本网站使用cookie。您使用并继续浏览本网站,即表示您接受这一点。
退出
您知道FlightAware航班跟踪是由广告支持吗?
通过允许展示来自FlightAware.com的广告,您可以帮助我们使FlightAware保持免费。我们努力使我们的广告保持相关性,同时不显突兀,以创造一流的体验。在FlightAware上将广告加入白名单快捷而简单,或者请您考虑选择我们的高级帐户.
退出
Back to Squawk list
  • 62

Uber for Planes Amendment in FAA Bill

提交时间:
 
Contained in the FAA reauthorization bill currently speeding its way through Congress is a little noticed provision that would change the charter game completely. The new provision would effectively allow private pilots to post ride share notices online, which would in theory open up the market to companies wanting to enlist pilots in a money making endeavor. FAA reauthorization is expected to zip through both chambers as early as next week. (www.planeandpilotmag.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


darjr26
Don Robinson 14
Uber? Shouldn’t it be called Lyft!
8984p
8984p 1
Very astute!
dfreder1
Regarding rideshare entering the GA world - we need better utilization of the GA facilities private pilots rely on. Local governments are questioning why they should spend money (even with Federal match) for the maintenance of their airports when the value to the community is hard to quantify. Residents don't like the noise. And all that land looks good for redevelopment. Most people have no connection to the sleepy airport they occasionally notice out their car windows. I think rideshare ideas could integrate our GA airports into our communities again and give people a reason to not mind the noise and the tax dollars it takes to keep them open.
rbayless
Roy Bayless 7
These reauthorization bills are so huge, it's easy for me to see why a few bad ideas can easily slip past a sane legislator without a competent or adequate staff to comprehend or notice the consequences. I was particulaly interested in the resolution that eventually became Public Law 112-95, so I learned about that through experience. What's disheartening is how elected officials from appropriations committee heads to junior members sometimes don't even bother to understand what a constituent is writing, if that constituent doesn't have special influence potential (usually translated as Uber-rich dollars). In my particular example Congress members returned responses to my letters that indicated clearly to me that their staffers hadn't even bothered or cared to read what I sent them, past the subject lines.
joelwiley
joel wiley 14
Those who love the law or sausage should not watch either being made.
ujijin
Jeffrey Ady 5
I've long known this aphorism, but have seen it in a new light...and, now, I can liken our "Representatives" in Congress to that 10 yards that generates solid waste, inter alia. And all of those laws, unread (undigested) but voted on by most of our highly-paid log makers, are passed, flowing downhill to the rest of us. This will truly enrich my writings on governance!
mariofer
mariofer 3
RFLMAO You made my day.
vancinad
David Vancina 3
This is not happening. There was an amendment drafted, apparently never even voted on, that would have allowed private pilots to make money on flights. The bill that passed only tells the FAA to clarify what flights and communication media are allowed under the current regs, nothing more.

Read it for yourself: http://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/text?r=1#toc-H20A003AEC17C45DEB2010FC682B6C8C0
richardorgill
Its OFFICIAL: If allowed to pass Congressional leaders have finally lost their mind.
bsampson
Bill Sampson 7
Oh brothers and sisters ...I came to that reality a very long time ago.
ianmcdonell
ian mcdonell 4
What could possibly go wrong with UberPlane ?
belzybob
belzybob 6
What politicians did they have to buy to get that included?
joelwiley
joel wiley 9
You seem to be under some misapprehension, sir. Politicians cannot be 'bought'.
They can only be leased until the next election cycle.
beilstwh
beilstwh 6
They don't even stay bought until the next election. They will change their voting 180% the second a higher bidder comes along. They are all prostitutes. Actually that comparison is giving a bad name to the prostitutes.
Viperguy46
Jesse Carroll 1
Maybe it will lose it's LYFT?
tanker64
tanker64 0
A couple of stop-drills here and there; buff it out and it'll be as good as new.
mmolsen
Matt Molsen -9
This would entail small charter businesses advertising online, and some customers sharing the cost of a charter plane. Liberals have an unhealthy love of big daddy government stepping in, regulating all choice away, costing everyone more money, and sometimes hurting and killing people, all based on the false promise of safety, predicated on the ridiculous paternalistic assumption that government knows better than they do about what’s good for them. Please tell me why allowing charter plane companies to advertise online, and for some customers to share costs, would cause the mass deaths, sky falling, and dogs and cats sleeping together mass hysteria that you envision.
Hlanfear
Matt, I assume you are not a pilot and don't understand the extent of the training required for advanced ratings; as currently required for these type of flights. Flying is significantly different than driving a car and weather can change quite quickly; limiting landing areas which require additional training for Instrument flight. This is one of many reasons this in not a good idea. It has nothing to do with politics, it's about safety.
mikeosmers
I agree with Harold. Although we can have tons of fun at the FAA’s expense on other issues, in this regard there are very good reasons to be very cautious about who flys people, most of whom would have no idea the risks they would embarking on.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 1
While I am pretty conservative, I still think that there are certain areas that should not have ever been deregulated, the airline industry (an opinion many would disagree with, but customers are now getting the short end of the stick and Congress is working on changing that) and the banking industry are the biggest ones. If a pilot wants to ferry people hither and yon, he should work to getting his commercial ratings to fly a 737 and not try to do such with his Cessna 172. If a person wants to go to another part of his (or her) state, drive. If you have to go 3 states away, buy an airline ticket.
Viperguy46
Jesse Carroll 1
Uhhhhhh, ever seen Texas?....LOL
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 1
Yes. I have driven across part of it. Take a plane from Lubbock to Houston. SWA is pretty cheap, ~$300 round trip if you are not in a rush. ;)
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
I am sure glad that the rest of us have you to run our lives. Otherwise we’d be like last sheep.
btweston
btweston 1
Oh yeah. “The liberals.”

Watch a lot of TV, do ya?
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Proverbs 17:28
Viperguy46
Jesse Carroll 0
Are you even a pilot or better yet do you have any aviation in your blood? Just asking!
SimonDorothy
Simon Dorothy 2
Would be a nice way for me to make a little bit of money while enjoying something so it is just plane awesome
vancinad
David Vancina 2
All of this "Uber for Planes" nonsense is reporter malpractice. Really infuriating.

In no way does this bill "...open up the market to companies wanting to enlist pilots in a money making endeavor." Read the bill, folks:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/text?r=1#toc-H20A003AEC17C45DEB2010FC682B6C8C0

All it says is that the FAA has to clarify the flights for which pilots and passengers may and may not share expenses, and the methods of communication that may and may not be used to arrange those flights. (All of which is reasonably clear already.)

I understand this kind of ignorance/sensationalism from USA Today. From Plane & Pilot it's truly disappointing.
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
Thank you. Section 516 is the pertinent one. The full bill runs to 166 pages which, I'm sure, your elected representative read fully before casting a vote.

SEC. 516. Pilots sharing flight expenses with passengers.

(a) Guidance.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall make publicly available, in a clear and concise format, advisory guidance that describes how a pilot may share flight expenses with passengers in a manner consistent with Federal law, including regulations.

(2) EXAMPLES INCLUDED.—The guidance shall include examples of—

(A) flights for which pilots and passengers may share expenses;

(B) flights for which pilots and passengers may not share expenses;

(C) the methods of communication that pilots and passengers may use to arrange flights for which expenses are shared; and

(D) the methods of communication that pilots and passengers may not use to arrange flights for which expenses are shared.
SimonDorothy
Simon Dorothy 1
Thank you for the link
GeorgesPlourde
Who are the pilots ? Experience , type of aircraft etc...I am a retired Air Canada pilot , 36 years , 25,000 + hours .
Michael225q
Sounds like Buddy Holley all over again
ToddBaldwin3
Todd Baldwin 1
That's what I was thinking.
davelloyd4881
Dave Lloyd 2
Definitely should be called AirLyft! But, if private pilots are allowed to haul paying passengers, then it will be Uber-dangerous!
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
Uber-dangerous... Because we know that current ground-constrained Uber and Lyft drivers have never killed anyone in a car accident.
ToddBaldwin3
Todd Baldwin 1
First off, I see this as a really bad idea. I seem to recall, that not too long after Uber launched, someone tried something like this and the FAA put a halt to it, then started looking at the pilot's bulletin boards about cost sharing a trip, the "I'm flying to Austin, Saturday, anyone want to come and split the cost?" kind of thing.
jagerardi
jagerardi 1
Uber for planes? What about the requirement for a commercial license for carrying pax? What about an IFR rating? Does all that now go out the window? What about insurance requirements for the inevitable time that someone screws their plane into the planet? It's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

This is what happens when people who aren't pilots try to "help."

..Joe
mrdot
LW P 2
You could give Uber or whoever the benefit of the doubt and assume that those requirements would be part of the application process for a pilot to join the program. Or, based on Uber's past, you can bet that Uber will just ignore all of that saying that it's all on the pilot and that they're merely facilitating the process.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 1
If you act like a commercial operation then be prepared to follow all the rules & regs that come with it! Pilot qualifications as well as maintenance.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I know the FAA drags its ass in getting things done but it doesn't help when idiot legislators getting campaign donations stick their nose into something trying to push a matter along.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I know the FAA drags its ass in getting things done but it doesn't help when idiot legislators getting campaign donations stick their nose into something trying to push a matter along.
paultrubits
paul trubits 1
There were a couple of websites that had to shut down because they wanted to post ride sharing flights(a more modern version of a note on a bulletin board at the airport). Since the websites were going to make a few dollars off the ride share, they were deemed illegal. Is this an attempt to change this or is this something more?
lartac
Leon Artac 1
John Kennedy's last flight. Need I say more!
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
John Kennedy's last flight was to Dallas I believe. I guess if he would not have made that flight, he MIGHT still be alive today. But it was not the flight that killed him, and although you might consider flying on Air Force One as ride sharing, I don't think it is pertinent to this discussion.
ToddBaldwin3
Todd Baldwin 2
I believe he was referring to JFK jr.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
Perhaps he was. But any point he was trying to make is still totally lost without him 'saying more'.
rbayless
Roy Bayless 1
I guess you realize that Leon was referring to a different John Kennedy than the former president.
rbayless
Roy Bayless 1
If that was a joke it went over my head.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
If Leon was making a joke, it went over my head, too.
rbayless
Roy Bayless 1
That's what I meant
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
Perhaps he was. But, if he was not referring to THE John Kennedy, perhaps he should have been more clear. There are probably hundreds of thousands of John Kennedys. So much confusion in that post as to make it pretty much worthless. So perhaps more DID need to be said.
btweston
btweston 1
A plane crashed several years ago, so...

Actually yes, further explanation would be welcomed.
wmgro
Werner Groos 1
Believe safety would be a concern
midlife
Mark Kolber 1
I don't see any language remotely like that in the latest version of the House bill.
rbayless
Roy Bayless 1
Sec 618 of H.R. 2997 is what the news article was talking about. News reports say the House passed the resolution today, but I haven't seen the final version. As written, the provision was much more tame than the sensational articles inferred.
babie5542
Mark Babie 1
Those professional pilots who fly, is it a good idea? I'm always apprehensive when Congress rushes through these issues. And what lobbyist bought them. There is always a reason in politics. I have a love of aviation but not a pilot. I'm really into "Flightradar24". Please let me know your thoughts
kerimparrot
Mike Williams 1
Back in about 1967, I was in a military school in north Tennesee. My family lived north of Detroit. 1 time my father found a pilot to fly my fellow student and myself from Detroit City airport to Nashville's public airport.
I recall - maybe incorrectly -I remember we tried to get a private pilot to land us at Ft. Knox's airport. He told us we cannot land there.That must have been in 1971 after I got drafted.
Maybe the fare was very close to $35 the same as the available commercial (AA, Delta, or whoever).
eddtyminski
edd tyminski 1
driverless Uber ?
CaptStephanC
CaptStephanC 1
Excuse my "French"...... but WTF???????????????...... Are you kidding me????????????
JC86Pilot
Jay Cee 1
Read the articled. Very misleading headline by Goyer. The law allows you to advertise to split the costs on a flight you are already making. over-reaction by the easily alarmed and under-informed.
whviii
Bill Vance 2
Jay I think you are misinterpreting the information or being misleading. I am a private instrument rated pilot/owner. The article specifically mentions that the proposal would not require “pro rata“ sharing. The pilot would be able to charge any fee. This would be a major blow for GA safety and eventually for GA privileges. We have a poor enough safety record compared to commercial aviation and dont need the bad press of grandma getting killed hitching a ride in “one of those tiny airplanes “.
I agree with the insurance industry comment, except I expect all rates to rise, not those for folks sharing.
ianmcdonell
ian mcdonell 1
all of them ?
ICMI
ICMI 0
This could be a good thing!!!! Deregulate the industry, and bring competition and innovation back into Aviation.
jgschickler3
Sure. Let a bunch of amateur pilots start taking on passengers. What could go wrong? Like letting student drivers work for Uber.
I'm going to bet that insurance companies are going to boost premiums for pilots who do this.
Hlanfear
Insurance companies may be the saviour of passengers here - if they don't already have such exclusions in their policies, they will soon.
topgunnh
Peter McGrath 1
If they even know about it. How many Uber drivers tell they're insurance company they're in the "ride-share" business?
ToddBaldwin3
Todd Baldwin 1
That is why Uber provides a certain level of insurance for it's drivers.

https://www.uber.com/drive/insurance/

登录

还没有账户吗? 现在就注册(免费),设置诸多自定义功能、航班提醒等等!