Wingly flight sharing site (merged)

It really sounds to me like TThierry is singing to the choir of the FFA and DGAC except that he wants his own site to remain legal

What I find somewhat shocking about Wingly and Coavmi, and which gives fuel to their opponents, or rather to the opponents of costsharing in general, is that there are pilots who advertise flights at an hourly rate which by far exceeds the operating cost of the airplane they propose to use.

I was also contacted by PM by a lady who wanted me to pick her up in Rouen or Beauvais and fly her to Cuers (SE France) like a vulgar Air Taxi This however illustrates why cost sharing will never be a competitor to air operators, especially for B to C flights. I would need to pay for the flight to Rouen, say 150 € (30 minutes), then half of the flight to Cuers which would amount to 750 €/2 = 375 € (2,5 hrs), and the whole flight back home 750 €. So the passenger would be 375 € out of her pocket, while the flight would cost me 1.275 €

What I find somewhat shocking about Wingly and Coavmi, and which gives fuel to their opponents, or rather to the opponents of costsharing in general, is that there are pilots who advertise flights at an hourly rate which by far exceeds the operating cost of the airplane they propose to use.

I think you will find that creating advantageous situations is the world’s second oldest profession

It will also be easy for e.g. the DGAC to bust them, but only if they make it really obvious. If they charge say “only” 30% over cost, it will take a lot of legwork because you will have to interrogate the advertiser and find out where he is renting the plane from. The inflated rental rate may well be legitimate. A club/school can legitimately charge €1000/hr for a PA28. Actually, thinking of the 2nd oldest profession again, inflating rental rates to Wingly operators (because they are getting the money back so won’t care) is the next obvious thing It’s going to be like the Fraport/Greek situation i.e. “Fraport are ripping everybody off, so we [the handler] may as well get in on the act while the going is good”.

I don’t see how one could make money by conducting flights via Wingly and similar. The only way would be via an inflated hourly cost of which the passenger’s share still exceeds the total cost. So offer a flight at 1000€/h with a PA28 as Peter mentioned. However, it is very simple for the platform to use statistical means to weed out such offers. The type of aircraft is part of the registration and the system can flag deviations easily.

I was also contacted by PM by a lady who wanted me to pick her up in Rouen or Beauvais and fly her to Cuers (SE France) like a vulgar Air Taxi […] So the passenger would be 375 € out of her pocket, while the flight would cost me 1.275 €

Not completely unthinkable. There are so many bored pilots who are just lacking purpose. Why not do a nice flight with a bit of purpose? There are people who pack 30kg of hurricane aid in their C172 and think they are performing an heroic act for the benefit of humanity while donating the amount the flight costs would be 100x better and leave it up to pros. Again, this is adding purpose to one’s hobby. There are BlaBlaCar users who just drive because they like driving around the country.

A big problem of GA with your own aircraft stationed at an airport is that eventually you run out of sensible things to do.

Patrick wrote:

So if I drive in my car from Berlin to Hamburg and find 1 or 2 blokes on blablacar who join and contribute to the fuel expense, that’s public transportation? Strangely, I do not need a taxi license for that. How come?

Sorry I had forgotten to answer Patrick on this one, which was posted before my “last” post.
No it wouldn’t be public transportation. It would be carpooling. But you wouldn’t imagine taking your car and making the trip especially for paying passengers if you had not planned the trip for yourself. It’s not the same thing with aircraft. On the contrary, there are many pilots who are willing, if they have the opportunity, to conduct a flight only because they can fly more and pay less by transporting passengers. This is what I was refering to earlier : this is where the unfair competition to real companies is.
If you fly from Berlin to Hamburg and take passengers along, great. If you see an ad somewhere saying that passengers want to go to Hamburg and decide to take them there whereas otherwise you would not have gone to Hamburg, that’s public transportation. And this shouldn’t be done, in my opinion.

What would happen, in such a case, if the pilot had an accident and the insurance company investigated the flight in order to avoid paying the bill? what if they discovered that the pilot conducted the flight only with the aim of transporting paying passengers, not at all for himself? (OK, they would have to prove it, that’s not the question here.) Wouldn’t they claim it was public transportation for which the pilot and the aircraft were not prepared?

TThierry wrote:

Wouldn’t they claim it was public transportation for which the pilot and the aircraft were not prepared?

No.

So in your opinion, the whole thing is OK as long as the pilot doesn’t enjoy doing the flight.

TThierry wrote:

If you fly from Berlin to Hamburg and take passengers along, great. If you see an ad somewhere saying that passengers want to go to Hamburg and decide to take them there whereas otherwise you would not have gone to Hamburg, that’s public transportation. And this shouldn’t be done, in my opinion.

No, sorry, that’s BS. These kinds of flights happen everytime, in every country, and are the very reason cost sharing is allowed. And they have absolutely nothing to do with any sharing platform.

I’ll tell you a little story: A couple years ago I was going to be stuck in Geneva on a conference, and was trying to figure out how to get to Italy, because my family was already there. It was Easter and all commercial flights were booked out, all alternatives would have cost a fortune, or would have taken many many hours. I looked at train connections, which were awful, and a rental car would have cost me a fortune because it would have been one way. So, what to do ?

More or less by incident I talked to a very old friend of mine, who I principally knew was a pilot, but I didn’t think about that at the time. He offered to pick me up in Annemasse, and fly me down to Italy, which I happily accepted. He picked me up in Annecy, eventually, where I got by taxi, and I climbed into a Diamond Katana. It was a beautiful day, totally clear of clouds north and south of the Alps, and we had a wonderful flight to a little airfield close to where I had to be.

When I brought him back to the airfield two days later, and saw him disappear in the sky, I decided to pick up flying myself, and consequently started my PPL. Today, I am flying frequently, even close to finishing my IR rating…

To make it short: that flight was the beginning of my flying career. Nothing short of that.

This flight, accoding to your theory, would have been “public transportation”. Seriously ??

The client profile of professional air charter/taxi companies (I actually have no idea) is so completely different from people who give Wingly a go.. It’s almost funny to imagine.

That’s true until somebody starts doing Wingly flights in something which is not completely shagged

Sure they won’t pick up Netjets customers in say a PA46 but there used to be a lot of MEP charter business years ago. We have had multiple threads here on why that died out – example – and I don’t readily see the demand has disappeared. The business is still there if you could do it cheaply enough i.e. no JAR-OPS compliance

I would imagine AOC holders (which nowadays is mostly King Air and upwards, with some TBM or PC12 ambitions) are quite bitter about this possibility. OK… being bitter doesn’t mean they are justified, but in this case the possibility is really obvious.

So I would not use terms like “BS” which are just offensive.

Thierry has a point in that this platform doesn’t have any way to prevent this.

If I made them pay for it and had no CPL and AOC, it wouldn’t be either, it would simply be illegal.

Indeed, but probably undetectable among sufficient numbers, and where will this lead? A reversal of the regs, or locally implemented rearguard actions using the “urgent safety case” argument.

Very interesting thread this one. Interesting to see people’s polarised views on it. Originally I was against it, probably due to so Uber-like misconceptions. But having read all through this thread and looked on the Wingly website I have now changed my opinion somewhat.

I’m surprised at some of the hostility to it. Anything seeking to promote GA surely has to be a good thing? The industry is in bad shape and needs a boost from something. By raising the profile of GA and by giving people the opportunity to fly in light aircraft perhaps, just perhaps, GA will end up with a few less NIMBYs and objectors in general. Then when the local airport becomes the subject of a housing development planning application perhaps there would be a few more people on GA’s side.

It might open some interesting legal debates. You could argue that someone hour building for his ATPL is making a profit since he would otherwise HAVE to pay for all the cost himself. But why would you want to make that argument? It could make an ATPL more achievable for the average person as he can now hour build for less AND gain experience more quickly as he will have a reason to fly to more places and in different circumstances. It also helps the environment by getting more utility out of the fuel burnt from an ATPLer otherwise just aimlessly flying in circles.

I just cannot see the airlines even bothering to discuss it. Even if every PPL carried a Wingly passenger once every week I doubt airlines would notice given how demand is still growing so much.

The model is identical to BlaBlaCar. Granted, fewer people might drive for please as do fly, but the cost implications are the same. When does it become a taxi service? Only if the driver ends up with more money than they started with. Same for flying. Why shouldn’t a flyer accept requests? So many people (though perhaps not in this forum’s membership) want to fly more but a) can’t afford it and/or b) can’t think of anywhere interesting/meaningful to go. This gives them an opportunity to fly and a purpose for doing so. Carrying other people should also encourage them to stay on top of their game.

Having said all that, I think Wingly could do a lot more to help ‘users’ understand the nature of cost sharing and the implications of flight/pilot safety. Their front page is full of pretty pictures, clever slogans and cheap ‘ticket’ offers. It isn’t until you get deep into the FAQs that you find:

Is my adventure guaranteed?
No. Wingly is not a commercial airline or a charter service, meaning flights may be cancelled for any reason including weather conditions or the pilot’s discretion. As there are no scheduled routes, you are simply sharing the ride with a pilot, we cannot guarantee everything will go as planned. Anyway, in case of cancellation without the possibility of rescheduling the flight, you will be refunded.

You have to really wonder whether people understand this when there are flight requests such as this one, which is probably best avoided.

Peterborough Carlisle • 06.11.2017
Required Seats: 2 • Further information for this request • Message User
Published: 09.10.2017, 15:32h
Business trip two adults no luggage, arrive Carlisle/Lockerbie depart early am return mid afternoon

Probably also better to avoid this one.

Andover Calais • between 07.10.2017 – 28.10.2017
Required Seats: 1 • Further information for this request • Message User
Published: 05.10.2017, 19:52h
Just need to go to Calais to pick up a parcel and return

Although the site gives details of licences held and hours flown it has no added explanation of the relevance of this for people to choose safe and current pilots. There was a thread on here recently about passengers understanding the risk. I don’t think Wingly does itself any favours here. This could make all the difference in the event of an accident and the ongoing viability of the platform.

All in all I think Wingly, and others, should be encouraged. At the same time I think they have a great responsibility which must not be ignored. Gaining support from the CAA and EASA is a very positive step and I do not expect this support came easily.