Oh no, you're thinking, yet another cookie pop-up. Well, sorry, it's the law. We measure how many people read us, and ensure you see relevant ads, by storing cookies on your device. If you're cool with that, hit “Accept all Cookies”. For more info and to customize your settings, hit “Customize Settings”.

Review and manage your consent

Here's an overview of our use of cookies, similar technologies and how to manage them. You can also change your choices at any time, by hitting the “Your Consent Options” link on the site's footer.

Manage Cookie Preferences
  • These cookies are strictly necessary so that you can navigate the site as normal and use all features. Without these cookies we cannot provide you with the service that you expect.

  • These cookies are used to make advertising messages more relevant to you. They perform functions like preventing the same ad from continuously reappearing, ensuring that ads are properly displayed for advertisers, and in some cases selecting advertisements that are based on your interests.

  • These cookies collect information in aggregate form to help us understand how our websites are being used. They allow us to count visits and traffic sources so that we can measure and improve the performance of our sites. If people say no to these cookies, we do not know how many people have visited and we cannot monitor performance.

See also our Cookie policy and Privacy policy.

This article is more than 1 year old

Flytenow's other wing clipped: second appeal fails

Not an Uber of the skies, just an attempt to bypass general aviation regulations

Flytenow, the bunch of idiots agile and disruptive app-driven startup that reckoned it could disrupt general aviation, has been given an almighty “don't argue” by the US District Court, Columbia Circuit.

In this decision, the court makes it clear that Flytenow's pilots are operating in a common carrier capacity, and need commercial pilot's licenses.

Flytenow had already tried once to get the FAA to turn a blind eye on its operations. That was kiboshed in December 2015 by an appeals court in Washington, so the operator escalated its appeal to a three-judge panel.

The three circuit court judges declined to do so, writing: “Because we conclude that the FAA’s interpretation is consistent with the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions and does not violate Flytenow’s constitutional rights, we deny Flytenow’s petition for review.”

The court's reasoning is that the FAA had correctly interpreted regulations prohibiting private pilots from selling seats on their planes, and that pilots' Flytenow activities went beyond “expense sharing; and that the operation represented pilots “holding out” – that is, advertising for sale – their flights.

The judges also denied constitutional arguments such as stopping pilots from advertising spare seats violated their First Amendment rights.

Unless Flytenow's lawyers can persuade lawmakers to remake legislation in their favour, or win an appeal in the Supreme Court, that would seem to put an end to the “Uber of the skies” and a similar operator, AirPooler. ®

 

Similar topics

Similar topics

Similar topics

TIP US OFF

Send us news


Other stories you might like