I see no reason you should be permitted to fly for free, just because your
friend broke his leg.

Do you see any reason I should be able to ride for free? What's the
difference?

[the rules] are about preventing pilots from being paid to fly (and
that includes paying less than anyone else in the airplane).

Well, I disagree with you and with the FAA that "paying less..." is
"being paid to fly". Of course, you know that by now.

This obviously is NOT "nixed by the FAA", since plenty of student pilots are
being paid scholarship money used to finance their education.

What's the difference here? The instrument student IS being paid to
fly, and is logging the time to boot. Does it change if the father (who
is paying for the lessons) comes along on the flight? Why should it?

So what? Why shouldn't you pay more for the same flight? If you don't, the
other guy has to pay three times what he paid on Monday. How is THAT fair?
This has to be one of the silliest so-called "examples" in your list.

It shows silly results from the rule. It should be up to us how to
split it, so long as the pilot isn't making a net profit. Alas, it isn't.

Presumably in the driving scenario, the riders don't pay gas and
maintenance?

Nope. Or yep. Doesn't matter, it would work either way. But it
doesn't become a commercial (driving) scenario unless the driver is
charging for the ride like a taxi. But in the flying scenario, it
becomes a commercial endeavor from the getgo.

As for not being fair, we rotate driving each trip. When it's my turn,
I drive my airplane instead.

Any amount of money a pilot spends less than his passengers is net
profit. Net profit means commercial enterprise.
This is not the definition of net profit. Net profit is total intake
minus total outgo.
What isn't the definition?

The definition of "profit" is not "any amount of money a pilot spends
less than his passengers". It is "any amount the pilot receives, over
and above his costs". The pilot can receive exactly =all= of his costs
and not have a profit. If you reported "profits" the way you defined
them, and were running a publicly owned business outside of Hollywood,
the securities board would have a word with you.

If the pilot's fair share of the flight is compensated for by any income,
that's profit.

No. True, the FAA defines it that way, and we have to live with the
consequences. But no. And I don't think the FAA should tell me what my
"fair share" is.

the thing you keep missing is that the pilot is both pilot and
customer. As customer, he is required to pay his fair share of the flight.

No. "customers" are not required to pay anything. Only the pilot is
required to pay something.

Of course you can [=trade on= this "benefit"]. You may be the sole pilot who doesn't bother to, but
other pilots trade on their recorded flight time all the time:

* Lower insurance rates
* Qualified to fly new types of airplanes (often due to FBO or insurance
rules, not FAA rules)
* Qualified for new pilot certificates
* Being chosen over a lower-time pilot for a paid flying job

I am not "trading on" this "benefit" when I get any of these things. I
am not surrendering my hours like I would cash. I get these benefits
not by trading in hours like frequent flier miles, but rather, because
of the historical fact that I have flown those hours. This is not
"compensation" in any sense I understand the term.

All that said, I would still be surprised if there are many FBOs that
would be willing to be party to the kind of arrangement being discussed
here.
So would I. But an airplane owner might do this. In fact, I think it's
rather common in some circles (such as a company plane used for company
business under part 91).
It would be perfectly legal for an airplane owner to do that, for a pilot
who holds a Commercial Pilot certificate. I don't know what your point was
supposed to be, but you're just making mine for me.

My point was supposed to be that while an FBO might be unlikely to do
so, the situation (of a commercial pilot being able to benefit from
having the rating outside of commercial operations) is far from
impossible, and probably far from improbable. An airplane owner could
rent an airplane to a passenger, who would then independently hire a
commercial pilot to fly him, and treat the flight as a private pilot
would, though if the FAA gets picky, (say, claiming that having dinner
together counts as compensation) the pilot could fall back on it being
legal as a commercial part 91 enterprise. The FAA's creative
definitions of "compensation" would make me reluctant to go on a date in
an airplane if I'm being treated.

It may well be that the FAA's opinion is entirely moot, since no one
could actually attempt this particular end-run around the regulations.
Well, I don't agree with this particular absolute. I'm not even sure it's
all that hard, though I agree that an ordinary FBO is not likely to do
this.
"May well be" is an absolute?

No. "...no one could actually attempt..." is an absolute.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.