<i>In the Opinion of the Court, Judge Pillard held that pilots sharing expenses on Flytenow were engaged in common carriage, making them the only common carriers (i.e., commercial airliners) in history to not seek a profit.</i><p>Profit seeking is not a requirement to be considered a common carrier.  The FAA and the Court are quite clear in that all that is required for a common carrier classification is &quot;(1) a holding out of a willingness to (2) transport persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation&quot; and that all four are satisfied by Flytenow.  Posting an itinerary to the website qualifies as holding out, the flight is transportation, the individuals go from place to place, and the cost sharing is compensation.  Flytenow&#x27;s response to this is just needling and attempting to spin.<p><i>The current state of the law is extremely deferential to regulatory actions, at the expense of innovation. The Court relied on that regulatory deference, and the result is less choice for consumers, and less innovation in general aviation.</i><p>This is true.  And it&#x27;s for good reason.  Flying is dangerous and should not be subject to the race to the bottom and rent-seeking behavior that is the &quot;sharing economy&quot;.