OK, I've given up on arguing my P.O.V. Those who oppose the progression of flight sharing networks and making flying more affordable will always oppose it, and those who are for the progression of flight sharing networks and making flying more affordable will always be for it. I agree that a number of things could go wrong with this, but a million things can go wrong when you step outside your front door. You do it any way.
You will get people abusing the system, but then these people will be noticed, brought to the attention of the authorities, and appropriate action taken.
Every time a fare is paid to be airborne, and it was not in an AOC aircraft, an AOC holder lost business.
I would not dispute this as it is, technically entirely accurate. Unless, however, the cost of the AOC aircraft was too high and therefore said person looking for a flight could not afford it anyway, so technically it was never business for the AOC holder anyway. Like saying buying a 2002 BMW 3 series from Fred in a Shed is taking business away from the new BMW dealership up the road... Well, no.
Or, also very possible, the victim buys the flight with the Wingly chisel pilot, and due to that unqualified pilot's inexperience, has a very scary flight, and decides it's not for them, when in the company of a properly qualified AOC pilot, the flight would have been a positive experience.
Very possible indeed, but do humour yourself and have a look at the ratings that passengers have left for Wingly pilots and see that, actually, it is a very rare occasion that they'd have a scary flight.
The combination of experienced pilot, suitable plane and well executed flight leasing someone into training may not be as rare as you think (we'll never know for sure as I doubt there's any statistical evidence).
For those new pilots who think this is a suitable way to supplement their flying, will you still think that when there are no jobs available for you as a new CPL at an AOC, because these parasite organizations have redirected potential customers away? Do you expect the AOC will hire you, when they realize that your flying was supplemented by this chisel flying?
I think this is a little extreme. I've done some re-evaluating and can see that flight requests, on the whole, aren't the best idea. However, if I told a prospective employer that I had gained hours by cost sharing with various people, I don't think they would look down on this. If someone wants a flight somewhere specific on a certain day, they'd almost certainly go to an AOC because they know (or are at least 90% certain) that the flight will take place. With a Wingly flight, the pilot can call it off for any reason they like.
I have a good relationship with my local AOC's, though no financial interest. I own and regularly fly three planes. When the occasional person asked if I can be hired, I direct them to the AOC. When an occasional friend asks to be flown somewhere I sometimes agree, and there is no cost to them. Thereafter, I donate the operation of my aircraft to my local volunteer fire department for searches which otherwise could not be conducted safely.
It's nice to know you've got a great relationship with them, and to hear you own and fly 3 planes, fantastic! Directing people to an AOC when they request to hire a pilot is what should technically be expected anyway, no? And sharing a flight with a friend at no cost, then donating the operation of your aircraft to a very fantastic cause is noble indeed.
Now, I'm not assumptive, but I'd guess you've worked bloody hard to get where you are now, but the fact of the matter is if you're in a position where you own and operate 3 aircraft, donate them out and fly with a friend for no money, I reckon you've done quite well for yourself and actually, now, money isn't a big factor for you. This is where we'd all like to be, but unfortunately, not all of us can get there without a bit of help.
The early years are indeed expensive, which is why this is such a great opportunity to allow one to keep the costs low. I work what feels like a gazillion hours a week, for relatively little money, and spend most of it on essentials like food, housing, bills etc etc. What I'm left with at the end of the month, say £200, is enough for 1.5 hours flying. Now, if I need to build 100 hours, that's 67 months costing over £13,000! Now, imagine for a moment that that £200 paid for 1 hour in a 4 seater, and I could take 3 passengers every time I go, costing £50 each. (I know it's unlikely, but...) I can now afford 4 hours per month, so 25 months at a cost of £5,000. Suddenly, my dream career is in sight within a timeframe of just 2 years, rather than 5 and a half.
I genuinely believe that firms like Wingly do not have
no interest in supporting GA
because actually, what they're doing, is promoting GA.
Don't get me wrong, I am following this thread with great interest because as a discussion point, it's great. No one person's opinion is any more or less valid than the other. The fact of the matter at the moment, regardless of what side you're on, is that Wingly is operating within the law (having been endorsed by EASA), and it looks like it's here to stay.