Hacker News Reader

The entire ruling was about compensation. Additionally, neither the Federal Aviation Regulations nor the FAA has ever recognized any distinction between friends or strangers, i.e., a prior existing relationship has no bearing on common purpose. Otherwise, how could you decide if common purpose exists? Is there a secret handshake? One conversation, two conversations? Maybe, just asking: can we be friends so we can fly together? That's a slippery slope.

View on HN

> The entire ruling was about compensation.

Right, and, plain as day, private pilots cannot fly people around for money. That's the baseline. You can't accept money in exchange for flying an airplane unless you hold a commercial or ATP certificate.

The FAA carved out an exception that allows pilots to share operating costs with passengers IF the pilot and passengers share a common purpose for the flight AND the pilot isn't advertizing the flight to the public or some subset of the public ("holding out"). I'll grant you there isn't a sharp, black line that divides when a private pilot is and is not breaking the cost sharing rule, but Flytenow is clearly outside the grey zone (or, pilots who use Flytenow are).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com