Abdul, profit seeking is the most important element of a common carrier (a common law term). The term “common carriage” is well-known and understood by the courts, and refers to a commercial transportation enterprise that is willing to take all comers who are willing to pay a fare, without refusal. See CSI AVIATION SERVICES v. US Dept. of Transp., 637 F. 3d 408 (Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 2011). A commercial enterprise is a business pursuit for livelihood or profit. See STONE V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 198 F.2d 601 (D.C. Cir. 1952). In contrast, there is no possibility for profit when expense sharing.<p>At Oral Argument, the FAA agreed the common law definition of common carriage applied.<p>See, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;soundcloud.com&#x2F;flytenow&#x2F;judge-wilkins-on-whether-the-faa-is-owed-any-deference-in-interpreting-the-term-common-carrier" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;soundcloud.com&#x2F;flytenow&#x2F;judge-wilkins-on-whether-the...</a>.<p>Despite this, the court did not apply the common law definition. Indeed, they ignored the question, &quot;we therefore do not consider Flytenow’s argument that the FAA’s decision contravenes the common law.&quot;<p>So, the determination is that Flytenow pilots are engaged in common carriage, yet the central element of common carriage - commercial enterprise for profit - was not addressed by the Court.<p>Your last statement [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;] cuts against your own argument. There is no &quot;rent-seeking&quot; behavior where there is no possibility for profit. That&#x27;s the whole point of the common carriage analysis, and why the FAA and the Court got it wrong.