Peter wrote:
he total number of GA flights that actually go somewhere in a year, in all of Europe
The flights don’t have to go anywhere. The majority of the flights are A to A flights. Aeroclubs and ATOs always used to generate a considerable part of their income from local flights. Now this market is being taken and expanded by Wingly because there are a lot of PPLers out there who like to fly when there is somebody else (making it less boring) and at reduced cost.
Peter wrote:
see my previous post about startups invariably being “successful” for the founders
That’s a cynical view but it is of course correct for a considerable number of startups. However, by far not for all and it is less than clear which ones end up which way. I have written off what I once considered to be the investment that will bring me the biggest return ever and I’ve enjoyed great exits with companies that I had mentally written off. Personally I am sure that Tesla will collapse and investors will lose everything but I can’t be sure about it. I have been wrong both ways and so has everybody else.
The flights don’t have to go anywhere. The majority of the flights are A to A flights. Aeroclubs and ATOs always used to generate a considerable part of their income from local flights. Now this market is being taken and expanded by Wingly because there are a lot of PPLers out there who like to fly when there is somebody else (making it less boring) and at reduced cost.
I still struggle to make the figures add up by even a factor of 10x, taking some rough numbers for GA activity.
A-A flights, paid for at more or less the going rate (have to be otherwise the pilot isn’t going to do them, and keep doing them) have a one-off audience. Once you’ve been up in the typical plane in question, you have done it. This is why most new PPLs run out of passengers. They do flights without much value, and soon run out of mates to fly with. The future of making money by skimming a % off cost sharing has to be in flights which deliver value to somebody, and repeat it.
That’s a cynical view but it is of course correct for a considerable number of startups
It is unfortunately correct for the vast majority of startups… depending on your definition of failure. Some stats suggest 80% of AIMs go bust, and those startups would be at the top of the due diligence tree. UK stats are around 90% of startups fail within 2 years. About the same as PPLs then 
They are ~10 people working full time in an office in Paris
achimha wrote:
I don’t think it’s 10 full time employees and it’s not only in Paris.
I’ve been to their Paris office last month and it looked about 10 and it looked full time to me. Have you been there too?
Peter wrote:
It is unfortunately correct for the vast majority of startups…
So what? In some cultures this is not viewed as failure, but as collecting experience. Much like evolution has produced marvelous life forms by trial and error.
Peter wrote:
I cannot believe there is enough activity in European GA to finance such an operation in the long run, but it doesn’t matter because the only losers will be Wingly’s investors.
I completely agree with the first part of your statement and that’s why I think wingly is dishonnest, both with its investors (but they should know better) and its customers, which are the people knowing nothing about light aviation and who pay to find shared seats, believing that they have a good chance to find one. We all know here that it’s not true.
That’s why I disagree with the second part : would-be passengers also loose money, and they have an excuse because they are induced in doing so by the false teaser of wingly : “find the pilot for the trips of your dreams” (Trouvez les passagers ou les pilotes pour les voyages de vos rêves.)
Therefore I think that the web sites advertising flight sharing have to be completely free. Call it a moral or ethical obligation.
For sure, “find the pilot for the trips of your dreams” is just silly… but hey this is advertising A lot of the public have watched Bogart and Bacall and think flying is romantic
IMHO Wingly will collapse, or become a marginally relevant “dating agency” type of operation – depending on how they manage their downsizing when they discover the anticipated business isn’t there.
There is a definite demand for cost sharing however. I know or have known many pilots, and not just in the UK but e.g. in France or Germany, who will almost never (in some cases absolutely never) fly unless they can cost share. The arrangements are sometimes torturous e.g. a 4-up flight from Shoreham to Le Touquet is broken up into 4 legs, with a stop at Lydd, with each person logging one leg. But much more often people just cancel a planned trip because they can’t find someone to share it with. I have long lost count of how many times I invited someone to a fly-in only to be told he/she cannot find anyone to fly (cost share) with. One might think they are all renters but actually not in all cases. These people mostly don’t care much about who they fly with so long as the financial contribution is made and this means there must be a demand for a “cost sharing dating agency”. I just don’t think the numbers will be even 1/10 of what Wingly are expecting.
TThierry wrote:
I completely agree with the first part of your statement and that’s why I think wingly is dishonnest, both with its investors (but they should know better)
That means you consider yourself to be better informed and more competent to assess the investment than the professional investors that Wingly have. That is a position you can take but it’s a bold one. I have been wrong myself many times even though I have considerable experience, having created and funded dozens of startups.
TThierry wrote:
and its customers, which are the people knowing nothing about light aviation and who pay to find shared seats, believing that they have a good chance to find one.
You seem to not have understood Wingly’s model. Neither pilots nor prospective passengers pay anything unless a flight takes place (with some exceptions for unjustified cancellations although I am sure nobody would actually get charged). All that people can lose is time submitting their data.
TThierry wrote:
Therefore I think that the web sites advertising flight sharing have to be completely free. Call it a moral or ethical obligation.
We live in free market economies. Feel free to prove the market that your free approach is superior. Your “moral/ethical” argument sounds pretty lame…
BTW: Even if Wingly was to fail as a company, there would still be a customer base and a general demand for brokering cost sharing flights. After such a failure, the initial investment would be written off and the new owners would inherit the platform while no longer having to return multi million Euro investments. For users of the platform, such a scenario is equally good.
Has anybody here actually ever tried to talk WITH wingly, instead of only writing posts ABOUT them ?
TThierry wrote:
I think wingly is dishonnest,
The only issue there might be, is that because of the ‘instutionalized’ possibility of cost sharing, a pilot might be incentivised to conduct a flight he otherwise wouldn’t. And, second possible issue, that there’s a shadow air transport industry growing slowly, making the life of professional air transport operators hard.
All of these issues can be mitigated by wingly through raising the limits for pilots to perform certain flights, and warning passengers about the risks differently.
I think bashing wingly for doing something which is legal in one, and illegal in another country, is a bit pharisaic.
EuroFlyer wrote:
Has anybody here actually ever tried to talk WITH wingly, instead of only writing posts ABOUT them ?
Yup.
EuroFlyer wrote:
I think bashing wingly for doing something which is legal in one, and illegal in another country, is a bit pharisaic.
There’s one “competitor” :-) here bashing them. Rest of the posts seem positive to me.
Actually I think these sentiments are a widespread concern which is a good discussion topic. It isn’t “bashing” in the normal meaning of the word (unjustified empty criticism). For example a site which carries advertising will have a “no bashing” policy to protect their advert revenue.
To list some from above:
I am basically in favour of being able to openly advertise cost shared flights. The UK CAA ban was transparent anyway; they carefully avoided a ruling that a “flying club” cannot exist online. CAA policy is to avoid creating precedents at any cost, and to use scare rumours to keep people in line. So everybody was advertising “seat sharing” and good luck getting a “seat” if you didn’t pay your share 
But would I do it, in my (reasonably capable) TB20 (can do Shoreham-Dubrovnik nonstop, etc), and with an IR (CPL/IR actually)? NO. Too much pressure, for transporting random people who I don’t know and who want to go somewhere and who need to be back at work on Monday. Short-notice trips on a sunny Sunday to Le Touquet, yes, but there are very few takers for short notice trips. Most men (those who don’t live in the gutter) work 5 days to earn a living and play hard at the weekend, and flying with women gets “complicated”, sooner or later I used to have a looong list of people who were interested in trips and found that most could not go when I was going, so I stopped asking them. Do I want to explain to everybody that the headset costs £800 and needs to be treated gently? Most people won’t write this stuff openly, but these are the reasons I am sure Wingly is not going to reach even 1/10 of their expected business level.
