Uber Air

[Mr Proach]

Why can't the aviation transport industry adopt an Uber platform and bypass the regulator just like what occurred in the Taxi industry? If nothing else, the advent of Uber proved beyond any doubt that regulators have no legitimacy. Like most regulators, this was a massive institution of people (including extremely well remunerated bureaucrats) who, for decades have controlled the Taxi industry. Then someone creates a programming code for a mobile device to provide an identical publicly available Taxi service which, was allowed to freely operate outside of the exisiting "Taxi" transport regulations. These so called regulators that allowed to this happen most likely walked away with massive (publicly financed) pay outs and have never been held to account for their complicity in what ultimately destroyed the livelihood of thousands of people and their assets.
Interestingly, in the recently well publicised court case "win" against Uber, there was no mention of the regulator's culpability in the whole affair. The reported award will only amount to about 5% of what an individual's taxi plate was worth prior to the proliferation of Uber. Doesn't what happened to a government regulated taxi industry mean that Government regulators/authorities (and their rules) are invalid?

[TBM-Legend]

Why can't the aviation transport industry adopt an Uber platform and bypass the regulator just like what occurred in the Taxi industry? If nothing else, the advent of Uber proved beyond any doubt that regulators have no legitimacy. Like most regulators, this was a massive institution of people (including extremely well remunerated bureaucrats) who, for decades have controlled the Taxi industry. Then someone creates a programming code for a mobile device to provide an identical publicly available Taxi service which, was allowed to freely operate outside of the exisiting "Taxi" transport regulations. These so called regulators that allowed to this happen most likely walked away with massive (publicly financed) pay outs and have never been held to account for their complicity in what ultimately destroyed the livelihood of thousands of people and their assets.
Interestingly, in the recently well publicised court case "win" against Uber, there was no mention of the regulator's culpability in the whole affair. The reported award will only amount to about 5% of what an individual's taxi plate was worth prior to the proliferation of Uber. Doesn't what happened to a government regulated taxi industry mean that Government regulators/authorities (and their rules) are invalid?

JSX is a start of this in the U.S.

[golfbananajam]

Why can't the aviation transport industry adopt an Uber platform and bypass the regulator just like what occurred in the Taxi industry? If nothing else, the advent of Uber proved beyond any doubt that regulators have no legitimacy. Like most regulators, this was a massive institution of people (including extremely well remunerated bureaucrats) who, for decades have controlled the Taxi industry. Then someone creates a programming code for a mobile device to provide an identical publicly available Taxi service which, was allowed to freely operate outside of the exisiting "Taxi" transport regulations. These so called regulators that allowed to this happen most likely walked away with massive (publicly financed) pay outs and have never been held to account for their complicity in what ultimately destroyed the livelihood of thousands of people and their assets.
Interestingly, in the recently well publicised court case "win" against Uber, there was no mention of the regulator's culpability in the whole affair. The reported award will only amount to about 5% of what an individual's taxi plate was worth prior to the proliferation of Uber. Doesn't what happened to a government regulated taxi industry mean that Government regulators/authorities (and their rules) are invalid?

Until the first preventable fatality.

[Mach E Avelli]

Australia is a signatory to ICAO, which carries with it certain obligations to properly regulate aviation. Whether we ‘properly’ regulate it is open to conjecture, but we can’t be said to be not regulating it.

[Lookleft]

The drivers and cars operating Ubers still had to be licensed, the cars had to be registered and roadworthy and the drivers had to follow the road rules. The only thing Uber bypassed was the taxi license plate and they have ultimately had to pay compensation for that disruption. Sure start your own air taxi service with a scaled up drone and call yourself "Disruptor Airlines" then let us all know how long it lasted.

[tail wheel]

In the 1990s there were a few forward thinkers in CASA and the aviation industry who thought abolition of AOC's and regulated air routes could be a good idea worth examining. One appropriate regulated standard for commercial aircraft to operate in all or any of the current classes of commercial aviation, with only the aircraft maintenance and pilot standards regulated by CASA. I know CASA considered (perhaps briefly...) the option when it was debating an "Open Skies" policy.

If you think UBER is a success, consider UBER is a profitless but apparently bottomless pit of money - two small profits in a sea of red.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/844x547/uber_profitability_372447dd0ee439fe24f86fa4a91db1ee1634964a. jpg


With that financial record an UBER Air concept would probably be a perfect fit for the Australian commercial aviation industry.

With the repetitious losses, I have no idea how UBER has managed to almost double it's share price over the last five years.........

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1165x724/uber_shares_e8192fa0cd79ce6216ab09fe5a0a72a4cb66ddbf.png

[Icarus2001]

Uber must have some fancy book keeping. I always am amazed that they stubbornly refuse to make a profit. Since they take a 30% cut of ride fares and basically provide an IT service how could you NOT make a profit. There is some fancy accounting going on.

[Mr Proach]

The drivers and cars operating Ubers still had to be licensed, the cars had to be registered and roadworthy and the drivers had to follow the road rules. The only thing Uber bypassed was the taxi license plate and they have ultimately had to pay compensation for that disruption. Sure start your own air taxi service with a scaled up drone and call yourself "Disruptor Airlines" then let us all know how long it lasted.
To be clear, I am not remotely interested in setting an Uber style air transport operation. My intent was, by way of example, using the Taxi industry and the Uber phenomena to question the validity of any other industry regulators. At the end of the day you hired a car to transport a person from point A to point B. The vehicle and driver were regulated by an authority specific to that service. Another operator provides the same service (looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck .... ) and is not subject to the same regulations, why would any other regulator be any different?

[Mr Proach]

In the 1990s there were a few forward thinkers in CASA and the aviation industry who thought abolition of AOC's and regulated air routes could be a good idea worth examining. One appropriate regulated standard for commercial aircraft to operate in all or any of the current classes of commercial aviation, with only the aircraft maintenance and pilot standards regulated by CASA. I know CASA considered (perhaps briefly...) the option when it was debating an "Open Skies" policy.

If you think UBER is a success, consider UBER is a profitless but apparently bottomless pit of money - two small profits in a sea of red.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/844x547/uber_profitability_372447dd0ee439fe24f86fa4a91db1ee1634964a. jpg


With that financial record an UBER Air concept would probably be a perfect fit for the Australian commercial aviation industry.

With the repetitious losses, I have no idea how UBER has managed to almost double it's share price over the last five years.........

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1165x724/uber_shares_e8192fa0cd79ce6216ab09fe5a0a72a4cb66ddbf.png
Another aspect of an unregulated operator.

[Lookleft]

and is not subject to the same regulations, why would any other regulator be any different?

Have another read of post #4. Operating in the 3rd dimension presents certain physical and regulatory barriers to bright young things with a new idea.

[Mr Proach]

Have another read of post #4. Operating in the 3rd dimension presents certain physical and regulatory barriers to bright young things with a new idea.
I follow that and the other aspects of regulatory oversight for matters like maintenance standards and flight crew licensing however, to approach this matter in a different context, why can't foreign operators that are approved to operate in Australian airspace carry domestic passengers between domestic airports that are on their network (cabotage).

[Lead Balloon]

Because they're not 'approved' to do that. CASA does not grant 8th freedom rights. That's a competition/protection issue for others to decide.

But this will all be moot, 'soon', when vertiports and heli-drones will by-pass all these anachronistic restrictions.

[43Inches]

I reckon we'll be getting "beamed" around by Canadians pretending to be Scottish before the drone menace becomes mass transportation.

In any case UBER usurped a certain bunch of rich individuals who were holding the taxi system to ransom, so the government sort of 'let' it happen. Now nobody can make any decent money out of land transportation, so the government is happy, and they have no responsibility, because UBER made sure that's all down to each driver. UBER worked because there was no full legal definition for what they did, they are not a taxi company, or a bus company, or even a specialty hire vehicle. Aviation does not have loopholes in that regard as the CASA law clearly defines commercial vs private operations and limits cost sharing operations to non profit.

If you want internationals to have open slather in Australia, then ask them for open rights to their country. I think I already know the response to that...

[lucille]

43inches… I would be surprised if Singapore, Dubai or Qatar would not grant open rights for any Australian operator to run domestic operations within their country in exchange for similar rights here.

[C441]

…...why can't foreign operators that are approved to operate in Australian airspace carry domestic passengers between domestic airports that are on their network (cabotage).
Because they'd only operate on capital city trunk routes driving down the prices (and the profitability of the current carriers), thus prices everywhere else would soar to compensate.

[tail wheel]

Mach E Avelli and Lookleft

JSX has an FAA issued AOC # (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=53f5038f6c6bf21c&rlz=1C1ASUC_enAU1016AU1016&sxsrf=ACQVn0-AW-ZIYFX8XxrX-XDWBv6lvepjhQ:1712788771167&q=jsx+aoc+%23&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKi5-y27iFAxWMR2wGHVihBOEQ6BMoAHoECFAQAg): 4DPA097O and is not a rogue operator in a regulatory sense.

If they tried to operate without an AOC I'm sure the immediate FAA reaction would be to deny access to airports and air services, especially if their insurance was voided by conducting illegal non regulated air services.

JSX are pioneering a new modus operandi which may actually work in this era of airlines "service" having hit rock bottom and airlines are still digging - particularly here in Australia.

The interesting point will come when automated drone air taxis and privately owned passenger drones commence operating - as they inevitably will. CASA may or may not know it has lost control of drones (being used privately and commercially) in the same way State Governments have now lost control of electric bikes and scooters. Interestingly last week I was driving home at 55 KPH in a 60 KPH zone when two young school students on one electric scooter, no helmets, overtook me. There was a Police car behind me (the reason I was driving at 55 KPH) and he completely ignored the students doubling on a scooter at 60 KPH or higher speed.

Queensland road rules limit e-bikes to single motor of 200 watts and 25 KPH maximum, whilst I have seen e-bikes and e-scooters openly advertised with single or twin motors well in excess of 1 kilowatt, capable of speeds well in excess of suburban road speed limits. How about THIS (https://bikescootercity.com.au/products/nami-burn-e-viper-2-max-40ah-electric-hyper-scooter-2022-model-peak-power-8400w?currency=AUD&variant=43983709569256&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=Google%20Shopping&stkn=268b4481dfa8&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw8diwBhAbEiwA7i_sJXanoDguRBZA0_KT21RDqhnqdLPhtF rmIsnQNMO1kcg5Y4FkaKXnuRoC5M4QAvD_BwE) e-scooter, advertised in Australia by an Australian dealer, 8.4 kW (11.26 HP - 42 times the maximum power permitted for an e-bike in Queensland) and capable of speeds to 90 KPH? 150 kilometer range and cheaper than a reasonable used car?

The intriguing question - what will the regulator do when private drones are operated repetitiously above 400 feet AGL and unlicensed people carrying drones, which do not require airport facilities, commence operating? I suspect the regulators in most developed countries may be overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers as the cost of these air vehicles comes down due to competition and vastly increased manufacturing numbers?

[43Inches]

The intriguing question - what will the regulator do when private drones are operated repetitiously above 400 feet AGL and unlicensed people carrying drones, which do not require airport facilities, commence operating? I suspect the regulators in most developed countries may be overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers as the cost of these air vehicles comes down due to competition and vastly increased manufacturing numbers?

I'm pretty sure litigation will end this from happening as more are injured by errant drones. Insurance will be harder to get, the manufacturers hunted for any faults, and suddenly you have a repeat of what happened to GA in the 70s. CASA and the like will just keep rules tight so that anyone breaching them and causing damage/injury will face the full weight of liability and it will all sort itself out. Pretty much how I see UBER going eventually. The scooter on sale is a liability minefield, providing a mode of injuring yourself that is not even legal on the roads, good luck to the owner of the resale shop.

Some legal advice from a lawyer (not me) regarding the scooter...Retailer responsibilities Retailers are accountable for injuries, harm, or damage that faulty products (they sell or supply) can and do cause. Particularly if they knew or should have known about the issue but did nothing to forewarn consumers.
I had a look at that site and its has no warnings about it being illegal for street use or laws governing its use in public.

[Chronic Snoozer]

CASA may or may not know it has lost control of drones (being used privately and commercially) in the same way State Governments have now lost control of electric bikes and scooters. Interestingly last week I was driving home at 55 KPH in a 60 KPH zone when two young school students on one electric scooter, no helmets, overtook me. There was a Police car behind me (the reason I was driving at 55 KPH) and he completely ignored the students doubling on a scooter at 60 KPH or higher speed.

Darwin and physics will sort out the e-scooter violators but it will all be society’s fault for not stopping them. Not the parents, not the individuals. We’re fk’d. People do not care a jot about others and society at large, just themselves. When something bad happens, society is to blame. Or mental health. Or upbringing. It’s never poor self discipline, lack of common sense or disregard for rules and social responsibilities. We want the government to ‘do something’ but we don’t want a ‘nanny state’. Which is it?

[glekichi]

Why can't the aviation transport industry adopt an Uber platform and bypass the regulator just like what occurred in the Taxi industry? If nothing else, the advent of Uber proved beyond any doubt that regulators have no legitimacy. Like most regulators, this was a massive institution of people (including extremely well remunerated bureaucrats) who, for decades have controlled the Taxi industry.

Buses, trucks, and taxis are all still heavily regulated.
The equivalent would be letting PPL holders fly for hire and reward in light aircraft that meet only the minimum maintenance standards, with no AOC. (and no fatigue rules)
I wouldn't be getting in one.

[tail wheel]

43Inches

CASA and the like will just keep rules tight so that anyone breaching them and causing damage/injury will face the full weight of liability and it will all sort itself out. Pretty much how I see UBER going eventually. The scooter on sale is a liability minefield, providing a mode of injuring yourself that is not even legal on the roads, good luck to the owner of the resale shop.

I like your thinking, but I believe you are being way too optimistic in thinking CASA would have any hope of regulating small and large drones.

Consider this scenario: I have held an Amateur Radio Licence for VH (Australia) and P2 (PNG) for 54 years, permitting transmissions in various modes on a whole range of frequencies in the HF, VHF, UHF and SHF bands with up to 2 kilo-watts output. Prior to the 1970s, any illegal/non licensed transmissions on any frequency in Australia was generally tracked by the authorities and fairly rapidly shut down. Around the 1970s, a well known aviator imported shipping containers of a new product being a "Citizen Band" transceiver, which operated around 27 mHz (in the lower end of the Amateur 10 meter band) and sold these transceivers through his electrical shops. I greatly admire that aviator and his commercial enterprise in bringing these devices to Australia, which in very short time ended up in our nations trucking fleet and many private cars. Indeed, whilst CB radios were limited (from memory) to 5 watts output, it wasn't long before enterprising owners added an amplifier and a high gain Yagi antenna and had started chatting with similar enterprising CB owners around the world, the very thing the Australian authorities did not want - unlicensed and unauthorised international communications.

The law in Australia at that time imposed a fine up to $10,000 for transmitting a radio signal without holding an appropriate license. There was never any restriction on owning a radio transmitter and in time probably hundreds of thousands of CB transceivers were operating by unlicensed operators around Australia and the then licensing authority, the PMG, gave up trying to regulate them and indeed, transferred 27 MHz from the licensed Amateur 10 meter band to a public CB service. (Ultimately the current Licensing Authority, ACMA, "fixed" the problem of long range and international CB transmissions by moving the Citizens Band to 156.00 MHz to 162.05 MHz, thus reducing transmissions effectively to line of sight).

Like the CB tramscivers of old, I do not believe the importation of drones or licensing of buyers of e-bikes and e-scooters is in any way restricted. There are already far too many drones of varying sizes in Australia for CASA to have any hope of effectively regulating their use. There are already far too many e-bikes and e-scooters in Australia for the authorities to have any hope of controlling their use. And very recently I was told there is a very high number of un-registered dinghies powered by outboard motors exceeding 3 kW and Jetskis, some powered by 200 HP turbo charged engines operating in Australia by under age children and un-licensed drivers for the relevant authorities to have any hope of regulating their use. And having spent a number of years in "the Outback" I can testify to the fact there are a number of ultra light and small single engine aircraft out there, in farm sheds, which regularly take to the air, if only to collect the mail from mail boxes on large properties, or slip into town for a bit of shopping.

Tell me again how "CASA and the like will just keep rules tight so that anyone breaching them and causing damage/injury will face the full weight of liability and it will all sort itself out" when drone numbers are already beyond CASA's control?"

Pretty much how I see UBER going eventually.

I actually think the opposite. Currently UBER and the other ride share operators are excluded from casual street hail and pick up of passengers. If history repeats itself, in the longer term UBER and others will slowly erode the taxi industry rights by sheer weight of numbers and eventually have similar rights to taxis, possibly spelling the end of the taxi industry.

I think Mr Proach (https://www.pprune.org/members/152498-mr-proach)'s post starting this thread, may be a very accurate prediction of some time in the future.Retailer responsibilities Retailers are accountable for injuries, harm, or damage that faulty products (they sell or supply) can and do cause. Particularly if they knew or should have known about the issue but did nothing to forewarn consumers.

I had a look at that site and its has no warnings about it being illegal for street use or laws governing its use in public.The e-bikes and e-scooters are not faulty or defective. It is not illegal to have an e-bike with a 1 kW motors capable of speeds in excess of 25 KPH, it is only illegal to use it on a public road at excessive speed. No problems with the product, only that it's use is not being regulated. I had a look at my Toyota Prado user manual and the Toyota Dealers web site and could not find any warning about the risk of using the vehicle contrary to or exceeding the regulations.

We live in interesting times.

[43Inches]

I think the difference is that radios don't generally cause harm, damage or injury. All CASA has to do is have rules in place that if somebody is not legally operating the drone then it's no longer a CASA matter, it becomes a criminal matter and goes straight to law enforcement and the courts. If you cause damage to property or persons in the process and are operating illegally, good luck in court. That's what stops the majority of people building their own cars and/or driving unregistered, except for those who have nothing to lose anyway...

The problem UBER drivers have is the lack of legal protection, because they operate in a grey area they also are insured in a grey area. As damage and liability insurance costs mount for these drivers that will push their costs above taxi operators as they have agreements and policies in place to keep those sort of costs down, as well as some states having industry generated insurance, maintenance, policing all managed by their own taxi 'directorate'. CPVs are road rash magnets, as well as the liability insurance claims that will start to occur as people are injured, are late for work, etc etc... UBER themselves are smart, the driver wears it all, not to mention the lease rate on vehicles in climbing as well as the vehicles themselves costing more.

If you havn't noticed yet car insurance has been climbing faster than CPI or recent.

[tail wheel]

If you haven't noticed yet car insurance has been climbing faster than CPI or recent.

Yes, my car insurance has doubled in three years, despite never having an accident or lodged a claim in 64 years licenced driving (and the previous 4 years un-licenced driving) and my home insurance has trebled in the past four years - despite the insurance industry being one of the most tightly regulated industries in Australia which has managed to form an Australian industry cartel without even raising an eye brow in Government halls.

Which supports my view that despite the best bureaucratic efforts and legislation, free enterprise and public demand will almost always win.

[pilot101486]

Why can't the aviation transport industry adopt an Uber platform and bypass the regulator just like what occurred in the Taxi industry? If nothing else, the advent of Uber proved beyond any doubt that regulators have no legitimacy. Like most regulators, this was a massive institution of people (including extremely well remunerated bureaucrats) who, for decades have controlled the Taxi industry. Then someone creates a programming code for a mobile device to provide an identical publicly available Taxi service which, was allowed to freely operate outside of the exisiting "Taxi" transport regulations. These so called regulators that allowed to this happen most likely walked away with massive (publicly financed) pay outs and have never been held to account for their complicity in what ultimately destroyed the livelihood of thousands of people and their assets.
Interestingly, in the recently well publicised court case "win" against Uber, there was no mention of the regulator's culpability in the whole affair. The reported award will only amount to about 5% of what an individual's taxi plate was worth prior to the proliferation of Uber. Doesn't what happened to a government regulated taxi industry mean that Government regulators/authorities (and their rules) are invalid?

For the EU, I found this in the Annex to Safety Charter non-commercial General Aviation:
EU safety regulations only permit cost-shared flights by private individuals, if the direct cost (i.e. cost directly incurred in relation to the flight, e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft) are shared between all parties, including the pilot. Cost-shared flights shall not have an element of profit. If a flight is not a cost-shared flight in accordance with EU safety regulations, the flight will be qualified as a commercial flight and commercial air operation rules will apply.