This discussion seems to be going round the same old arguments again and again. Wingly, and the other ride sharing sites, are simply a medium through which people can arrange to share flights and, so long as those flights themselves are legal, there is nothing wrong with that.

To be clear, as a matter of law:

1. Genuine cost sharing as defined by both the CAA and EASA (but not the FAA, who accept cost sharing but not these websites) is completely legitimate regardless of the medium by which it is arranged. For that reason, I see no reason for any airfield to ban genuine cost sharing flights of this type.

2. Running a taxi or other commercial service without the necessary licence and insurance is not legal, again regardless of how it was arranged; and if I was running an airfield, I’d ban flights of that type as well.

I honestly don’t understand why it is necessary, or even desirable, to try to ban all genuine cost sharing just because some people abuse the system. You might as well ban all cross-border GA flights because some people use them to smuggle in drugs. Surely the answer is to target the abusers and not the genuine cost sharers?

Edit: as I said in an earlier post, there is also no reason why the authorities can not also take action agains a site such as Wingly if they knowingly facilitate illegal activity.

BTW:I have no personal dog in this fight, because I have an FAA licence and therefore can’t use these sites myself. If I could, I would happily do so. Legally!

As above, this has run it's course and it's no good having the same argument as the "remoaners" are having about stopping Brexit, it's here, live with it, it's legal, I know some will be jumping for joy at the first accident to prove a point, my own flying organisation and other acrft owners I know have banned all Wingly flights as is their perfect right to do so, but it is a legit way of getting in the air at a reasonable cost so where's the problem?

All this blah blah about insurance, maintenace etc etc is pointless. It's LEGAL. The comparison of AOC air taxi providers is the same argument any Black cab driver could have over cost sharing the petrol in cars going to work. Not relevant and I dont believe or would like to hear evidence from any AOC holder who could prove outright his business has suffered due to Wingly.

I'm neutral on the debate, FWIW I wouldn't do it but I'm not dependent on someone paying for me to go flying.

However, I struggle with the advertised flight referred to above from Redhill.

Pilot is PPL with total hours of 73, prepared to fly at 500 feet - presumably above sea level - for stunning views of Beachy Head.

I read further and see he has 'travelled across the Channel a fair few times'.

At 73 hours ... How ??? Something can't be right ?

Surely even the densest member of Joe Public might be suspicious of entrusting themselves to a 73 hour PPL ? Darwin waiting to work ?

500 ft above sea level? I hope not: Beachy Head is 531 ft AMSL. You might get a more “stunning” view than you expected....... :eek: :)

French, Headquartered in Paris.

Ruling from EU about UBER

Going to be interesting how this affects Wingly et all - I'm referring to, "Wingly et all" not "cost sharing"

Uber has been deemed a ‘transport service’ by the European Court of Justice and not, as it previously argued, a digital service – a move that could have big implications for the way the company operates.The ride hailing company has previously argued it merely provides a digital service to connect passengers and drivers and so is not, in the classical sense, a transport company. But EU judges disagreed, ruling that Uber’s “main component is a transport service”.

Sounds familiar, any groans from the cheap seats?

Groan...... :ugh:

https://www.pprune.org/private-flyin...ml#post9768616

Wingly sells flight tickets to the public for flights with non professional pilots using their own vehicle - after the flight Wingly pays the pilot after deducting a fee

The above is almost word for word to that in the judgement against Uber.

In addition, Wingly sells GIFT VOUCHERS to the public for flights with yet to be identified non professional pilots. The Gift voucher is sold to person X who gives it to person Y for a flight with pilot A - person Y has to that point probably never even thought of taking a flight in a light aircraft never mind "cost sharing".

My insurer says that due to the transactions taking place they believe it is a commercial flight. Forget cost sharing - this is about Wingly which is a profit making commercial enterprise who makes money, using private pilots, from selling flight tickets to the public.

I see 6 seat aircraft are now demanding a premium - saw a Wingly flight being advertised on a Cherokee six that was charging the equivalent of over £400 per hour - I don't know the six but .....

well said GBS.

@GBS

If some of the things you allege are happening, then I agree they are over the line.

As I have said repeatedly:

1. If people abuse a ride sharing site by offering illegal commercial flights, they should be prosecuted.

2. If the site itself knowingly facilitates such illegal activity, it should itself be prosecuted.


However that is very far from being grounds for banning a legitimate mechanism for the sharing of genuine cost sharing flights.

Do you agree with that, or do you want to ban all flights including genuine cost sharing arranged on one of these sites, or indeed by any other mechanism?


@MPX

Have you heard anything back from the CAA about the CA 393 complaint you said you had made?

I wouldn't get too excited, GBS. The judgement is that Uber "must be classified as ‘a service in the field of transport’ within the meaning of Article 58(1) TFEU". Article 58 merely refers us to Title VI, whose final Article says:

Article 100
1. The provisions of this Title shall apply to transport by rail, road and inland waterway.
2. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may lay down appropriate provisions for sea and air transport. They shall act after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

The European Parliament and the Council have done just that for air transport in the form of 216/2008 (the Basic Regulation), and the machinery that sits beneath has provided the legislative basis for the legitimate operation of flight sharing via internet platforms.