services such as fueling, hangaring, tie-down, and parking, aircraft rental, aircraft maintenance, flight instruction, and similar services. In common practice, an FBO is the primary provider of support services to general aviation operators at a public-use airport and is on land leased from the airport, or, in rare cases, adjacent property as a "through the fence operation". In many smaller airports serving general aviation in remote or modest communities, the town itself may provide fuel services and operate a basic FBO facility. Most FBOs doing business at airports of high to moderate traffic volume are non-governmental organizations, either privately or publicly held companies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pilot certification in the United States</span> Pilot certification

Pilot certification in the United States is typically required for an individual to act as a pilot-in-command of an aircraft. It is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). A pilot may be certified under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61 or 14 CFR Part 141. Pilots may also be certified under 14 CFR Part 107 for commercial drone operations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Private aviation</span> Civil aviation that does not include flying for hire

Private aviation is the part of civil aviation that does not include flying for hire, which is termed commercial aviation. In 2022, private air travel was noted as increasing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Air Passengers Rights Regulation</span> European Union regulation

The Air Passengers Rights Regulation 2004 is a regulation in EU law establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, flight cancellations, or long delays of flights. It requires compensation of €250 to €600 depending on the flight distance for delays over of at least three hours, cancellations, or being denied boarding from overbooking. Delays shorter than three hours means no entitlement to any compensation of any kind even if the delay was classified as non-extraordinary. Airlines must provide refreshments and accommodation where appropriate. The Court of Justice of the European Union has interpreted passenger rights strictly, so that there are virtually no exceptions for airlines to evade their obligations for breach of contract.

Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court limited the scope of the Texas Healthcare Liability Act (THCLA). The effective result of this decision was that the THCLA, which held Case Management and Utilization Review decisions by Managed Care entities like CIGNA and Aetna to a legal duty of care according to the laws of The State of Texas could not be enforced in the case of Health Benefit plans provided through private employers, because the Texas statute allowed compensatory or punitive damages to redress losses or deter future transgressions, which were not available under ERISA § 1132. The ruling still allows the State of Texas to enforce the THCLA in the case of Government-sponsored (Medicare, Medicaid, Federal, State, Municipal Employee, etc., Church-sponsored, or Individual Health Plan Policies, which are saved from preemption by ERISA. The history that allows these Private and Self-Pay Insurance to be saved dates to the "Interstate Commerce" power that was given the federal Government by the Supreme Court. ERISA, enacted in 1974, relied on the "Interstate Commerce" rule to allow federal jurisdiction over private employers, based on the need of private employers to follow a single set of paperwork and rules for pensions and other employee benefit plans where employers had employees in multiple states. Except for private employer plans, insurance can be regulated by the individual states, and Managed Care entities making medical decisions can be held accountable for those decisions if negligence is involved, as allowed by the Texas Healthcare Liability Act.

The Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (ACAA) is Title 49, Section 41705 of the U.S. Code.

Jetpooling is an arrangement among a group of jet travelers by which each individual shares the cost of private jet travel by paying on a per seat, pro rata basis. Those included in such arrangements are referred to as 'jetpoolers'. Jetpooling is a fairly new concept (12/2008) that originated as an alternative for air travelers to still enjoy the benefits of travelling on a private jet without paying all of the expenses involved. It was also developed to help offset carbon emissions by allowing people who would otherwise book separate jets, to fly together.

Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "actual damages" under the Privacy Act of 1974 is not clear enough to allow damages for suits for mental and emotional distress. The reasoning behind this is that the United States Congress, when authorizing suit against the government, must be clear in waiving the government's sovereign immunity.

Flight sharing is the sharing of the direct operating costs of non-commercial general aviation aircraft flights between a licensed pilot and their passengers.

The US Federal Aviation Administration has adopted the name small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) to describe aircraft systems without a flight crew on board weighing less than 55 pounds. More common names include UAV, drone, remotely piloted vehicle (RPV), remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), and remotely operated aircraft (ROA). These unmanned aircraft flown in the USA's National Airspace System must operate under the rules of a Community Based Organization for recreational purposes or 14 CFR Part 107 for commercial operations. All UAVs weighing more than 250 grams flown for any purpose must be registered with the FAA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of Southwest Airlines</span> History of a U.S. low cost airline

Founded in 1967 to be a Texas intrastate airline, Southwest Airlines was initially prevented from operating, and saw long-haul flights from its original Dallas Love Field base restricted by federal law for several decades. Despite these obstacles, Southwest has built a history of innovative business practices, was a major source of inspiration for US airline deregulation and was probably the biggest beneficiary of deregulation, growing to be one of the largest airlines in the United States and one of the largest low-cost carriers worldwide.

Wingly is an international company based in Paris, France. Running an online flightsharing platform, they connect passengers and local private pilots. Private pilots are able to offer seats on their flights departing from local aerodromes. The website is part of the sharing economy. When offering a flight, the pilot shares the operational expenses with their passengers.

Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on how two federal laws, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), relate to whether employment contracts can legally bar employees from collective arbitration. The Supreme Court had consolidated three cases, Epic Systems Corp. v Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris (16-300), and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (16-307). In a 5–4 decision issued in May 2018, the Court ruled that arbitration agreements requiring individual arbitration and prohibiting class action lawsuits are enforceable under the FAA, regardless of allowances set out within the NLRA.

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 22</span> Gig economy workers employment status ballot initiative

Proposition 22 was a ballot initiative in California that became law after the November 2020 state election, passing with 59% of the vote and granting app-based transportation and delivery companies an exception to Assembly Bill 5 by classifying their drivers as "independent contractors", rather than "employees". The law exempts employers from providing the full suite of mandated employee benefits while instead giving drivers new protections:

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the compensation of collegiate athletes within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). It followed from a previous case, O'Bannon v. NCAA, in which it was found that the NCAA was profiting from the namesake and likenesses of college athletes. The case dealt with the NCAA's restrictions on providing college athletes with non-cash compensation for academic-related purposes, such as computers and internships, which the NCAA maintained was to prevent the appearance that the student athletes were being paid to play or treated as professional athletes. Lower courts had ruled that these restrictions were in violation of antitrust law, which the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous ruling in June 2021.

References

  1. ↑ Sargent, Michael; Seibler, John-Michael (2018-05-28). "Flight-sharing service shuttered by heavy-handed FAA bureaucrats". The Washington Times. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
  2. 1 2 3 Graham, Jordan (2015-12-23). "Boston flight-sharing company Flytenow to shut down". Boston Herald. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
  3. ↑ "Deep Dive Episode 4 – "Uber of the Sky": The Story of Flytenow". fedsoc.org. July 13, 2017. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
  4. ↑ Pilot privileges and limitations: sharing expenses.
  5. ↑ Flying Magazine (Jun. 1969), p.113
  6. ↑ § 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
  7. ↑ Estes, Adam Clark (Mar 5, 2014). "Flytenow Is The Aeroplane Rideshare Service You Can Actually Afford". Gizmodo. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
  8. ↑ "Deep Dive Episode 4 – "Uber of the Sky": The Story of Flytenow". fedsoc.org. July 13, 2017. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
  9. ↑ Legal interpretation (2014).
  10. ↑ AC 120-12A. FAA.
  11. ↑ AC 120-49A. FAA.
  12. ↑ a Part 135 Operation: A Guide to Applying for Charter Certification (NBAA).
  13. ↑ "Deep Dive Episode 4 – "Uber of the Sky": The Story of Flytenow". fedsoc.org. July 13, 2017. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
  14. ↑ "Flytenow, Inc. v. FAA, No. 14-1168 (D.C. Cir. 2015)". Justia. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
  15. ↑ "Flytenow, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
  16. ↑ What can be learned from the Supreme Court’s denial of the FlyteNow v. FAA writ of certiorari?. January 11, 2017. JDA Journal.
  17. ↑ Trautvetter, Chad (2017-01-10). "U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Hear Flytenow Case". AIN Online. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
  18. ↑ "Flytenow grounded: FAA shuts down ride-sharing for air travelers". CBS News. January 24, 2015. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.