Interesting idea....wonder about the costs of operation of small planes (gas, maintenance) and then the costs the regulatory system burdens it with. Can those costs be defrayed by changing regulation?
What on earth do you mean? Do you mean that you think fewer small planes would fly, or might, rather than more? I hardly think so, but since the costs would fall entirely on the beneficiaries, what results should result.
Unless you want to make the case that the "neighborhood effects" net are worse by an amount greater than the lesser costs of government failure. In which place, please be numeric, and show your work.
Acknowledging that I have not gone and read the “planepooling” pieces, I have one primary comment:
It seems to me that the cost of travel at the destination is left out. Currently Uber is still fairly expensive depending on how much travel you will be doing at the destination.
On the one hand, driverless Uber/Waymo addresses that part of the problem…
…but OTOH wouldn’t a driverless Waymo/Uber address your 200 mile example end-to-end just as well, and likely at lower cost?
At minimum, it seems to me it would dramatically cut into the profitability of your planepooling model.
Instead of Uber, how about running a train line from your house to Aunt Matilda’s house an hour away, just in time for your once-a-year dinner with her—and making sure the train runs exactly when you need to visit auntie? So, no wait times on either end?
Will someone run a train from Smyrna, TN to Asheville, NC for the once-in-a-while traveller who wishes to travel that route? And will they make sure to run that train at the hour the traveler needs it? Will they run a separate train to Jasper, TN from wherever the fellow passenger was coming from—and run that train to suit his schedule, too? I love trains, but they’re only profitable on routes lined with metropolitan areas filled with people who wish to travel between cities along that particular route. And who don’t mind traveling at the convenience of the railroad’s schedule rather than their own schedule. And who either live in the vicinity of a station or don’t mind traveling distances to a station—with all the traffic worries and wait-times that entails. In the U.S.
Other than a couple of lines in the densely-packed Northeast Corridor (Washington-to-Boston), no intercity rail lines in America are profitable. And those few are only profitable if you ignore the enormous infrastructure costs required to keep them running.
Buses aren’t much better. The idea of planepooling is to provide nearly door-to-door transit in thinly populated areas, between pairs of cities that see only occasional travelers. And if demand patterns change, you just instantly change where the planes fly. You don’t have to abandon tracks and stations and lay down new rails or roads.
Neither I nor aunt Matilda live that close to an airport, so for that I would drive, or bite the bullet and pay for an Uber. Plane pooling is a cool idea. You need airports with planes and pilots and volume to make it affordable. I liked Frontier Newark - Asheville. But, inconvenient to get to Newark and does include the usual airport pain.
Highways exist for trucks which move most goods in the United States. Passenger cars are just beneficiaries. Also planes need runways, and terminals. Those have to be built and maintained. Personally I don’t think 5-10 people flights pencil out under the most optimistic of assessments considering operating costs, maintenance costs and fuel.
I’m wondering about the safety aspect of flying lots and lots of small planes. Surely, the pilots would have to undergo more testing and regulations? I’ve never forgotten Tony Lema’s death near my hometown (the pilot was the mother of a classmate), and more recently the Kobe Bryant case. And we can’t forget JFK Jr. These are high-profile cases, but even if the overall crash and mortality rates are low, what would result from a large increase of airplanes in the sky?
Yes. It is illegal for a private pilot to fly for hire.
Someone tried about 10 years ago to set up an Uber for the air (Look up FlyteNow). Tried to skirt the regs by taking advantage of a clause that says you can split costs of the flight with your passengers. But the law also says you can't "hold out" for business (in any way advertise). If you do, then you become subject to the regs the charter companies and air carriers do. So the FAA came down hard on them and put an end to it
The problem isn't in the economic of plane pooling. The problem lies with the mountain of FAA regulations. The FAA forbid compensation for flying a passenger unless the pilot is a FAA rated commercial pilot. It's expensive to get all the necessary ratings. Plus there is a Part 135 commercial operation where the airplane is inspected much more frequently. So the concept of plane pooling may end up costing a lot more than anticipated.
This is a clear and well written explanation of the concept that many people seek. Your point about regional medicine is also a great example of a compelling benefit to such as system. There was a brief push to make this happen with small, effkicient jets that sadly got caught up in the Great Recession and then the response to COVID - building new types of aircraft is a daunting task. I've been on the edges of figuring out how this might work with EVTOL aircraft, and there are two persistent enemies: gravity and time. Aircraft of any sort must expend most of their energy to get to their cruise altitude, and making the flight legs shorter means the aircraft spend more time at higher power settings, whether carbon based or electric. This tends to make short trips more expense - the very market that's trying to be met. There are a lot of bright, creative people trying to make it happen, so it most likely will, but perhaps not in the way now proposed.
My thoughts as a private pilot (who recently flew in and out of Smyrna!):
-The regulatory burden is hard to overcome and would probably need to be changed to make upstart companies viable. I’ve considered using my four-seater to charter flights—exactly the kind of Uber-inspired model you’re describing—and the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) sections related to commercial operators is almost impossible to parse.
-Aircraft operating/maintenance costs are high enough that plane sharing would likely only capture customers who have already decided to fly who are willing to pay slightly extra for all the conveniences you mentioned. It would be too expensive for people who might consider the trip at all only because plane sharing existed.
-One driver of operating expenses is the deficit of aircraft mechanics who are certified to do FAA-required inspections.
-I think enough general aviation (GA) airports currently exist to handle demand, but higher demand will drive up usage costs for them as well. (Interestingly, Smyrna is already the most expensive GA airport I’ve flown into, but then I’ve only flown in this region.)
-Then there’s the fact that the GA piloting community is small. If barriers to entry were lowered for commercial operators, you might entice enough people to go through the already laborious and long (and expensive!) process to get the pilots’ license, become instrument rated, accrue enough piloting hours to qualify as a commercial pilot, and become commercial rated. But it would take the promise of relatively high demand for this service, or at least high enough to make it worthwhile.
-To create that demand, you have to also address people’s fears about flying in small planes. GA, as far as I understand it, is no less safe than airline carrier aviation, and yet there’s a cultural suspicion of both the planes and pilots, driven in part by high-profile crashes such as Kobe Bryant and Greg Biffle. For every person I can get to fly with me (just for fun!), there are ten who decline. (To address the other reader’s comment, we could probably quadruple the number of GA planes in the sky without significantly increasing accident rates. There just aren’t that many of us.)
-Plane sharing will always be subject to weather interruptions in a way that ride sharing is not. A GA pilot can’t just say to himself, “I have a few extra hours free tonight, I think I’ll pick up some rides.” It takes significantly more planning, so that bad weather becomes a much bigger issue. I think AI would probably be able to overcome this obstacle.
Frankly, I love the idea and think these obstacles can all be overcome. It will take a lot of creativity and probably regulatory reform, and the FAA’s institutional inertia is roughly the size of a small moon’s.
I'd argue point two - it wouldn't be slightly more to fly in smaller planes. It would be a lot more.
And the point about safety isn't quite right either. The General Aviation world (GA) does not have nearly the same safety record of the commercial airlines. They go a decade without a fatal accident. Smaller planes, less experienced pilots, etc...
Sounds great in principle. Don't want to be that guy. But. Wouldn't work though for a multitude of reasons. OK it could work but it's really expensive. You have that option already. It's called charter flights. Which are all super expensive
1) Regulatory --> definitely would need to overhaul FAA regs / law. Currently, to carry passengers for hire you need to either be an air carrier (AA, SW, Delta - under part 121) or a charter business (what I believe you're pushing) under part 135 (of the federal code). The part 121 air carriers have so many regs. Pilots need to be ATP (air transport pilot). Inspections, maintenance, logs, recurrent training. WHICH IS HOW AND WHY IT IS SO SAFE to fly commercial. The part 135 charter ops also have a lot of regs that aren't as stringent and your pilot needs to have a least a commercial rating (one step below ATP). But they have to have training programs, SOP's, maintenance regs, etc.
A private pilot cannot fly for hire in their plane. Full stop. Some have tried to do an Uber in the sky thing and the FAA came down hard on them (look up FlyteNow in 2015). Would have to change the law.
2) Practical --> in my plane (4 seater, high performance single piston engine - new they cost now about $1.2mil - mine is not new), i fly about 200 mph using between 13-16 gallons of fuel an hour at cruise. Takes about 2 1/2 to 3 hrs to go ~500 miles. I can carry at full fuel myself and 2 (maybe 3 - depending on how much they weigh) passengers. They have to be able to climb up on a wing, get in. Baggage definitely limited by weight constraints. AVGAS is about $7 per gallon. Then there's the return back home for me. Taking one passenger would be really expensive for them. I have to pay hanger fees, annual inspections, oil changes, insurance. And I don't have to follow the stringent regulations for inspections and maintenance as the air carriers or charter companies do which makes it even more expensive.
On the other hand, the planes that carry 6-10 passengers are all going to be either twin engines (twice the fuel, not twice as fast) or a turbine that uses 55-60 gph but goes about 300 knots (350mph). Now you're getting really expensive. Much more complex airplanes. Lots more to break. MUCH more expensive to buy and then maintain. If you have to replace an engine you're talking multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars).
Then there are the jets like a Honda Jet (90-100gph). If you have a jet that goes 1000 miles in 2-3 hrs, you're talking $700-1000 per hour. And that's just the fuel not buying the plane, paying for the maintenance, inspections, paying the pilot etc. You're talking charter flights starting at $10000. For one or two or even 8 passengers. For a short flight up to 1000 miles or so. The cost difference for it and going the big jet commerical is quite high and for most prohibitive.
3) Safety --> commercial air carriers have extraordinary safety records. Charter companies have good safety records. Private pilots have safety while flying that is about the same as driving a motorcycle. More dangerous than driving a car and for the airlines it is sooo much safer than driving. Don't think the public would have the stomach to see deaths from airplane accidents go up because the pilots are not as trained as the ATP's in the commercial world.
4) Weather --> 737/757/777 all can fly in just about any weather. Just about. The little planes not so much. Definitely times i'd never fly in my plane that a big jet can handle. Going to have a lot of flights canceled just because of weather that doesn't hinder the big boys.
Owning a plane is not cheap. I can't put it up for hire without changes in the laws. It wouldn't be cheap but it would be convenient. With some inconvenience added in.
Interesting idea....wonder about the costs of operation of small planes (gas, maintenance) and then the costs the regulatory system burdens it with. Can those costs be defrayed by changing regulation?
What on earth do you mean? Do you mean that you think fewer small planes would fly, or might, rather than more? I hardly think so, but since the costs would fall entirely on the beneficiaries, what results should result.
Unless you want to make the case that the "neighborhood effects" net are worse by an amount greater than the lesser costs of government failure. In which place, please be numeric, and show your work.
Owning a plane is expensive.
To carry passengers is really expensive (read up on federal code part 121 and 135) with all the regs for airplanes used to fly passengers for hire.
They would HAVE to change the regulations to cut down on costs. And to even simply make it legal.
But all the regulations for the air carriers is actually a big part of why it is so safe to commercial. It is not as safe to fly GA (general aviation)
Interesting.
Acknowledging that I have not gone and read the “planepooling” pieces, I have one primary comment:
It seems to me that the cost of travel at the destination is left out. Currently Uber is still fairly expensive depending on how much travel you will be doing at the destination.
On the one hand, driverless Uber/Waymo addresses that part of the problem…
…but OTOH wouldn’t a driverless Waymo/Uber address your 200 mile example end-to-end just as well, and likely at lower cost?
At minimum, it seems to me it would dramatically cut into the profitability of your planepooling model.
Busses, trains? Maybe a bit slower than driving, but able to read, work, relax.
Instead of Uber, how about running a train line from your house to Aunt Matilda’s house an hour away, just in time for your once-a-year dinner with her—and making sure the train runs exactly when you need to visit auntie? So, no wait times on either end?
Will someone run a train from Smyrna, TN to Asheville, NC for the once-in-a-while traveller who wishes to travel that route? And will they make sure to run that train at the hour the traveler needs it? Will they run a separate train to Jasper, TN from wherever the fellow passenger was coming from—and run that train to suit his schedule, too? I love trains, but they’re only profitable on routes lined with metropolitan areas filled with people who wish to travel between cities along that particular route. And who don’t mind traveling at the convenience of the railroad’s schedule rather than their own schedule. And who either live in the vicinity of a station or don’t mind traveling distances to a station—with all the traffic worries and wait-times that entails. In the U.S.
Other than a couple of lines in the densely-packed Northeast Corridor (Washington-to-Boston), no intercity rail lines in America are profitable. And those few are only profitable if you ignore the enormous infrastructure costs required to keep them running.
Buses aren’t much better. The idea of planepooling is to provide nearly door-to-door transit in thinly populated areas, between pairs of cities that see only occasional travelers. And if demand patterns change, you just instantly change where the planes fly. You don’t have to abandon tracks and stations and lay down new rails or roads.
Neither I nor aunt Matilda live that close to an airport, so for that I would drive, or bite the bullet and pay for an Uber. Plane pooling is a cool idea. You need airports with planes and pilots and volume to make it affordable. I liked Frontier Newark - Asheville. But, inconvenient to get to Newark and does include the usual airport pain.
Highways exist for trucks which move most goods in the United States. Passenger cars are just beneficiaries. Also planes need runways, and terminals. Those have to be built and maintained. Personally I don’t think 5-10 people flights pencil out under the most optimistic of assessments considering operating costs, maintenance costs and fuel.
I’m wondering about the safety aspect of flying lots and lots of small planes. Surely, the pilots would have to undergo more testing and regulations? I’ve never forgotten Tony Lema’s death near my hometown (the pilot was the mother of a classmate), and more recently the Kobe Bryant case. And we can’t forget JFK Jr. These are high-profile cases, but even if the overall crash and mortality rates are low, what would result from a large increase of airplanes in the sky?
What stands in the way of voluntary exchange providing an Uber for planes industry? Is it regulatory constraint?
Yes. It is illegal for a private pilot to fly for hire.
Someone tried about 10 years ago to set up an Uber for the air (Look up FlyteNow). Tried to skirt the regs by taking advantage of a clause that says you can split costs of the flight with your passengers. But the law also says you can't "hold out" for business (in any way advertise). If you do, then you become subject to the regs the charter companies and air carriers do. So the FAA came down hard on them and put an end to it
Just as I suspected.
The problem isn't in the economic of plane pooling. The problem lies with the mountain of FAA regulations. The FAA forbid compensation for flying a passenger unless the pilot is a FAA rated commercial pilot. It's expensive to get all the necessary ratings. Plus there is a Part 135 commercial operation where the airplane is inspected much more frequently. So the concept of plane pooling may end up costing a lot more than anticipated.
a lot more
This is a clear and well written explanation of the concept that many people seek. Your point about regional medicine is also a great example of a compelling benefit to such as system. There was a brief push to make this happen with small, effkicient jets that sadly got caught up in the Great Recession and then the response to COVID - building new types of aircraft is a daunting task. I've been on the edges of figuring out how this might work with EVTOL aircraft, and there are two persistent enemies: gravity and time. Aircraft of any sort must expend most of their energy to get to their cruise altitude, and making the flight legs shorter means the aircraft spend more time at higher power settings, whether carbon based or electric. This tends to make short trips more expense - the very market that's trying to be met. There are a lot of bright, creative people trying to make it happen, so it most likely will, but perhaps not in the way now proposed.
My thoughts as a private pilot (who recently flew in and out of Smyrna!):
-The regulatory burden is hard to overcome and would probably need to be changed to make upstart companies viable. I’ve considered using my four-seater to charter flights—exactly the kind of Uber-inspired model you’re describing—and the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) sections related to commercial operators is almost impossible to parse.
-Aircraft operating/maintenance costs are high enough that plane sharing would likely only capture customers who have already decided to fly who are willing to pay slightly extra for all the conveniences you mentioned. It would be too expensive for people who might consider the trip at all only because plane sharing existed.
-One driver of operating expenses is the deficit of aircraft mechanics who are certified to do FAA-required inspections.
-I think enough general aviation (GA) airports currently exist to handle demand, but higher demand will drive up usage costs for them as well. (Interestingly, Smyrna is already the most expensive GA airport I’ve flown into, but then I’ve only flown in this region.)
-Then there’s the fact that the GA piloting community is small. If barriers to entry were lowered for commercial operators, you might entice enough people to go through the already laborious and long (and expensive!) process to get the pilots’ license, become instrument rated, accrue enough piloting hours to qualify as a commercial pilot, and become commercial rated. But it would take the promise of relatively high demand for this service, or at least high enough to make it worthwhile.
-To create that demand, you have to also address people’s fears about flying in small planes. GA, as far as I understand it, is no less safe than airline carrier aviation, and yet there’s a cultural suspicion of both the planes and pilots, driven in part by high-profile crashes such as Kobe Bryant and Greg Biffle. For every person I can get to fly with me (just for fun!), there are ten who decline. (To address the other reader’s comment, we could probably quadruple the number of GA planes in the sky without significantly increasing accident rates. There just aren’t that many of us.)
-Plane sharing will always be subject to weather interruptions in a way that ride sharing is not. A GA pilot can’t just say to himself, “I have a few extra hours free tonight, I think I’ll pick up some rides.” It takes significantly more planning, so that bad weather becomes a much bigger issue. I think AI would probably be able to overcome this obstacle.
Frankly, I love the idea and think these obstacles can all be overcome. It will take a lot of creativity and probably regulatory reform, and the FAA’s institutional inertia is roughly the size of a small moon’s.
I'd argue point two - it wouldn't be slightly more to fly in smaller planes. It would be a lot more.
And the point about safety isn't quite right either. The General Aviation world (GA) does not have nearly the same safety record of the commercial airlines. They go a decade without a fatal accident. Smaller planes, less experienced pilots, etc...
Sounds great in principle. Don't want to be that guy. But. Wouldn't work though for a multitude of reasons. OK it could work but it's really expensive. You have that option already. It's called charter flights. Which are all super expensive
1) Regulatory --> definitely would need to overhaul FAA regs / law. Currently, to carry passengers for hire you need to either be an air carrier (AA, SW, Delta - under part 121) or a charter business (what I believe you're pushing) under part 135 (of the federal code). The part 121 air carriers have so many regs. Pilots need to be ATP (air transport pilot). Inspections, maintenance, logs, recurrent training. WHICH IS HOW AND WHY IT IS SO SAFE to fly commercial. The part 135 charter ops also have a lot of regs that aren't as stringent and your pilot needs to have a least a commercial rating (one step below ATP). But they have to have training programs, SOP's, maintenance regs, etc.
A private pilot cannot fly for hire in their plane. Full stop. Some have tried to do an Uber in the sky thing and the FAA came down hard on them (look up FlyteNow in 2015). Would have to change the law.
2) Practical --> in my plane (4 seater, high performance single piston engine - new they cost now about $1.2mil - mine is not new), i fly about 200 mph using between 13-16 gallons of fuel an hour at cruise. Takes about 2 1/2 to 3 hrs to go ~500 miles. I can carry at full fuel myself and 2 (maybe 3 - depending on how much they weigh) passengers. They have to be able to climb up on a wing, get in. Baggage definitely limited by weight constraints. AVGAS is about $7 per gallon. Then there's the return back home for me. Taking one passenger would be really expensive for them. I have to pay hanger fees, annual inspections, oil changes, insurance. And I don't have to follow the stringent regulations for inspections and maintenance as the air carriers or charter companies do which makes it even more expensive.
On the other hand, the planes that carry 6-10 passengers are all going to be either twin engines (twice the fuel, not twice as fast) or a turbine that uses 55-60 gph but goes about 300 knots (350mph). Now you're getting really expensive. Much more complex airplanes. Lots more to break. MUCH more expensive to buy and then maintain. If you have to replace an engine you're talking multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars).
Then there are the jets like a Honda Jet (90-100gph). If you have a jet that goes 1000 miles in 2-3 hrs, you're talking $700-1000 per hour. And that's just the fuel not buying the plane, paying for the maintenance, inspections, paying the pilot etc. You're talking charter flights starting at $10000. For one or two or even 8 passengers. For a short flight up to 1000 miles or so. The cost difference for it and going the big jet commerical is quite high and for most prohibitive.
3) Safety --> commercial air carriers have extraordinary safety records. Charter companies have good safety records. Private pilots have safety while flying that is about the same as driving a motorcycle. More dangerous than driving a car and for the airlines it is sooo much safer than driving. Don't think the public would have the stomach to see deaths from airplane accidents go up because the pilots are not as trained as the ATP's in the commercial world.
4) Weather --> 737/757/777 all can fly in just about any weather. Just about. The little planes not so much. Definitely times i'd never fly in my plane that a big jet can handle. Going to have a lot of flights canceled just because of weather that doesn't hinder the big boys.
Owning a plane is not cheap. I can't put it up for hire without changes in the laws. It wouldn't be cheap but it would be convenient. With some inconvenience added in.