[GolfHotel]

I think they are paying an equal share. Just add one to each of the number of seats (for the pilot) then repeat your sums. 3x335; 4x253; 5x203.
Seems very legit to me.

So that’s £500+ per hour. But the aircraft is about £375 per hour. Seems like a nice 33% margin on that business.

[KeithM]

Yes, I know I said I was going but somebody is either winding us up or can’t do their sums, a little worrying for a pilot.

Hmm... so , let’s say 2 hours for the return trip at £375/hr = £750 equally shared.

So, pilot + 2 px =£ 250 each = £85 less than advertised.
Pilot + 3 px = £187.50 each = £65.50 less than advertised.
Pilot + 4 px = £150 each = £53.00 less than advertised.

So, for the pilot, the first would be an unequal share costing only £80 and the second two would make the pilot a profit of £9 and £62.

Legit?

All of the above three would certainly not comply with Wingly’s own rules requiring equal sharing and as such would apparently invalidate the insurance. I checked.

And, presumably, the pilot hopes that passengers can’t do sums either and won’t discover what the hourly rate is!

Time, perhaps, for the honest Wingly supporters and members to query this with Wingly, perhaps, just in case Wingly haven’t noticed? (...he said, with tongue firmly in cheek!).

Oh, and there is one section on the Wingly website that appears to have been written by Yoda from Star Wars!

Hilarious!

[PaulB]

If those flights don't comply with Wingly's T&Cs why not inform Wingly?

Regards costs, it says this in their "etiquette" guide

3. Equal cost sharing should never be exceeded
Making a profit or paying less than the passengers while doing Wingly flights is forbidden and defeats the whole purpose of flight sharing. Making money off a flight qualifies the flight as commercial and leads to you, your aircraft and the passengers to not being covered by the Wingly insurance. To ensure everyone’s safety and to prevent any abuse, we ask all pilots on Wingly to never exceed the pro-rata share of the cost.

https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=con ... =etiquette

Presumably there's more in the T&C's when you sign up (which I haven't done.)

On the face of it, Wingly seems to be a reasonable idea, but there does seem to be some stretching of their rules, maybe stretching to breaking their rules in some cases. Has anyone found any flights which would be illegal (ie where the costs charged to the pax exceed the direct costs of the flight or whatever the definition is?


......and I thought all pilots were honest and trustworthy.

[Flyin'Dutch']

......and I thought all pilots were honest and trustworthy.

No more or less than doctors, lawyers, pharmacists and the rest of Society.

Most pukka, some k***s and a few bad apples.

[Rob P]

So, for the pilot, the first would be an unequal share costing only £80 and the second two would make the pilot a profit of £9 and £62.

All of the above three would certainly not comply with Wingly’s own rules requiring equal sharing

Landing fee?

Rob P

[eltonioni]

But heh, it's just legal cost share

Best accidental wordage of the thread.

[Miscellaneous]

That's a bit of sarcasm @eltonioni , not an error.

I find it incredible how those supporting Wingly are only too happy to ignore the blatant advertising that has been shown time and again to be non compliant with Wingly's terms and conditions. It is almost as if those supporting the practice simply reiterate the same old story choosing to ignore posts that pose questions of business practices.

On that note can someone tell me how Wingly can sell vouchers for flights to people who do not fly and consequently have them cost share for a flight they were no on?

Maybe it has changed , however my understanding is that even flying clubs with qualified FIs cannot offer pleasure flights? @Sir Morley Steven can you confirm the current law on this?

[Lockhaven]

If those flights don't comply with Wingly's T&Cs why not inform Wingly?

Regards costs, it says this in their "etiquette" guide

3. Equal cost sharing should never be exceeded
Making a profit or paying less than the passengers while doing Wingly flights is forbidden and defeats the whole purpose of flight sharing. Making money off a flight qualifies the flight as commercial and leads to you, your aircraft and the passengers to not being covered by the Wingly insurance. To ensure everyone’s safety and to prevent any abuse, we ask all pilots on Wingly to never exceed the pro-rata share of the cost.

https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=con ... =etiquette

Presumably there's more in the T&C's when you sign up (which I haven't done.)

On the face of it, Wingly seems to be a reasonable idea, but there does seem to be some stretching of their rules, maybe stretching to breaking their rules in some cases. Has anyone found any flights which would be illegal (ie where the costs charged to the pax exceed the direct costs of the flight or whatever the definition is?


......and I thought all pilots were honest and trustworthy.

But as we all know, what it says on the tin and what happens in reality can be two different things altogether.

In aviation its always been the case of, as long as the paperwork = the weight of the aeroplane nobody asks questions until something goes wrong, its all about covering your rrse.

[Miscellaneous]

If those flights don't comply with Wingly's T&Cs why not inform Wingly?

You don't seem to be keeping up, Paul. Are you one of the selective post readers?

Wingly have been made aware of 'questionable' flights previously and in fact have had them removed (is there not reference in this thread about one being removed, maybe it was one of the supporters who was advertising it and saw it mentioned here? ). Despite being notified Wingly seem not to have improved the policing of what is being advertised, instead they seem keen to stretch the definition of the relaxed rules as far as they possibly can.

I struggle to see how selling vouchers is not selling a ticket for a flight?

[Lockhaven]

Just read through some the advertisements, I did this 45 minutes ago.

I just quickly setup a 'Wingly' account as a passenger and can now get a round trip flight from the north of England to Jersey plus night stop with a 110 hour PPL for around £250 per person based on 3 passengers flying in a PA28, he/she even offers collection from other airports, FFS and you are trying to tell me thats safe and legal.

Strangely that advert has now suddenly disappeared, what does that tell you ?

[Miscellaneous]

That's the one @Lockhaven , I'm off to check which forumites fly a PA28 from the north of England.

[eltonioni]

Wondering if the gift vouchers will suddenly disappear too, along with some insurance friendly tidying up of adverts.

[Lockhaven]

I am very surprised given all the current media attention and discussions about 'Wingly' flights on this site, that no-one from 'Wingly' has posted here to officially defend their operation.

[TLRippon]

What is there to defend. Every time I’ve asked the CAA for an opinion on the legality of Wingly they seem to be 100% supportive. It’s only self other pilots and those with a commercial interest who seem to have a problem with them.

[eltonioni]

Is that no problem with legality in theory, or practice?