FlyteNow Loses in Court of Appeals

MidlifeFlyer

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Hot off the presses. I just received notice of the decision. Haven't read it all yet but here's the summary from the opinion itself.

Flytenow asks us to set aside the FAA's Interpretation as arbitrary and capricious and inconsistent with statutory and constitutional law. 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.​

FlyteNow v. FAA
 
I don't know Jane, but Erin makes a delicious turkey chili.
 
Derg said:
Dumbfounded that anyone thought this would be hunky dory with the FAA.
Click to expand...
Would you be surprised if I told you the last FAA (Assistant?) Chief Counsel person actually worked for one of these types of companies (Airpooler) and tried to make the argument for ride sharing?
 
Last edited:
Derg said:
School me, Solicitor! :)

(If I called you "Barrister", then @jtrain609 would get jelly)
Click to expand...

In terms of @jtrain getting jelly, I had lunch with an attorney a few weeks ago. She took much pleasure in pointing out that I was trying cases before she was born :mad:. That may apply to him as well.:p

The case wasn't about whether the FAA thought it was hunky dory. The case is based on letters the FAA send to Flytenow and Airpooler saying it was not hunky dory. The case was about whether the FAA was correct in saying it was not hunky dory.
 
Maurus said:
Would you be surprised if I told you the last FAA (Assistant?) Chief Counsel person actually worked for one of these types of companies (Airpooler) and tried to make the argument for ride sharing?
Click to expand...
I suspect even Ms MacPherson had a pretty good idea what the FAA's position would be.

And I hope no one is surprised about someone who worked for a government agency leaving and then working for clients against that same agency. Happens every day.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
In terms of @jtrain getting jelly, I had lunch with an attorney a few weeks ago. She took much pleasure in pointing out that I was trying cases before she was born :mad:. That may apply to him as well.:p

The case wasn't about whether the FAA thought it was hunky dory. The case is based on letters the FAA send to Flytenow and Airpooler saying it was not hunky dory. The case was about whether the FAA was correct in saying it was not hunky dory.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing. They have since edited/deleted their comments on of all things - instagram - about how they were requiring 1,500 hours (Part 135 mins, which even then is not accurate), but never answering the questions people had about whether or not that had a 119 cert to employ pilots on for common carriage purposes, stating a rhetoric that pilots who had Part 135 mins made it legal. I suppose it does not matter now that it has been deleted, but interesting none the less.

https://flytenow.com/faq#pilot
 
Last edited:
MidlifeFlyer said:
I suspect even Ms MacPherson had a pretty good idea what the FAA's position would be.

And I hope no one is surprised about someone who worked for a government agency leaving and then working for clients against that same agency. Happens every day.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Additionally, for those who don't realize it, practicing law, for most attorneys, isn't about taking an ideological position; it's plumbing. You make the argument that the client needs made, you do it in an ethical manner that represents your clients position in the best possible way, you cash the check and go home.

Hell, during your training it's not just expected, but demanded that you make one argument one day, and the other side's shortly after. You never know who you're going to work for or what you'll have to argue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top