
It’s time for the Uber of air travel - molecule
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/its-time-for-the-uber-of-air-travel/2015/07/30/09c4c8c2-353a-11e5-8e66-07b4603ec92a_story.html
======
kevincl
While a worthy goal, the defining feature of the sharing economy is "sharing"
of a resource that a significant part of the population owns. It's
disingenuous to compare air travel to either hospitality or taxis, because 1\.
Planes are owned almost completely by companies 2\. The infrastructure to use
planes, i.e. airports, is not open to the public, unlike roads and homes

~~~
frisco
99.99% of airports are public use. Not just big ones either: there are only
about ~200 airports in the US serviced by airlines, but there are thousands of
small airports you go can land a Cessna at mostly for free. But that's not
really the problem with OP's ideas.

~~~
nemothekid
Sorry to be off topic here, but does this mean I can go out and but plane,
then just go land it at JFK or SFO?

~~~
dcgoss
[http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/751/can-you-
fly-...](http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/751/can-you-fly-a-light-
ga-airplane-into-a-major-hub-what-operational-consideration)

~~~
rosser
Interestingly, and apropos of the grandparent comment, the pictures of the
Lufthansa 747 in the third answer to that question were taken on approach into
SFO.

------
NhanH
The article is pretty light on the exact mechanical execution of what "Uber of
air travel" means. I'm also under the impression that unlike taxi and hotels,
airlines actually operate with razor-thin marhin. And unless one has an
innovation that can actually lower the fundamental operating/ logistics cost
(eg. Southwest), skirting around the law won't be of much used here.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
There was a wonderful story I read 15 or 20 years ago and unfortunately can't
find a source for now, that went something like this: Some random entrepreneur
had made a bunch of money by buying textile plants and streamlining them,
eliminating inefficiencies, canning redundant workers, so on and so forth.
Flush with success, he decided he wanted to branch out into other industries
that weren't making enough money and needed to hear his gospel of efficiency,
and bought a bunch of fiction publishing houses. He quickly discovered that he
couldn't do shit with them, because publishing is a business with razor-edge
margins, and the publishers that weren't run with machine-like precision had
all gone out of business already.

If you want to "disrupt" the airline business, invent anti-gravity. Until you
do that, all your clever business ideas aren't going to change the fact that
air travel requires a fuckton of expensive fuel per passenger.

------
idrios
Don't dismiss this idea. It's easy to state the obvious that Uber for airlines
would not be like Uber, because most people don't own private airplanes. But
the author is asking for a more general "how can we disrupt the airline
industry the way Uber disrupted taxis?"

As with any startup, first ask "what is the need you're satisfying" \- Need
more affordable, more convenient fast travel from point A to point B.

"What will you do to solve that need?" (get creative, this is your specialty)
Ex.1 - Offer people who purchased plane tickets but needed to cancel (and were
not allowed to because of no-refund policy) a service to sell to others at the
(presumably low b/c it was purchased early) price they bought it.

"How will your company make money?" Ex.1 - take 5% cut

"What kind of people will you need to hire..." -> this is getting more
specific than necessary <-

While I would have doubts about that business model I just threw together in 5
minutes, my point real point is-- you guys are Hacker News. Some of the
smartest people in the world. We could definitely figure out an Uber for
airlines and disrupt that industry!

..unless someone is already working on this and is protecting their actual IP

~~~
larzang
Uber "disrupted taxis" by disregarding the law, removing protections for both
passengers and operators, and shifting risk on to operators while shifting
profit margins to management.

None of which exactly inspire confidence when it comes to something like
operating aircraft.

~~~
dylanjermiah
Do you have any conclusive evidence that the laws 'protected' both sides in a
superior manner than Uber does? Edit: If you'd like to down vote fine, but
please also provide evidence for/against their/my claims. To be against data,
or the asking of evidence is to be ignorant.

~~~
dogma1138
How about that they at least mandate appropriate insurance coverage and give
you a fixed statue in law as a paying passenger?

Not to mention that under UBER you might be stuck in a legal limbo in which
you can't sue the driver for damages in case of an accident without proving
gross negligence while can be still sued by the 3rd party for being involved
in the accident in the 1st place under the "joint adventure" precedent.

~~~
dylanjermiah
Again, do you have evidence for your claims? I have no way of knowing if
that's true.

~~~
dogma1138
What type of "evidence" do you want?

In the UK you need to have a PSV to legally carry paying passengers all of the
UBER drivers i had didn't had it (it's a sticker on the car window with the
license number).

[https://www.gov.uk/psv-operator-licences/overview](https://www.gov.uk/psv-
operator-licences/overview)

In the US passengers can be sued for damages when being involved in car
accidents and cannot sue the driver unless they are paying passengers (which
UBER doesn't qualify since it is not a licensed transport service)

[http://personal-injury.lawyers.com/auto-accidents/when-
you-a...](http://personal-injury.lawyers.com/auto-accidents/when-you-are-
responsible-for-the-accident.html)

Whats worse is that since the passenger solicited the trip they can be made as
the "cause" of the accident in civil suits when there was no gross misconduct
on the side of the driver.

There is no easy way to obtain insurance information about UBER drivers, and
unlike taxis in which the token ("car") owner is also liable in a law suit you
cannot sue the car's owner if it is other than the driver with UBER in such
cases when the car doesn't have proper insurance or wasn't maintained
properly.

On the other hand you can get the insurance information for any taxi easily
e.g. from NYC.
[http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/industry/vehicle_insurance_...](http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/industry/vehicle_insurance_info.shtml)

The list can go on and on and on, UBER was playing it fast and loose with the
law by pretty much ignoring it and shifting all of the responsibility on it's
users and drivers.

The users don't know anything heck they don't even know that they might be
breaking the law in certain places. The drivers well the drivers don't care
UBER exploited places where getting a taxi license was expensive due to
regulation as well as an economy in the toilet which presented them with a
large user base needing additional income.

Public transportation is messy yes, but it's also heavily regulated and for a
good reason because when it's not people can get hurt very quickly. GL getting
a taxi license with a DUI under you belt or while being on the sexual
offenders list, but you can still drive UBER....

The same way no one would use an UBER like service to get a doctor if they
knew they could get a med-school dropout or some alcoholic that lost his
practice due to malpractice suits however they are perfectly fine with getting
into a car with a stranger at 2am knowing that unlike a registered car hire
service or a taxi they weren't screened, it's not recorded in public records
available to the local police and that they aren't covered by insurance and
can be named in a law suit if anything happens during that trip.

Oh and this is without even getting into other things like UBER pissing over
employment and taxation laws, doesn't verify that drivers do not work over the
maximum amount of hours allowed by law, do mandated pit stops on long trips,
maintain their cars etc...

My personal experience using UBER in London:

Driver hitting a cyclist and "contemplating" a hit and run.

Driver selling out weed out of his car.

Driver who was clearly working for at least 10-12 hours falling a sleep at the
wheel.

Driver who was also working for just-eat or some other food delivery service
carrying pizza and curry and asking me if i don't mind him stopping on the
way.

Driver who had an open can of beer in the central console (didn't enter that
ride).

I don't use UBER anymore i use the black cab / car service hire apps depending
on the time of day and the location they aren't considerably more expensive
(less than 10% on average unless you'll take a very long ride) and they are
all registered businesses with all the due diligence required.

~~~
tzs
> In the US passengers can be sued for damages when being involved in car
> accidents and cannot sue the driver unless they are paying passengers (which
> UBER doesn't qualify since it is not a licensed transport service)

The second part of that is only relevant in Alabama. The other 27 states that
have or once had automobile guest statutes that prohibited passengers from
suing their driver over negligence had, by 1996, either repealed them or
limited them to cases where the passenger and driver were relatives.

Here's a good overview: [http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Guest+Statutes](http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Guest+Statutes)

For a nice look at the history of these laws, up to 1974, here's a nice
Columbia Law Review article from 1974:
[http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...](http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3946&context=clr)

I'm also not convinced that the risk of passengers being sued in an Uber-type
situation is more than negligible. From what I've been able to find, passenger
liability usually only happens in these circumstances:

• The passenger did something like provide alcoholic drinks to the driver
before the trip, and then the driver's intoxication caused the accident.

• The passenger owns the car, and knew that the driver was incapable of
operating safely, but went ahead and let him drive anyway.

• The passenger did something that reasonably directly led to the driver's
negligence. A couple examples. (1) passenger tells the driver it is safe to
back out of a driveway, and the driver relies on this rather than checking
himself, and the passenger was wrong [1]. (2) 16-year old, at urging of
similar aged friends, takes family's car for a ride in rainy weather. At
urging of friends, drives faster and faster. Loses control at 100 mph and hits
a tree. Driver and two passengers wearing seat belts survive, one passenger
not wearing seat belt killed. Surviving passengers liable with driver for
their role in in convincing driver to drive like an idiot.

I haven't come across an example where merely being a passenger in a car where
the driver does something negligent subjected the passenger to liability.

[1] That's a scary one. I would expect most people as passengers have tried to
help out a driver that way at sometime, often at the driver's request, without
realizing that they may be opening themselves up to liability if they err.

------
IIAOPSW
I can't find the article right now, but this idea isn't new and the answer
(according to the FAA) is no. There are several types of pilots license but
they all fall into the category of commercial or private. Private pilots can
bring passengers in their planes much like private drivers can bring people in
their cars. BUT private pilots cannot explicitly sell their service.
Passengers on a private plane cannot be the sole reason a flight is happening
in the first place. If you are a pilot and you break this law, you risk
loosing your license (and it is a much higher investment of time and money
than a driver license).

For a while there were legally grey areas involving "fly share" websites. A
recent-ish FAA ruling determined that this is not legally grey, it is not
allowed. Period. Dot. Until that issue is resolved, Air-Uber is a head-in-the-
clouds dream.

IMO the FAA is right to enforce a certain level of safety and competence in
the skies. Most pilots agree with them. This is not like taxi medallions. The
regulatory body actually does something useful rather than just protecting
rent seekers. At the same time, I think there is a demand for fly-sharing.
Perhaps the FAA could create a license in-between commercial and private that
allows you to shuttle up to 4 people in a Cessna or similar aircraft.

~~~
delbel
The rules are to strict. If your friend is a pilot and you guys decide to go
out on a flight, you can't in any way pitch in for gas money because it could
be interpreted as commercial exchange. In my opinion the FAA is overreaching.
I live in a rural area with an airport and would love to be able to fly to my
home town, Portland, on a regular basis for business and pleasure. Right now
to fly to Portland I'd have to drive 120 miles to Medford, OR , then fly down
to San Francisco, then fly to Seattle and connect a fight to Portland! And
back again. It'd be cheaper and faster to take Greyhound.

~~~
ac29
>Right now to fly to Portland I'd have to drive 120 miles to Medford, OR ,
then fly down to San Francisco, then fly to Seattle and connect a fight to
Portland! And back again.

Or, you could fly from Medford to Portland? My first search shows Alaska
Airlines flies multiple daily flights between MFR and PDX.

~~~
delbel
Thanks, that must be a new schedule I'll check it out.

------
will_brown
The article of course references both AirBnB and Uber, two companies who in
many instances outright violated the law in their respective industries. I
wonder how many people would feel comfortable with an Uber for Flying if the
pilots were not commercially licensed. Just more outdated regulations put into
place by an industry with significant lobbying budgets and political
connections right?

~~~
dylanjermiah
Commercially licensed !instantly= good pilot. And vice versa.

~~~
will_brown
Commercially licensed pilot = legally allowed to fly passengers in exchange
for compensation (above cost of flight)

Seeing as AirBnB hosts and Uber drivers have been found in violation of the
law in some jurisdictions my question is relevant. Whereas when have you ever
vetted a airline pilot before purchasing a commercial flight?

------
remarkEon
I agree with the comments in this thread about how the FAA is a right to
enforce strict regulation in this market, and that Uber did indeed shift risk
to operators, and that this would be incredibly unwise to do for air travel.

IMHO, I think we need more major airports. Right now it seems we're bounded by
lack of access, here. Perhaps any disruption in this market needs to be done
at local governments in how they determine land use for airports. I imagine it
would be a special kind of torture to have to drive from, say, Anaheim or
other parts of LA East of downtown, to LAX to catch a flight after a meeting.
Don't know the total history of LA, but why isn't there a second major airport
out that way ala JFK-LGA-EWR in New York?

A quick google search found this[1] document about en route flight operations
and how flights travel across the country. Perhaps there's some work to be
done in terms of developing some kind of fantasy air flight simulation game,
aimed at optimizing how we move people around the country - if anything, just
for fun. After reading through some of this, I'm even more convinced that
"Uber for air travel" is not a wise idea considering how complicated all of
this is and the safety risk involved.

One can wonder, is Atlanta such a major hub simply because they have so much
land or is that really an optimal connection airport for so many major routes?

[1]
[http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/av...](http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/media/Chapter_2.pdf)

Here's the page with the whole document:
[http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/av...](http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/)

Edit: Grammar

------
autotune
If it were as easy for a person to secure a pilot license and start flying
people for cheap as it is to secure a drivers license and start driving people
I would nope out of this before you can say the "s" in "safety." The second an
amateur pilot gets their license for a company like this and accidentally
crashes the plane is when the whole potential for this industry goes
underwater.

------
markbnj
This is a mystifying analogy. The average person has a vehicle that might
possibly be shared via Uber. Almost nobody has an aircraft they can do that
with. The organizations that do have aircraft tend to be, surprise, airlines,
leasing companies, flying clubs. As for "robust international carriers" many
or most of those are state-owned. Operating aircraft safely is a labor- and
capital-intensive business. It's hardly an area where one wants to see a lot
of little startups burning VC money.

~~~
andrewljohnson
_" The average person has a vehicle that might possibly be shared via Uber."_

Wait, is that true? My experience with Uber drivers is they all bought a new
car to be Uber drivers, sometimes with a loan Uber helps them get.

Uber being some kind of "sharing" economy company seems a little dubious. They
are really quite different than AirBnB, which really is based on a surplus of
housing.

Uber is mostly just a taxi company, and their fleet is all pristine, new
cards, which they make drivers get and maintain. And the drivers are only "not
employees" according to a very fine line.

It's more like the "1099" economy than the "sharing" economy. Uber isn't
leveraging a car surplus - they are capitalizing on a worker surplus. There
are no beat up old jalopeys getting "shared" via Uber. There is no natural,
organic market, among people with/without cars.

~~~
mahyarm
I think it depends on your market. Where I am, there are a lot of people just
using their personal car. I heard the minimum is a 2000 year car in good
condition, which is about 15 years old now.

------
elorant
What the article fails to mention is that it’s very hard to make a profit in
the aviation business. That’s why we end up with oligopolies, sooner or later
airline corporations have to merge in order to cut costs. So if the big
players have a hard time keeping afloat I don’t see how an Uber style airliner
could make it. Unless of course they end-up landing in peripheral airports,
charging for luggage like Raynair does, extending waiting times for a few
hours and cutting many of the amenities we’ve come to expect as standard.

------
powera
I assumed this would be a submarine ad article for Netjets. But it's not even
that interesting.

------
jqm
Maybe when the delivery drone thing kicks off (if ever) they can make a
slightly larger one and deliver people also. For that matter, if they can
remote pilot a drone load of missiles to Afghanistan I don't see why it can't
be done from rural Arkansas to Las Vegas. So maybe one day soon.. the
technology is almost there. But right now we don't have the machines nor the
infrastructure (legal and physical) to make anything like this possible.

------
pmorici
If you look at the "sharing" economy as the trend of increasing the
utilization of an expensive piece of equipment to maximize its use; then I'm
pretty sure when it comes to air travel Southwest Airlines has been doing that
for a while and is the undisputed leader in efficiency.

------
tobico
This is ridiculous, air travel is expensive because planes are giant expensive
machines, consume a significant amount of rare fossil fuel to fly, and can
only be safely flown by highly trained experts. No kind of app is going to
solve any of those problems.

------
numair
I don't think there are enough qualified pilots to make this work. Maybe in a
future with self-flying planes? We are definitely talking 10+ years away,
though.

------
paulhauggis
The reason the airlines have little competition is because it takes lots of
money to run an airline and keep up with all of the regulations. Which is a
good thing. With the thousands of flights going on every day, accidents are
pretty minimal.

But it also shows that the more government regulation an industry has, the
less competition we will see, because only huge corporations can survive.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
You also bump into the question of whether you really want maintenance crews
and pilots to be as cheap as economically possible. Or maybe these roles
deserve some prestige and protection to ensure greater professionalism.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
_maintenance crews ... to be as cheap as economically possible_

Already happening. How does $2/hr sound to you? US airlines are sending more
and more of their heavy maintenance to third-world countries.
[http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocument...](http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/R42876_12212012.pdf)

Welcome to the global race to the bottom.

