Uber for pilots: FlyteNow Sues FAA

I don't like the so-called "sharing economy" because they're intentionally skirting the rules and saying that they don't apply because 1) we use an app; 2) we use the internet; 3) we're different; or 4) just, well, BECAUSE. Sorry, but...

If you're paid to repeatedly drive strangers someplace in your car, then you're a taxi or limousine operator and should be properly regulated, licensed and insured.
If you're paid to repeatedly house strangers in your home, then you're an innkeeper and should pay applicable hotel/motel taxes.
If you're paid to repeatedly fly strangers where they want to go in a plane, then you should have a commercial certificate, acquire appropriate insurance and operate under Part 135. This is a far cry from finding a couple of guys to split the gas to OSH.

Dancing around the rules doesn't make you look smart - it makes you look like a smart ass.
 
Follow-up - the FAA's brief is due February 18. I put in in my calendar for February 19 to look for it.

Does the D.C. Circuit or the FAA has a website that they upload court documents to? Or do you need a Lexis/Westlaw account to gain access to that kind of data?
 
Does the D.C. Circuit or the FAA has a website that they upload court documents to? Or do you need a Lexis/Westlaw account to gain access to that kind of data?
The federal Court system uses electronic filing. Lawyers and judges file electronically. Court records are public and available for a small fee so long as one has a PACER account. They are available to anyone (it's separate from the account attorneys file under).

I am going to try to keep track of filings in the case and, for those interested, will add the ones I retrieve (there are many documents in a case that deal with minor procedural issues such as scheduling orders and the like) to it.

For now, it contains the FlyteNow opening brief and the "Joint Appendix." The Joint Appendix is a very large document and contains the various cases, letters of interpretation, etc that are referred to in the brief (i.e. JA.023 for the Ware Interpretation).

The next scheduled event is not until the end of the day February 18 when the FAA brief is due.

Link to shared DropBox folder. If the link doesn't work, let me know.
 
I don't like the so-called "sharing economy" because they're intentionally skirting the rules and saying that they don't apply because 1) we use an app; 2) we use the internet; 3) we're different; or 4) just, well, BECAUSE. Sorry, but...

If you're paid to repeatedly drive strangers someplace in your car, then you're a taxi or limousine operator and should be properly regulated, licensed and insured.
If you're paid to repeatedly house strangers in your home, then you're an innkeeper and should pay applicable hotel/motel taxes.
If you're paid to repeatedly fly strangers where they want to go in a plane, then you should have a commercial certificate, acquire appropriate insurance and operate under Part 135. This is a far cry from finding a couple of guys to split the gas to OSH.

Dancing around the rules doesn't make you look smart - it makes you look like a smart ass.
I live in Silicon Valley.

Let me tell you all about how these people are.
 
Update:

The oral argument to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was yesterday morning. The Court generally makes audio of the proceedings available later the same day and this one is no exception.

For anyone interested, here is the direct link to the MP3 file on the Court's website.
 
There is a major procedural issue in the case that isn't addressed in a significant way. The petition describes the interpretation letters as a "final agency action" or "final order" In general, only final agency orders are appealable. Whether this is one or not is likely to be a major procedural issue early in the case and if the Court of Appeals decides it was not a "final order" the case gets dismissed without hearing the merits. That's what happened with one of the suits brought against the FAA by a rescue group wanting to use drones.

My guess is the petition doesn't raise it except in passing because they want to wait until the FAA raises it as a defense.

I thought the DOJ missed an opportunity here on the government side. It sounded like one of the judges was asking the government "Are you sure this is a final order?"
 
I thought the DOJ missed an opportunity here on the government side. It sounded like one of the judges was asking the government "Are you sure this is a final order?"
Depends - Opportunity for what?

At least one of the judges was definitely interested in the final order issue - technically the "final agency action" issue. For the uninitiated, the basic principle is that the courts don't have the authority to review administrative decisions that aren't final. Although it's really much more complicated, the essence is that unless the agency decision has immediate consequences and there is no internal right for review within the agency, the Courts simply don't want to get involved. The law on the subject is all over the place with even the federal circuits somewhat disagreeing with each other. The FlyteNow position was that, since pilots don't particularly like the idea of the FAA coming after them, the letter interpretation effectively shuts them down.

But I think I'm pretty safe in saying that issue was obvious to all involved from the day the case was filed. FlyteNow knew they'd have to deal with it and the FAA knew it could have raised it and maybe get the case booted at a very early stage. The Government lawyer's answer, with no hesitation whatsoever, made it sound pretty clear the agency wanted a decision on the substance of the case.

There is still, of course, the possibility that the Court itself will decide to remand (boot) the case back to the FAA, something it looks like neither party wants.

My Monday-morning quarterback "missed opportunity" for the Government attorney was exactly the opposite of yours. If the Government attorney indeed wants a decision, the repeated turn to the final order issue and the comparison with college bulletin boards and Facebook could have been an opportunity to argue something like, "unlike Facebook, the sole purpose of FlyteNow is to match passengers with flights. The FAA's position is that even if you assume the best case pilot scenario - a private pilot heading for the Superbowl with some (real) friends who has an extra seat - the method of advertising it on a website whose sole purpose is to put passengers into private airplanes would not be proper."
 
FlyteNow knew they'd have to deal with it and the FAA knew it could have raised it and maybe get the case booted at a very early stage. The Government lawyer's answer, with no hesitation whatsoever, made it sound pretty clear the agency wanted a decision on the substance of the case.

There is still, of course, the possibility that the Court itself will decide to remand (boot) the case back to the FAA, something it looks like neither party wants.

I guess I'm surprised at the FAA/DOJ's strategy. I expected them to want to get this tossed on procedural grounds vice take the chance of it not going their way on the core issues.
 
Back
Top