No more cost sharing flights?
Thread Starter
No more cost sharing flights?
See below, from Wingly.
Admittedly it is getting a bit ridiculous with people offering "London tours" on Wingly, which is basically looking like public transport.
eg
https://www.wingly.io/en/flights/2056457
£800 per hour for an R44 self fly hire?, that doesn't sound like "cost sharing" to me
-------------
As you know, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has been working on amending cost sharing regulations in the UK. Their initial amendment proposal, communicated in December 2022, was incompatible with how PPL pilots use Wingly.
After meeting with Wingly and the AOPA on the 6th of April 2023, CAA officials took note of our concerns and later communicated that they will be reconvening to revise their proposal. They reassured us, expressing that the new regulation's primary focus lies on addressing illegal grey charters, with no intention to harm compliant cost-sharing platforms like Wingly.
Wingly was met with great disappointment after receiving the CAA’s revised proposal on the 26th of June. The CAA chose to ignore the arguments presented by general aviation stakeholders. After carefully analysing the text, it appears the outcome will likely remain unchanged.
The CAA’s new wording is as follows:
No advertisement or promotion of a cost shared flight is permitted unless the following conditions are met:
i. The advertisement is placed by the pilot intending to operate the flight.
ii.The advertisement relates to a specific flight that the pilot intends to take place, regardless of whether passengers are available for carriage, and should include the start and end locations, as well as the dates when the pilot intends to conduct the flight.
Reasons why this wording is problematic
👉 Point ii suggests that pilots will be obligated to operate each flight they advertise, ‘regardless of whether passengers are available for carriage.’ However, this is the opposite of how Wingly works. We offer our pilots the opportunity to advertise flights they enjoy operating, including their potential availability. If they find passengers to join them, then they will fly, if not, the flight will likely not go ahead.
👉 The CAA is creating overregulation which will damage General Aviation. There is no certainty that this amendment proposal will prevent illegal grey chartering, but it will definitely punish honest private pilot citizens and flight sharing platforms. It is highly likely that Wingly will cease operations in the UK if this regulation is implemented.
👉 The regulation process is flawed from the beginning. The CAA established a working group to review cost sharing regulations in the UK and produced a consultation in November 2021. Anybody from the public was able to share their opinion through a link they provided. The results, published in December 2022, highlighted the lack of statistical data collected to make a profound study and analysis on the matter.
It is deeply concerning that the CAA is prioritising online opinions over evidence provided by aviation experts which make us question the credibility of their decision-making process.
How you can help us oppose this regulation proposal
United as a community, we cannot allow the CAA to harm General Aviation. Taking action together is essential to challenge this unfair regulation proposal.
✅ Sign our petition: Together, we can bring the government's focus to our cause and encourage the press to challenge the CAA's proposal.
Sign Petition ✍️
✅ Write to your MP: ✉️ Wingly’s team, together with the AOPA, are preparing a new letter template that you will receive in the forthcoming weeks. We then kindly ask you to sign it and send it to your MPs.
Why is sending this letter crucial? The CAA has rejected our suggested changes and has proceeded in sending it to the DfT. We need as many MPs as possible to write to the DfT to stop this regulation and push for a change in wording.
We would like to thank you for your invaluable help and will be in touch.
We hope to see you in the air soon,
Ali Javed
UK Operations Manager at Wingly
Admittedly it is getting a bit ridiculous with people offering "London tours" on Wingly, which is basically looking like public transport.
eg
https://www.wingly.io/en/flights/2056457
£800 per hour for an R44 self fly hire?, that doesn't sound like "cost sharing" to me
-------------
As you know, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has been working on amending cost sharing regulations in the UK. Their initial amendment proposal, communicated in December 2022, was incompatible with how PPL pilots use Wingly.
After meeting with Wingly and the AOPA on the 6th of April 2023, CAA officials took note of our concerns and later communicated that they will be reconvening to revise their proposal. They reassured us, expressing that the new regulation's primary focus lies on addressing illegal grey charters, with no intention to harm compliant cost-sharing platforms like Wingly.
Wingly was met with great disappointment after receiving the CAA’s revised proposal on the 26th of June. The CAA chose to ignore the arguments presented by general aviation stakeholders. After carefully analysing the text, it appears the outcome will likely remain unchanged.
The CAA’s new wording is as follows:
No advertisement or promotion of a cost shared flight is permitted unless the following conditions are met:
i. The advertisement is placed by the pilot intending to operate the flight.
ii.The advertisement relates to a specific flight that the pilot intends to take place, regardless of whether passengers are available for carriage, and should include the start and end locations, as well as the dates when the pilot intends to conduct the flight.
Reasons why this wording is problematic
👉 Point ii suggests that pilots will be obligated to operate each flight they advertise, ‘regardless of whether passengers are available for carriage.’ However, this is the opposite of how Wingly works. We offer our pilots the opportunity to advertise flights they enjoy operating, including their potential availability. If they find passengers to join them, then they will fly, if not, the flight will likely not go ahead.
👉 The CAA is creating overregulation which will damage General Aviation. There is no certainty that this amendment proposal will prevent illegal grey chartering, but it will definitely punish honest private pilot citizens and flight sharing platforms. It is highly likely that Wingly will cease operations in the UK if this regulation is implemented.
👉 The regulation process is flawed from the beginning. The CAA established a working group to review cost sharing regulations in the UK and produced a consultation in November 2021. Anybody from the public was able to share their opinion through a link they provided. The results, published in December 2022, highlighted the lack of statistical data collected to make a profound study and analysis on the matter.
It is deeply concerning that the CAA is prioritising online opinions over evidence provided by aviation experts which make us question the credibility of their decision-making process.
How you can help us oppose this regulation proposal
United as a community, we cannot allow the CAA to harm General Aviation. Taking action together is essential to challenge this unfair regulation proposal.
✅ Sign our petition: Together, we can bring the government's focus to our cause and encourage the press to challenge the CAA's proposal.
Sign Petition ✍️
✅ Write to your MP: ✉️ Wingly’s team, together with the AOPA, are preparing a new letter template that you will receive in the forthcoming weeks. We then kindly ask you to sign it and send it to your MPs.
Why is sending this letter crucial? The CAA has rejected our suggested changes and has proceeded in sending it to the DfT. We need as many MPs as possible to write to the DfT to stop this regulation and push for a change in wording.
We would like to thank you for your invaluable help and will be in touch.
We hope to see you in the air soon,
Ali Javed
UK Operations Manager at Wingly
The CAA position seems sound and sensible. They haven't banned cost sharing, they've just stopped PPLs offering pleasure flights for personal gain and profit.
The following 4 users liked this post by Variable Load:
I agree - the adverts I see popping up on social media look like a commercial operation. In my opinion Wingly exploits a grey area that the CAA are looking to close.
How do Wingly make their money?
How do Wingly make their money?
Not sure how that fits into the current cost sharing rules. Suppose it must be part of the 'direct costs'?
These costs are the 'direct costs' which are the costs directly incurred in relation to a specific flight (e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft).
Thread Starter
R44 rental for one hour: about £550
Wingly fee: about £100
= £670
ie £160 per seat, per hour
that chap is charging £197 per seat, per hour
ie he's making a profit
Wingly fee: about £100
= £670
ie £160 per seat, per hour
that chap is charging £197 per seat, per hour
ie he's making a profit
"If they find passengers to join them, then they will fly, if not, the flight will likely not go ahead."
So the flight only goes if people pay? That's a commercial operation by any measure
So the flight only goes if people pay? That's a commercial operation by any measure
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Surely, if an agency such as Wingly is making money from a flight then it goes directly against the principle of direct operating costs of the aircraft.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Remember the Sala accident? The organiser went to jail.
The following users liked this post:
Shy exactly what i am talking about, there are so many ways to legally to do these style of flights.
Customer can hire a helicopter, if he chooses to ask a PPL to fly it then that is up to him. What happens between the 2 of them is up to them.
I know of a few ppl's who are " employed" as transport mangers who fly the companies helicopter !
As to PT flight what most people on here dont realise, that a single engine helicopter with fare paying pax on board is not allowed to take off vertically, hence lots of companies dont bother with an AOC and elect to do a perfectly legal Net Jets model. The CAA is on a hiding to nothing unless it takes a long hard look at what actually goes on. At least Wingly is out there and can be regulated sensibly !
Customer can hire a helicopter, if he chooses to ask a PPL to fly it then that is up to him. What happens between the 2 of them is up to them.
I know of a few ppl's who are " employed" as transport mangers who fly the companies helicopter !
As to PT flight what most people on here dont realise, that a single engine helicopter with fare paying pax on board is not allowed to take off vertically, hence lots of companies dont bother with an AOC and elect to do a perfectly legal Net Jets model. The CAA is on a hiding to nothing unless it takes a long hard look at what actually goes on. At least Wingly is out there and can be regulated sensibly !
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Customer can hire a helicopter, if he chooses to ask a PPL to fly it then that is up to him. What happens between the 2 of them is up to them
A member of the public using “Wingly” or similar may be blissfully unaware of the possible safety issues of flying with a pilot who may have the bare minimum experience for a PPL and that the insurance for flight may be invalid.
Having seen “situations” involving inexperienced CPLH “hour builders”, let alone PPL holders, I shudder at the thought of one of the latter offering their services for hire and third parties should not be cashing in on it.
The following 3 users liked this post by ShyTorque:
If an aircraft is hired and a CPL paid, then isn't that two lots of 'valuable consideration' and therefore against the law? I was under the impression that this particular issue can be worked around if the aircraft is leased and the lessee become the aircraft operator.
J
The following users liked this post:
Jelly
There is no legal standing in terms of operator . It is not against the law for a member of the public to hire an aircraft. It is not against the law for that same person to engage the services of a CPL. Public transport is where an entity offers aircraft, fuel and crew
There is no legal standing in terms of operator . It is not against the law for a member of the public to hire an aircraft. It is not against the law for that same person to engage the services of a CPL. Public transport is where an entity offers aircraft, fuel and crew
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
****e,
If an aircraft is hired and a CPL paid, then isn't that two lots of 'valuable consideration' and therefore against the law? I was under the impression that this particular issue can be worked around if the aircraft is leased and the lessee become the aircraft operator.
J
If an aircraft is hired and a CPL paid, then isn't that two lots of 'valuable consideration' and therefore against the law? I was under the impression that this particular issue can be worked around if the aircraft is leased and the lessee become the aircraft operator.
J
But under what rules might it be illegal?
