Uber for pilots: FlyteNow Sues FAA

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Folks will probability recall the discussions about the two Chief Counsel opinions regarding the proposed FlyteNow and AirPooler operations to set up a bulletin board for private pilots to post planned flights and for other people to pick a flight to go an and share the expense.

FlyteNow has sued the FAA over the interpretations with the support of the Goldwater Institute think tank. There are a few stories out there on it most pretty short. For anyone interested in reading FlyteNow's formal legal position, the Goldwater Institute posted it on their website: Petitioner's Brief

It's long - over 70 pages double-spaced, including some of the references. It goes further and makes a number of legal arguments but, to summarize a bit, the primary argument is (1) shared cost flight is a "traditional" pilot privilege; (2) shared flight requires some forms of communication between pilot and passengers. which the FAA has always permitted; and (3) the FlyteNow model follows all of the existing rules and interpretations, with; (4) only thing the twin interpretations in fact doing being prohibiting Internet communication (which they argue implicates first Amendment privileges among other things).

Being a legal brief, those statements are not just the opinion of the writer. They are supported by reference to FAA materials and interpretations, cases, and some historical documents. Just as a matter of history, some migh find the "traditional" sharing privilege argument and supporting material kind of interesting.
 
Is the D.C. Circuit required to hear this? Or can they dismiss the complaint without hearing the merits?
 
As an Arizonan, my three legged cat has more to do with Barry Goldwater and his philosophies than the Goldwater Institute "Think Tank".
 
As an Arizonan, my three legged cat has more to do with Barry Goldwater and his philosophies than the Goldwater Institute "Think Tank".

While that may be true, skimming the legal brief, they have used the feds own rulings against them in a "WTF! It's legal in all of these, but not here" way, which, is totally awesome. Just goes to show how the feds can pretty much do whatever they want, right wrong or indifferent.

Edit to add: While I wouldn't exactly call it corruption, it sure is inconsistent.
 
I'm not an attorney so being up to date on clipping and pasting various precedents to sway a legal isn't my forté.

More of a statement about the Goldwater Institute and less about the merits of the lawsuit.
 
Is the D.C. Circuit required to hear this? Or can they dismiss the complaint without hearing the merits?
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.
 
As an Arizonan, my three legged cat has more to do with Barry Goldwater and his philosophies than the Goldwater Institute "Think Tank".

We had a 3-legged neighborhood cat named "Tripod". Every once in a while, he'd do battle with the no-tail, one-eyed cat from the next street over.

I'm sure this would somehow serve as a useful metaphor for something involving politics.

Richman

PS He was a nice kitty. Everyone fed him, but he still kept the street reasonably free of river rats, despite the fact he was handi-capabled.
 
I don't think handicapped kitties know they have a handicap. My one eyed kitty battles with the others like he's the king. Doesn't track the laser pointer as well but that's the only thing. One legged kitty is slowed down a tad but doesn't really know it. Cats have a way of making up for their handicaps. We could learn a thing or two from the felines....

Sorry for the drift. Really curious how this lawsuit turns out.
 
While that may be true, skimming the legal brief, they have used the feds own rulings against them in a "WTF! It's legal in all of these, but not here" way, which, is totally awesome. Just goes to show how the feds can pretty much do whatever they want, right wrong or indifferent.

Edit to add: While I wouldn't exactly call it corruption, it sure is inconsistent.
Don't get too excited. In a court case, we don't get to simply toss around our own opinions on a subject. We have to support them with references to existing law. It's the job of each side to marshal and present those points in a way that is most helpful to us. That's what the FlyteNow attorneys did in this filing.

An FAA response can be expected to show a legal history of consistent interpretation of the rules that supports its own point of view. Just as the FlyteNow attorneys have attempted to show that the FAA is acting inconsistently, we can expect the FAA response (if it adresses the issue at this point - there will probably be a challenge to the case being heard at all) likely showing that the FlyteNow and AirPooler letters are completely consistent with prior FAA interpretations and case precedent.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, although I can probably craft an argument supporting either side of the case, any opinion I may have on which side will win is completely irrelevant.
 
Seems odd they can sue over an LOI.

If I were them, I would claim the very existence of a LOI that is opposite from the fundamental idea behind their on-line platform is hurting them because pilots that would use FlyteNow are scared due to the threat of certificate action from the FAA.

*I'm not a lawyer, so I will craft arguments for either side.....
 
If I were them, I would claim the very existence of a LOI that is opposite from the fundamental idea behind their on-line platform is hurting them because pilots that would use FlyteNow are scared due to the threat of certificate action from the FAA.
They beat you to it.
 
The "withold service" clause comes into play and I do believe the FAA mentioned that as well.

This sounds good in theory but suppose someone posts a trip and then gets no nibbles and has to go alone. While several will go alone, many would then rather re-post into another destination or route in order to find someone to still split the cost. That was never the intent of the pro-rata share split cost. This is intentionally witholding service. They are also publishing a future flight, which then opens up a whole another can of worms. IMO the feds got it right on this one.
 
Back
Top