DOCSLIB.ORG

Flytenow's Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flytenow's Petition for Writ of Certiorari No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- FLYTENOW, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Administrator, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JONATHAN RICHES* ADITYA DYNAR GOLDWATER INSTITUTE SCHARF-NORTON CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION 500 E. Coronado Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 462-5000 [email protected] *Counsel of Record Counsel for Petitioner ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In deciding what level of deference is due an agency’s interpretation when it predominately inter- prets common law terms, five circuit courts of appeals have held no deference is due such an interpretation. Three others have held such an interpretation is “not entitled to great deference.” The D.C. Circuit here af- forded deference under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) legal interpretation predominately interpreting the common law term, “common carriage.” What, if any, def- erence is due an agency’s interpretation when it predom- inately interprets terms of common law in which courts, not administrative agencies, have special competence? 2. Did the circuit court err when it held, in con- travention of this Court’s long-standing definition of “common carrier,” that pilots who use the Internet to communicate are “common carriers” when those pilots do not earn a commercial profit or indiscriminately of- fer to share their travel plans with the general public, thus warranting remand? 3. Pilots have lawfully communicated a particu- lar message—namely, the time and location of travel plans—with prospective passengers since the begin- ning of general aviation using a variety of different means of communication. Did the circuit court err in holding that the FAA could, consistent with the First Amendment, lawfully discriminate against con- tent-based Internet communications because of the message conveyed and the means chosen by pilots to convey it? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT The parties to the proceeding are all listed on the cover. Petitioner, Flytenow, Inc., is a Delaware corpora- tion with its principal place of business in Massachu- setts. No parent corporation or publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of the stock of Flytenow, Inc. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Questions Presented ............................................... i Parties to the Proceeding and Rule 29.6 Statement .... ii Table of Contents .................................................... iii Table of Authorities ................................................ v Opinions Below ....................................................... 1 Statement of Jurisdiction ....................................... 1 Constitutional and Regulatory Provisions In- volved ................................................................... 1 Statement of the Case ............................................ 2 Reasons for Granting the Petition ......................... 7 I. The Court should grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split on the question of what, if any, deference is owed an agency’s interpre- tation when it predominately interprets terms of common law in which courts, not administrative agencies, have special com- petence.......................................................... 9 A. Five courts of appeals have held that no deference is due to an administrative interpretation of predominately com- mon law terms ....................................... 10 B. Three courts of appeals have held that an agency’s interpretation of predomi- nately common law terms is “not enti- tled to great deference” ......................... 13 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page C. When agencies interpret predominately common law terms, no deference should be provided to those interpretations ..... 16 D. The Court should also grant review be- cause the D.C. Circuit’s decision con- flicts with this Court’s decisions in Christopher, Mead, and Christensen .... 18 II. In the alternative, the Circuit Court’s drastic departure from the common law definition of “common carrier” warrants remand ........ 21 III. The Circuit Court’s opinion upholds a content- based restriction on Internet communica- tions in violation of the First Amendment .... 27 Conclusion ............................................................... 32 APPENDIX Court of Appeals Opinion filed December 18, 2015 .................................................................. App. 1 Court of Appeals Judgment filed December 18, 2015 ................................................................ App. 28 MacPherson–Winton Interpretation .................. App. 30 Court of Appeals Denial of Rehearing filed Feb- ruary 24, 2016 ................................................ App. 41 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996) ................................................................ 30 American Ship Bldg. Co. v. NLRB, 380 U.S. 300 (1965) ....................................................................... 12 Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469 (1940) ........ 23 Atrium of Princeton, LLC v. NLRB, 684 F.3d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ............................................... 15 Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) .................. passim Board of Cnty. Comm’rs of Cnty. of Adams v. Isaac, 18 F.3d 1492 (10th Cir. 1994) ....................... 14 Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945) .................................................... 10, 11, 14 Brewster ex rel. Keller v. Sullivan, 972 F.2d 898 (8th Cir. 1992) .................................................... 14, 16 Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1870 (2009) ................................. 16 Cahaly v. Larosa, 796 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 2015) .......... 28 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) .......................................... 19 Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576 (2000) ..... 18, 19 Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 132 S. Ct. 2156 (2012) .................................... 7, 18, 19, 20 Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) ........................................................ 30 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page CSI Aviation Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 637 F.3d 408 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .................................. 22 Decker v. Northwest Envtl. Def. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326 (2013) .............................................................. 16 Dewey v. City of Des Moines, 173 U.S. 193 (1899) ....... 21 Edwards v. Califano, 619 F.2d 865 (10th Cir. 1980) ........................................................................ 14 FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U.S. 689 (1979) ....... 25 Flytenow, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Adminis- tration, 808 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ....................... 1 Gale v. Independent Taxi Owners Ass’n, 84 F.2d 249 (D.C. Cir. 1936) ................................................. 24 Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) ................ 7, 20 Grossman v. Bowen, 680 F. Supp. 570 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ........................................................................ 14 Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 530 U.S. 238 (2000) ............................ 21 Hi-Craft Clothing Co. v. NLRB, 660 F.2d 910 (3d Cir. 1981) ........................................................... 10, 12 Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 578 F.2d 289 (10th Cir. 1978) ........................................................................ 14 Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374 (1995) ........................................................ 21 Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181 (1985) ............................... 31 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Maloley v. R.J. O’Brien & Assocs., Inc., 819 F.2d 1435 (8th Cir. 1987) ................................................. 12 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) ...................... 10 Mission Grp. of Kansas, Inc. v. Riley, 146 F.3d 775 (10th Cir. 1998) ................................................. 14 Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 1 (1912) ...................................... 22 Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) ....................................................................... 16 NLRB v. Fullerton Transfer & Storage Ltd., 910 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1990) ..................................... 11, 12 NLRB v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 195 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1952) ................................................................. 12 Norton v. City of Springfield, 806 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 29 Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Int’l Union, Local 1–547 v. NLRB, 842 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir. 1988) ........................................................................ 12 Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015) ................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Airbnb V. San Francisco
    Case 3:16-cv-03615-JD Document 57 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 36 1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney 2 JAMES M. EMERY, State Bar #153630 ROBB W. KAPLA, State Bar #238896 3 SARA J. EISENBERG, State Bar #269303 Deputy City Attorneys 4 City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 5 San Francisco, California 94102-4602 Telephone: (415) 554-4628 6 Facsimile: (415) 554-4757 E-Mail: jim.emery @sfgov.org 7 8 Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 AIRBNB, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-03615-JD 13 Plaintiff, SAN FRANCISCO’S MEMORANDUM OF 14 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN HOMEAWAY.COM, INC., OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 15 FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff-Intervenor, 16 Hearing Date: October 6, 2016 vs. Time: 10:00a.m. 17 Place: Courtroom 11 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 18 FRANCISCO, Trial Date: Not set 19 Defendant. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CCSF’s MPA ISO Opp to PI Mtn n:\govlit\li2016\161382\01136489.docx CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03615-JD Case 3:16-cv-03615-JD Document 57 Filed 09/19/16 Page 2 of 36 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 3 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................2 4 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5 5 I. The Communications Decency Act Does Not Preempt San Francisco’s Ordinance. ................................................................................................................5 6 A. Binding Ninth Circuit Precedent Establishes That the CDA Does Not 7 Preempt San Francisco’s Ordinance, Since the Ordinance Does Not Seek to Impose Liability on Websites as a “Publisher or Speaker” Of Third- 8 Party Content.
    [Show full text]
  • Sectoral Evolution and Shifting Service Delivery Models in the Sharing Economy
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Mahmuda, S.; Sigler, T.; Knight, E.; Corcoran, J. Article Sectoral evolution and shifting service delivery models in the sharing economy Business Research Provided in Cooperation with: VHB - Verband der Hochschullehrer für Betriebswirtschaft, German Academic Association of Business Research Suggested Citation: Mahmuda, S.; Sigler, T.; Knight, E.; Corcoran, J. (2020) : Sectoral evolution and shifting service delivery models in the sharing economy, Business Research, ISSN 2198-2627, Springer, Heidelberg, Vol. 13, Iss. 2, pp. 663-684, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00110-4 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/233176 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Amici Curiae of Southeastern
    No. 16-14 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- FLYTENOW, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Administrator, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER, THE BUCKEYE INSTITUTE, THE BEACON CENTER OF TENNESSEE, AND THOMAS P. GROSS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KIMBERLY S. HERMANN JOHN J. PARK,JR. SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL Counsel of Record FOUNDATION STRICKLAND BROCKINGTON 2255 Sewell Mill Rd., LEWIS LLP Suite 320 1170 Peachtree St., Marietta, GA 30062 Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30309 (678) 347-2208 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae July 29, 2016 [Additional Counsel Listed On Signature Pages] ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner presents this Court with three questions, the first of which is: 1. In deciding what level of deference is due an agency’s interpretation when it predominantly inter- prets common law terms, five circuit courts of appeals have held no deference is
    [Show full text]
  • Creating an Environment for Permissionless Innovation
    TESTIMONY CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT FOR PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION Christopher Koopman Senior Director, Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University Senior Affiliated Scholar, Mercatus Center at George Mason University US Congress Joint Economic Committee Hearing: Breaking through the Regulatory Barrier: What Red Tape Means for the Innovation Economy May 22, 2018 Thank you, Chairman Paulsen, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the committee, for holding this hearing on this important topic. My name is Christopher Koopman. I am senior director at the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University and a senior affiliated scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. I am grateful for the invitation to discuss opportunities and challenges facing innovators and entrepreneurs in the United States, especially the role regulation is increasingly playing in the innovation economy. This issue parallels much of my work over the past five years, as well as other research projects being pursued at both the Center for Growth and Opportunity and the Mercatus Center. Any opinions I express today are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. The current regulatory environment is inimical to innovation. 1. The culture of “permissionless innovation,” which was responsible for much of the economic growth associated with the growth of the internet, is now being stifled by old regulatory regimes. 2. Continuing to apply these regimes is not only discouraging innovation, but pushing innovators to pursue better regulatory climates overseas. 3. Reforming the regulatory regime is necessary to continue to reap the benefits of innovation we experienced over the past 30 years.
    [Show full text]
  • How Sustainable Is the Sharing Economy? on the Sustainability Connotations of Sharing Economy Platforms
    Journal of Cleaner Production 206 (2019) 419e429 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms Andrea Geissinger a, b, Christofer Laurell c, d, Christina Oberg€ a, b, *, Christian Sandstrom€ b, e a Orebro€ University, School of Business, SE-701 82, Orebro,€ Sweden b The Ratio Institute, P.O. Box 3203, SE-103 64, Stockholm, Sweden c Stockholm School of Economics, P.O. Box 6501, SE-113 83, Stockholm, Sweden d Jonk€ oping€ University, P.O. Box 1026, SE-551 11, Jonk€ oping,€ Sweden e Sciences and Technology Studies, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96, Gothenburg, Sweden article info abstract Article history: The sharing economy has evolved and spread to various sectors of the economy. Its early idea linked to Received 1 December 2017 the creation of more sustainable uses of resources. Since then, the development of the sharing economy Received in revised form has included a professionalization with self-employed suppliers rather than peers, and the question is 31 March 2018 whether the platforms following this development maintain the focus on sustainability. This paper Accepted 24 September 2018 describes and classifies the sustainability connotation of sharing economy platforms. It analyses 121 Available online 25 September 2018 platforms derived through social media analytics to figure out whether they describe themselves as sustainable. The findings suggest that the sustainability connotation closely connects to specific sectors Keywords: Platform such as fashion, on-demand services and logistics. Meanwhile, the dominant role model platforms do not fi Sharing economy communicate about being sustainable.
    [Show full text]
  • Sdílená Ekonomika: Fakta a Mýty
    EKONOMICKO-SPRÁVNÍ FAKULTA Diplomová práce Sdílená ekonomika: fakta a mýty MGR. VLASTIMIL SLOVÁK Vedoucí práce: Ing. Michal struk, Ph.D. Obor: Veřejná ekonomika a správa Brno 2020 MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA Ekonomicko-správní fakulta MUNI Lipová 41a, 602 00 Brno IČ: 00216224 ECON DIČ: CZ00216224 Zadání diplomové práce Akademický rok: 2019/2020 Student: Mgr. Bc. Vlastimil Slovák Obor: Veřejná ekonomika a správa Název práce: Sdílená ekonomika: fakta a mýty Název práce anglicky: Shared economy: facts and myths Cíl práce, postup a použité metody: Problémová oblast: Práce se aktuálním konceptem sdílené ekonomiky, který představuje vý- znamný potenciál ve smyslu efektivnější alokace dostupných zdrojů. Práce se bude věnovat jak teoretickému popisu konceptu, tak i praktickým aplika- cím, včetně právních a společenských souvislostí. Cíl práce: Cílem diplomové práce popis vývoje a aktuálních trendů v oblasti konceptu sdílené ekonomiky, včetně identifikace a zobecnění příčin a okolností, které v praxi vedli jak k úspěšným, tak i neúspěšným realizacím daného koncep- tuje. Postup práce: 1) Autor popíše koncept sdílené ekonomiky, definuje pojem, popíše historii a podstatu sdílené ekonomiky. 2) Autor se zaměří na vztah mezi nástupem sdílené ekonomiky a změnami regulatorního prostředí a dále společenským a právním souvislostem. 3) Na základě relevantních zdrojů vybere autor odvětví sdílené ekonomiky s obvyklým výskytem případů sdílené ekonomiky. Autor následně popíše případy úspěšných ekonomických subjektů s konkrétními aplikacemi, které dokázaly využít tržní potenciál sdílené ekonomiky a taky případy subjektů, které tento potenciál rozvinout nedokázaly včetně analýzy příčin a okolností úspěchu a neúspěchu. 4) Na závěr autor provede zobecnění závěrů z analyzovaných případových studií. Rozsah grafických prací: Podle pokynů vedoucího práce Rozsah práce bez příloh: 60 – 80 stran Literatura: SUNDARARAJAN, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Reuse Explorations Guide Innovative Programs and Strategies
    Reuse Explorations Guide Innovative Programs and Strategies Written by Athena Lee Bradley and Mary Ann Remolador Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC) With funding from the Rural Utility Services, United States Department of Agriculture NERC is an equal opportunity provider and employer. August 2016 Acknowledgements The Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC) is a nonprofit organization that conducts projects in the eleven Northeast states, as well as around the country. Its mission is to promote sustainable materials management by supporting traditional and innovative solid waste best practices, focusing on waste prevention, toxics reduction, reuse, recycling and organics recovery. NERC received a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Utility Services for “Innovative Strategies & Best Management Practices for Implementing Reuse Programs in Rural Communities in New York State & the St. Regis Mohawk Nation.” Through the project NERC provided webinars, trainings, resources, and technical assistance. The following individuals and organizations provided invaluable and generous assistance in the development and implementation of the project. NERC would like to extend its appreciation to and acknowledge the following people who worked with NERC on reuse: • Jan M. Oatman, Regional Recycling Coordinator, Development Authority of the North Country • St. Lawrence County Reuse Partnership: John Tenbusch, St. Lawrence County Environmental Management Council; Larry Legault, Operations/Recycling Manager, St. Lawrence County Solid Waste Operations; Chelle Lindahl, Co-Coordinator, Local Living Venture; and, Jennifer Lauzon, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 6 • Larry Thompson, Recycling Coordinator, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (Akwesasne) • Catherine (Katie) Liendecker & others with Lyons Falls, New York and Lyons Falls Alive • MaryEllen Etienne, The Reuse Institute • Diane Cohen, Executive Director, Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Motivating Collaborative Consumption in Fashion: Consumer Benefits, Perceived Risks, Service Trust, and Usage Intention of Online Fashion Rental Services
    sustainability Article Motivating Collaborative Consumption in Fashion: Consumer Benefits, Perceived Risks, Service Trust, and Usage Intention of Online Fashion Rental Services Sae Eun Lee 1, Hye Jung Jung 2,* and Kyu-Hye Lee 1,* 1 Human-Tech Convergence Program, Department of Clothing and Textiles, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Korea; [email protected] 2 Da Vinci College of General Education, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Korea * Correspondence: [email protected] (H.J.J.); [email protected] (K.-H.L.) Abstract: This study explored the conceptual constructs of consumer benefits and perceived risks of online fashion rental services (Online FRS) and their impacts on usage intention towards Online FRS. The mediating roles of perceived risks and service trust were examined in this research. A survey was performed on female shoppers between the ages of 20–30 residing in a metropolitan area. Results of this research were as follows: (1) The results analyzing the sub-dimension of benefits (Reasonable cost, Wearing at right time, place and occasion (TPO), Space Saving, Entertaining, Product Variety, Style Conformity) and perceived risks (Financial, Performance, Social) clearly presented factorial structures. (2) Reasonable cost, Style Conformity, and Product Variety showed significantly positive influences on usage intentions towards online fashion rental services; in addition, Financial, Performance, and Social risks of rental services had a negative effect on usage intentions. (3) Service trust and consumer perceptions of Financial and Performance risks had important mediating roles in the relationship Citation: Lee, S.E.; Jung, H.J.; Lee, between consumer benefits and usage intentions towards Online FRS. This study highlighted that K.-H.
    [Show full text]
  • Entrepreneurial Resources on the Internet 2018
    Entrepreneurial Resources on the Internet 2018 By Marcus P. Zillman, M.S., A.M.H.A. Executive Director – Virtual Private Library [email protected] Entrepreneurial Resources on the Internet 2018 is a comprehensive listing of entrepreneurial resources and sites on the Internet. The below list of sources is taken from my Subject Tracer™ Information Blog titled Entrepreneurial Resources and is constantly updated with Subject Tracer™ bots at the following URL: http://www.EntrepreneurialResources.info/ These resources and sources will help you to discover the many pathways available through the Internet to find the latest entrepreneur resources and sites. As this site is constantly updated it would be to your benefit to bookmark and return to the above URL frequently. Figure 1: Entrepreneurial Resources 2018 Subject Tracer™ Information Blog 1 [Updated November 22, 2017] Entrepreneurial Resources On the Internet 2018 http://www.EntrepreneurialResources.info/ [email protected]/ eVoice: 800-858-1462 © 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 Marcus P. Zillman, M.S., A.M.H.A. Entrepreneurial Resources on the Internet 2018: 100 Search Engines http://www.100SearchEngines.com/ 101 Useful Resources for Online Entrepreneurs http://www.blogtrepreneur.com/2008/03/10/resources-for-online-entrepreneurs/ 101+ Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) Resources for Investigators http://i-sight.com/resources/101-osint-resources-for-investigators/ 123RF Royalty Free Digital Library http://www.123rf.com/ 15Five
    [Show full text]
  • Wheels up Analyst Day 2021 April 16, 2021
    Wheels Up Analyst Day 2021 April 16, 2021 Wheels Up – Analyst Day 2021, April 16, 2021 C O R P O R A T E P A R T I C I P A N T S Kenny Dichter, Founder and Chief Executive Officer Greg Greeley, Chairman of Marketplace Lee Applbaum, Chief Marketing Officer Francesca Molinari, Chief People Officer Jason Horowitz, Chief Business Officer Lieutenant General, U.S. Air Force, Retired, Thomas W. Bergeson, Chief Operating Officer Dan Crowe, Chief Information Officer and Executive Vice President, Digital Daniel Tharp, Chief Platform Officer Eric Jacobs, Chief Financial Officer P R E S E N T A T I O N Kenny Dichter Welcome, everybody to our first Analyst Day. I’m Kenny Dichter, Founder, CEO and Chairman of Wheels Up. Our remarks today will contain certain forward-looking statements. I refer you to the next two slides of this presentation for our cautionary statement. We have a deep agenda that our Senior Management team is going to take you through, and I believe you’re going to enjoy the deep dive into our Wheels Up business. Up next is our Wheels Up video. Enjoy. (Video presentation) I hope everybody enjoyed the video. The slide up on your screen is our dynamic, proven operational excellent Management team. I’m really proud of this team. Seven out of the 14 folk on the team have joined inside of a year. Of course, at the bottom of the screen we have our partners, Ravi, Mark and Lisa from Aspirational Consumer Lifestyle with some great LVMH, L Catterton experience in their backgrounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Sectoral Evolution and Shifting Service Delivery Models in the Sharing Economy
    Business Research (2020) 13:663–684 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00110-4 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Sectoral evolution and shifting service delivery models in the sharing economy 1 1 2 S. Mahmuda • T. Sigler • E. Knight • J. Corcoran1 Received: 29 November 2018 / Accepted: 9 March 2020 / Published online: 28 March 2020 Ó The Author(s) 2020 Abstract The rise of the sharing economy has had transformative impacts on extant service delivery models, with wide ranging implications for existing firms, regu- lators, and the workforce at large. This paper draws upon firm-level data to better understand how new forms of service delivery have accompanied the diffusion of the sharing economy. Unlike previous waves of technological innovation, sharing economy firms have emerged as digital intermediaries rather than direct service providers driven by shifting consumer practices and attitudes. We apply an inno- vation diffusion model to trace the development trajectory of the sharing economy across 1000 firms. Our model segments the evolution of the sharing economy into three distinct and overlapping phases, comprising an Embryonic Stage (1995–2008), an Early Growth Stage (2007–2015), and most recently a Late Growth Stage (2014– present). Analysis of the 1000 firms reveals that the sharing economy has rapidly gained momentum across all industry sectors, with its growth trajectory principally tied to the evolution of related financial and technological innovations paralleled by Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685- 020-00110-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. & S. Mahmuda [email protected] T.
    [Show full text]
  • Embracing the Peer-Production Economy
    Embracing the Peer-Production Economy Eli Lehrer and Andrew Moylan nthusiasts of the growing “peer-production” or “sharing” Eeconomy are convinced that the new decentralized, technology-based approach to connecting consumers and providers of services is going to revolutionize commerce and transform modern life. The true promise of this emerging sector — which has taken the form of ride-sharing apps like Uber, space-sharing platforms like Airbnb, work-sharing businesses like TaskRabbit, and a host of other emerging digital services — remains to be seen. But it is already becoming apparent that the sharing economy could have some significant political implications. The key political questions are to what extent peer-production ser- vices should be regulated and how. These are particularly challenging questions for the left. Taking an accommodating, hands-off approach to such regulation would appeal to the educated, young, urban con- sumers of such services who tend to be liberals, but it would run the risk of alienating core liberal constituencies like unions, trade guilds, and trial lawyers — not to mention undercutting the default progressive faith in the wisdom of the regulatory state. For the right, there is more opportunity than risk, but making the most of it would require finding a way to shape a free-market message that would appeal to the largely young, wealthy city-dwellers who use sharing services and for whom the broader conservative agenda is largely anathema. Managing the peer-production economy in a prudent fashion and standing up for its interests has the potential to pay huge political divi- dends for the party that does it best, but it will not be easy.
    [Show full text]