U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Hear Flytenow Case | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

AMA Drone Report

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday

Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne-Unmanned w/AUVSI

Airborne On ANN

AMA 05.25.17

Airborne
05.22.17

Airborne
05.23.17

Airborne
05.24.17

Airborne
05.25.17

Airborne
05.26.17

Airborne-Unmanned 05.23.17

Airborne-YouTube

AMA 05.25.17

Airborne
05.22.17

Airborne
05.23.17

Airborne
05.24.17

Airborne
05.25.17

Airborne
05.26.17

Airborne-Unmanned 05.23.17

XPONENTIAL Innovation Preview -- www.allthingsunmanned.com

Wed, Jan 11, 2017

U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Hear Flytenow Case

Leaves Lower Court Ruling Intact ... And Essentially Kills The Business

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of a case brought by Flytenow, Inc., a start-up business that sought to use the Internet to connect private pilots with passengers wishing to share flight expenses, against the FAA. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case essentially kills the business in its current form.

The idea behind Flytenow was to build on “sharing economy” services that companies like Uber and Airbnb have popularized: websites or mobile applications allowing consumers to connect directly with private service providers.

Flytenow passengers did not pay for tickets or for the pilot’s time; instead, they shared fuel and fee costs with the pilot. This would have been the first “sharing-economy” case the Supreme Court considered.
 
This cost-sharing arrangement between private pilots and passengers has been allowed by the FAA since the 1960s. Pilots previously found people to cost-share with by word of mouth, phone, posting notes on bulletin boards in airports, and various other means. Flytenow simplified the process by allowing pilots to post a preplanned trip on a website for passengers interested in sharing costs. But the FAA determined that the process of posting a planned trip on a website constituted advertising and that subjected the pilots to the same onerous regulations that pilots for a commercial airline like Delta would have to meet. The determination forced Flytenow to shut down.
 
“The Supreme Court missed an opportunity today to correct an error made by the FAA and lower courts that will now deprive millions of Americans of a unique, convenient, and affordable travel option. What’s more, the Court could have offered direction to lower courts that protects the First Amendment rights of people using other sharing economy platforms, like Uber and Airbnb. Hopefully the FAA will reverse its position on this issue, and hopefully the Court will decide in another case to examine the important constitutional issues raised,” said Jon Riches, the director of national litigation and general counsel for the Goldwater Institute, and the attorney representing Flytenow.
 
Several members of Congress, led by Congressman Mark Sanford of South Carolina, have sponsored legislation that would explicitly authorize internet-facilitated flight cost-sharing. “We are disappointed with the Court’s decision this morning and we will be continuing our efforts in Congress to overturn the FAA’s ban on online flight sharing,” said Matt Voska, a co-founder of Flytenow.

In a statment, NATA President Martin H. Hiller said that the denial by the Supreme Court was expected. NATA was opposed to the review by the high court. “As we anticipated, the Supreme Court did not grant cert in this matter because it is neither a novel question of law nor are there any disputes between the lower courts as to the FAA’s interpretation of the Flytenow model," Hiller said. "In fact, the Flytenow application is nothing more than old wine in a new bottle. As the lower courts demonstrated, neither internet freedom nor the expansion of the share-economy are at risk. Consistent with previous attempts to offer the same service using telephone-based technology, the FAA determined the Flytenow service establishes private pilots as common carriers and therefore requires additional safety certifications for both the pilots and their aircraft.

"Contrary to Flytenow’s assertions, the FAA ruling does not impact how pilots communicate with friends and family who may join them for an expense sharing flight. The Supreme Court’s decision upholds FAA’s safety assessment that pilots who offer to transport the general public for money are required to have additional flying experience and safety training.

"If past is precedent, we expect that Flytenow attorneys will pursue their ‘smoke and mirrors’ strategy up on Capitol Hill in an attempt to carve out a loophole exempting flight services advertised to the general public on their website from the robust safety oversight system that Congress and the public demand from commercial air transportation providers," Hiller continued. "It is simply not acceptable to allow the general public to 'ride-share' with private pilots who have potentially little flight time or training for challenging weather conditions. NATA will continue to educate lawmakers on the Flytenow model and the risks it poses to the safety and security of the flying public.”

(Source: Goldwater Institute and NATA news releases)

FMI: www.nata.aero www.goldwaterinstitute.org/en/work/topics/constitutional-rights/free-speech/case/flytenow-v-faa/

Advertisement

More News

Memorial Day Celebration Turns Bad With Leap Frogs Accident

Navy SEAL Dies After Parachute Malfunction In New Jersey Normally; Memorial Day is a celebration of those who have fought for the freedoms so many of us take for granted. It's a gr>[...]

Airborne-Unmanned 05.23.17: Courts Nix Model Regs, Autonymous Flt, WATT 300

Also: King Schools Update, Kittyhawk APP, Robird And Integrated Drone Solutions, ICAO Drone Tracking The unmanned community got a bit of a jolt late last week when the US Court of >[...]

AMA Drone Report 05.25.17: Court Kills FAA Model Drone Registration, DJI Spark!

Also: AMA Reacts To Court, FAA Reaction, AUVSI Reaction, Kittyhawk Flight Deck APP Score one for us little guys... As you may have heard, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D>[...]

Airborne 05.26.17: Elvis' Jetstar, ACJ330neo, Redbull's Muroya Aims For Chiba

Also: Revitalizing The Aero-Verse, NAAA's Concerns, 737 Air Tankers, SD Air & Space Museum, LAX Mishap, Avidyne After sitting on a runway in Roswell, NM for more than 30 years,>[...]

Aero-Help Wanted: ANN Needs Good Honest Marketing Staff

ANN/Airborne/Aero-TV Marketing Department Needs Part or Full Time Personnel E-I-C Note: After months of hints, we've unveiled the next steps in the Airborne programming initiative >[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2017 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC