Cost-sharing is lawful provided the arrangement complies with the relevant national restrictions/conditions.
Certainly it is. The understanding of those conditions and restrictions is important. If an error is to be made, it is best done to the conservative, so that in the unlikely case of an "event" and insurance claim, the insurer is agreeing to what their role is - defending the insured, and paying a claim.
If the entry point to a discussion between GA aware people is "hey, can I cost share a ride from Phoenix to Vegas when you're going?", great. But, when that morphs to a non aviation person being supplied a paid place in a private aircraft, on a quasi scheduled basis, I think the factors are being skewed away from simple "cost sharing".
Yes, perhaps there is a match made in heaven, where two people with near identical commuting needs come together, and it works out for both. If so, that does not require discussion on a public forum, just quietly let it happen, completely within the regs.
But if the result of an inquiry is one person paying for a flight provided by another "private" person, and that flight has been tailored to the "customer", I support the genuine charter/commercial service providers in saying that it could be an unfair intrusion on legal and legitimate provision of a service which is their business.
For the little I know about the "Uber taxi" business model, there seems to be as much objection to the concept by regulators, as embracing the concept by users. I think that GA would be even more vulnerable to legitimate objection in that business format.
GA is served well when more people happily get involved, and thus I support Foxmoth's observation. However, GA is not well served, when "the public" see "rich flyboys" sidestepping regulation, or reducing the perception of safety. In my opinion, there is a fine line here, and it is only fair that the factors on both sides of that line are presented.
Flying in very expensive in many countries, including the UK. Without cost-sharing, many people could not afford to fly, or to fly as often.
...Is a reason to optimize flying, but not to skew the intent of the regulations. Again, the fine line.
Most of those of us who participate here are awesomely fortunate to live in countries where private flying is possible at all! Every time I fly, I think of how lucky I am to fly as freely as I do. I have flown in many countries where flying privately just would never be possible. There is a cost for that freedom to fly, and that cost is an element of the "expensive" cost to fly. We're lucky that we
can bear that expense at all!
I remain jaded in that I have known pilots/owners who flew Roll Royce & Jaguar, on a Ford Escort budget, frequently attempting to fund the effort externally. Some pilots are poor at knowing their financial limitations, and trouble can result. So, I have uneasy feelings when the Bonanza owner cost shares because they have to, when flying a 172 would be more within their means. The cost share flight "has" to happen (get home itis) so safety can be compromised.
It's fair and appropriate that cost sharing bee discussed here, though there are some topics which when stirred more, don't really become more clear, and I think this is one of them.