mh wrote:
sharing flights at shared costs is clearly not a commercial undertaking
Sure it is if you are offering flights to strangers who are getting in your plane for transportation purposes. Again, the FAA makes a distinction between PPL and the higher bar for commercial ops in training, cert levels and maintenance of the aircraft.
Consider the following….should the FAA force PPL to meet the higher cost for training/operating at commercial standard levels so they can freely join ride-share sites and make a little cash flying people around? That would be a fast way to kill GA.
USFlyer wrote:
Sure it is if you are offering flights to strangers who are getting in your plane for transportation purposes
Exactly, and by definition so to speak. If that is not a commercial undertaking, then what is? That is what commercial aviation is all about, transporting strangers from A to B and let them pay for it.
mh wrote:
Private pilots sharing flights at shared costs is clearly not a commercial undertaking
That I agree with, but a total stranger in the mix and it clearly is 100% a commercial undertaking – if – the stranger is brought from A to B and he pays a sum.
mh wrote:
I don’t get why you call for maximum restriction on this topic and maximum freedom from even sensible certification and the use of existing aircraft / infrastructure.
Why do you say maximum restriction? There has to be some line between commercial operation and private operation, if not, why differentiate between PPL and CPL ? There is no “maximum restriction” about it, it is really all about the rights of the paying stranger.
Let me ask a question. Would you, as an experienced GA pilot, let your 8-10 year old son or daughter be transported for a lump sum. to go skiing or whatever, if this was done by a fresh PPL pilot you knew nothing about and in an airplane you knew nothing about, except it is old, and you had no chance of looking at the weather forecast? Why not? Would you even think about it at all if that transportation was Lufthansa or by train ?
…make a little cash flying people around?
Again, nobody is making a little cash flying people around when sharing costs. Once you start “making a little cash”, I think we all agree it could be called a commercial operation and should be reserved to those holding a CPL or higher.
Just like it is with a driving license and a, say, taxi license. I feel like I’m stating the obvious, but really, it’s the same thing!
When I cost share a car ride, nobody would expect me to hold a taxi license. When I offer a chauffeur service for pay, I should hold a taxi license. In Germany, that includes, for example, a medical check.
I think we all agree it could be called a commercial operation and should be reserved to those holding a CPL or higher.
Yes, and actually it cannot be done in Europe without an AOC, anyway. A CPL or ATPL is worthless unless you are working for an AOC operator – except for odds like
LeSving wrote:
That I agree with, but a total stranger in the mix and it clearly is 100% a commercial undertaking – if – the stranger is brought from A to B and he pays a sum.
You seem to completely ignore my comparison to road traffic:
A taxi service, a chauffeur service, Uber – all those things are clearly commercial.
All those (MANY) successful ride-sharing platforms (www.flinc.de www.blablacar.de www.mitfahrzentrale.de ) are OBVIOUSLY not commercial. No sane person would argue that.
LeSving wrote:
There has to be some line between commercial operation and private operation, if not, why differentiate between PPL and CPL ?
Why is that so very hard to understand? The line is where you earn a profit. If people share costs, by definition no-one involved is making a profit.
Once you start making a profit, you’re operating a business, more or less. That’s where it gets dodgy – in driving as much as flying or anything else, really.
LeSving wrote:
If that is not a commercial undertaking, then what is?
The aim at making a profit, or at least a living? The German Finanzamt has closed many companies due to Liebhaberei as they operated a company aircraft with the obvious aim not to make money with the aircraft but just reduce costs.
How many companies do you know who operate (let alone sustainably) on a pure cost share basis?
There IS a (more or less) clear definition of a commercial undertaking and just the transfer of money from one person to another clearly isn’t among it’s scope.
LeSving wrote:
Why do you say maximum restriction?
Because you call for it. You have stated several times, you want people sharing their costs with strangers to be ruled out from what EASA explicitly grants the private pilot. They even changed the legislation to clarify their position! Demanding that cost sharing flights, advertised and with strangers should be ruled out is maximum restrictive anticipatory obedience. (I know it when I see it, I am German among Germans).
LeSving wrote:
Would you, as an experienced GA pilot, let your 8-10 year old son or daughter be transported for a lump sum. to go skiing or whatever, if this was done by a fresh PPL pilot you knew nothing about and in an airplane you knew nothing about, except it is old, and you had no chance of looking at the weather forecast?
Of course I would. Better a fresh PPL than an old ATP fart who mistakes a cockpit for an office. If the sympathy is right and he doesn’t behave like your usual air rowdy and explains what he does… sure. In fact, I have flown with a 13 year girl on that basis, so that she could visit her sister, while me and my wife visited the Aero two years ago. My wife was PIC with around 50 hours after her license and the plane is from 1961. The parents were there and were very eager for knowledge. The girl loved it and told all her classmates about it and two of them became members of the local gliding club. I don’t expect this to happen every time, but if you really want to save GA you need to get the good feeling out.
mh wrote:
Of course I would. Better a fresh PPL than an old ATP fart who mistakes a cockpit for an office.
Really? I wouldn’t.
Why is that so very hard to understand? The line is where you earn a profit. If people share costs, by definition no-one involved is making a profit.
Cost sharing is a nebulous concept. I have a plane with some fixed costs. I cost share and that allows me to offset some of those fixed costs. I am generating an operating profit to fund my otherwise loss.
No one cares about those flying with their friends. Those advertising cost sharing with those they don’t know are stretching the spirit of the idea of cost sharing.
JasonC wrote:
Really?
Yes. I have seldom met the complacency of some old ATPs I got to know that have no passion for flying in a fresh private pilot. One of those office-jockeys said he would never consider an SEP to be safe, but was constantly bragging about him doing loops and rolls in a 172 with passengers. The ATP-officer is a subjective thing but the fresh PPL usually is better suited than many club pilots with a history of barely keeping the license alive, so I’d have no big problems with them (as long as they make a responsible impression.)
JasonC wrote:
Cost sharing is a nebulous concept. I have a plane with some fixed costs. I cost share and that allows me to offset some of those fixed costs. I am generating an operating profit to fund my otherwise loss.
I find this is not so nebulous.
Let me stay with my analogy to ride-sharing in a car.
If I’m driving with my own car and I cost share, I will share the direct costs of the trip. Yes, that’s the money I pay for fuel. I will not ask anyone to contribute to my “overhead costs” of owning a car. Regardless of the “commercial” discussion we’re having, I would find that simply indecent.
If I’m renting a car, let’s say a big car to go on a ski trip with some people (that might be friends or that might be people, strangers, I pick up on a skiing forum online or whatever) I will share the direct costs of the trip with them. That is the rental fees and the fuel.
Likewise, If I own a plane and I cost share, I will share the direct costs of the trip with the passengers. That’s fuel and maybe airport fees.
If I am a charter pilot, I rent planes and the direct costs incurred are (usually) the wet rental fee plus airport fees.
Patrick wrote:
Likewise, If I own a plane and I cost share, I will share the direct costs of the trip with the passengers. That’s fuel and maybe airport fees.
People are trying to offset far more than the direct costs.
