Business Travel

[gprellwitz]

In the past, the company for whom I work has been willing to reimburse me for business travel based on the lowest commercial airfair for the destination. This time, I had a colleague who would be flying with me one way, and I made the mistake, at my manager's suggestion, of determining the best way of putting in the reimbursement prior to the trip. You guessed it. We have a new "interim" controller who decided to rethink the entire thing, talk with the insurance company, and decide that, horror of horrors, we had best not reimburse the pilot anything, lest we make ourselves liable. Of course, should I need to use my fallback in case of weather and drive it, they'll reimburse me based on the lowest commercial airfair for the destination. Argh! And it now looks as if I'll be taking TWO colleagues on the trip, instead of just one, albeit one way, as I'm returning later than they are. I just won't get reimbursed for it! (Not that the commercial fare made up more than a fraction of my cost to rent, of course.) I'm certainly not in this to make a profit or even come out even, but come on, a little help would be appreciated!

Why is the liability of someone flying themselves any more than the liability of someone driving themselves?

Just me venting a bit.

 

[ScottM]

Why is the liability of someone flying themselves any more than the liability of someone driving themselves?
.

I have asked that question of HR departments before and it causes them to have an internal blood vessel breakage because they cannot come up with a reason.

 

[Anthony]

Its all because of ignorance and emotion.

 

[steingar]

Its because cars are not lightening rods for lawsuits.

 

[flyersfan31]

You know how dangerous those little planes are. You could crash into an elementary school.

 

[Bob Noel]

One time I put in for "POV" miles. After all, it was a Personally Owned Vehicle...

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I would like to review the successful lawsuits involving business travel with light a/c by employees. Can someone send me a link to such info?

 

[Everskyward]

Our situation may be slightly different because I work for an aviation company but there have been people here who were reimbursed for the cost of an airline ticket for flying their own small airplane to recurrent.

 

[SCCutler]

Its because cars are not lightening rods for lawsuits.

Yes they are. Nearly every motor vehicle accident which occurs yields a letter of representation, and either a settlement from the carrier or a suit.

 

[JeffDG]

You may want to rethink taking a colleague of yours along on business trips that you both fly yourself and receive expense reimbursement for:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...erpretations/data/interps/2009/Mangiamele.pdf

In regard to whether you may seek reimbursement from your employer for transporting your colleagues, since you are transporting people to the meeting, the allowance for the flight to be conducted for compensation or hire (i.e., reimbursement) under 61.113(b) does not apply.

 

[AdamZ]

Why is the liability of someone flying themselves any more than the liability of someone driving themselves?

Just me venting a bit.

Grant you fool don't you know that if you die in a plane crash you are much more deceased than if you die in an automobile crash? Sheesh!

Yes they are. Nearly every motor vehicle accident which occurs yields a letter of representation, and either a settlement from the carrier or a suit.

Yikes thats sad. Not really the case here thankfully.

 

[dmccormack]

I've been trhough this and it didn't end up in GA favor.



After doing a few flights via rented Archers, the Hr department sent out a letter to entire company (email attachment) as a addition to policy:

No private flying.

When I (the only active pilot in the company of 45) asked why, the response was "Our attorney said it exposes us to too much liability -- what if you crash into a school?"

I did the whole reasonable response thing -- no dice.

 

[mikegreen]

I fly, expense the mileage as if I drove it and never share how I got there.

I have never asked if I could expense it -but sure the answer is no...

regards,

Mike

 

[dmccormack]

I fly, expense the mileage as if I drove it and never share how I got there.

I have never asked if I could expense it -but sure the answer is no...

regards,

Mike

If the company finds out, they will likely terminate immediately, if they fear liability exposure.

Though this might be the only way. A good cover is to fly on a weekend and have another purpose for your trip. That way if anything untoward should occur, the company is not directly liable.

"He was flying to Virginia Beach to swim in the ocean!"

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Definitely a case where asking forgiveness is much better (assuming the topic never came up at the office before, and was not in written policy somewhere).

 

[steingar]

I think there was at least one company that lost a suit whose basis was that most companies don't allow their employees to fly themselves on business trips, and they did. The flying was totally optional. The suit was based on the fact that the company didn't actually prohibit it. I cannot come up with any specifics, though.

 

[JeffDG]

I think there was at least one company that lost a suit whose basis was that most companies don't allow their employees to fly themselves on business trips, and they did. The flying was totally optional. The suit was based on the fact that the company didn't actually prohibit it. I cannot come up with any specifics, though.

Well, my company's pretty clear...right in the travel policy:

Use of personal aircraft for Company travel is prohibited.

 

[dmccormack]

Well, my company's pretty clear...right in the travel policy:

The company can forgo reimbursing you, and would probably counter-sue your estate if you were flying to a sales meeting and everybody knew you were departing location A to get to B where business was scheduled.

 

[flyersfan31]

When I (the only active pilot in the company of 45) asked why, the response was "Our attorney said it exposes us to too much liability -- what if you crash into a school?"
:

And here I thought I was making a joke.

 

[ScottM]

Well, my company's pretty clear...right in the travel policy:

That is what my old company's policy is now. It used to be "reimbursement for private aircraft travel is not allowed." That was until I used my private aircraft for travel and they freaked out. I did not try to get reimbursed for it but my boss was uneasy with my decision and pushed for a clearer policy.

 

[AdamZ]

Well, my company's pretty clear...right in the travel policy:Use of personal aircraft for Company travel is prohibited.

That is what my old company's policy is now. It used to be "reimbursement for private aircraft travel is not allowed." That was until I used my private aircraft for travel and they freaked out. I did not try to get reimbursed for it but my boss was uneasy with my decision and pushed for a clearer policy.

Well I guess you could play the sematics game with the first statement. No Mr. Bean Counter it was not my personal aircraft ...............under your breath "I rented it"

 

[SCCutler]

Ignorance is a powerful force. Insurance companies will routinely delete the private aircraft restriction if asked by a reasonably capable broker. The risk is not substantial, and qualified underwriters know this. It is a competitive market.

I know of one engineering concern which not only did not preclude GA travel - they encouraged their engineers to learn to fly, and purchased aircraft for the use of senior engineers. The company thrived, ultimately being sold for a very large sum of money. Irony abounds: the new owner eliminated the aircraft and the policy encouraging GA travel, and lost most of the best engineers as a result (they had also each gotten a very large payday with the sale, as the prior principal also believed heavily in employee ownership and had shared ownership generously).

Many of the former engineers are very successful independents, often competing with the former employer.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I work for a Teledyne division. Shortly before the sale of Teledyne Continental was made public, we got an e-mail prohibiting use of private aircraft, or piloting an airplane, for corporate travel. I wondered how TCM was going to test new engine ideas...then I found out.

 

[gprellwitz]

You may want to rethink taking a colleague of yours along on business trips that you both fly yourself and receive expense reimbursement for:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...erpretations/data/interps/2009/Mangiamele.pdf

Thanks for the reference, Jeff. There are some nuances there that I hadn't previously considered. Here's a slightly expanded version of your quote from that letter:

In regard to whether you may seek reimbursement from your employer for transporting your colleagues, since you are transporting people to the meeting, the allowance for the flight to be conducted for compensation or hire (i.e., reimbursement) under 61.113(b) does not apply. The exception in paragraph (b) allows you to use your private pilot certificate only for compensation or hire if the operation is incidental to your employment and you are not transporting other passengers or property. Thus, because you are transporting people to the meeting, you may not seek reimbursement from your employer for this flight under 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(b).

You also question, in regard to this scenario, whether § 61.113( c) would allow for you to seek the same expense reimbursement from your employer that you sought in the first scenario. It is important to note that section § 61.113( c) allows a private pilot to seek reimbursement only from his or her fellow passengers, not a third party, such as your employer. As noted in the preamble of the final rule, the FAA determined that a private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of operating expenses for the flight because "if pilots pay less, they would not just be sharing expenses but would actually be flying for compensation or hire." 62 Fed. Reg. 16220, 16263 (Apr. 4, 1997). Further, the FAA has consistently interpreted § 61.113( c) to allow for "share-the-cost operations" for only those operations which are "bona fide, i.e., joint ventures for a common purpose." See Legal Interpretation 1985-26, Letter from John H. Cassady, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division, to Thomas H. Chero (Dec. 26, 1985) (recognizing there is no common purpose if the pilot is flying and transporting passengers to a destination where he or she has no particular business to conduct."); see also Legal Interpretation dated Nov. 19, 2008, Letter from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, to Peter Bunce. Thus, in the second scenario, you may only seek reimbursement for the operating expenses of the flight from your passengers, provided you pay your own pro rata share of the operating expenses, and you all share a common purpose, such as attending the business meeting.

So it looks as if the § 61.113(b) exemption would be inapplicable. However, were I to receive monies only from my colleagues directly and not the company and I was paying my pro rata share, then it would fall under the common purpose clause. It's a moot point in any case, since the company won't reimburse me and I'm not intending to share the expenses, but it's good to know should the company ever change their mind.

Oh, and a second colleague has asked to fly on the trip with me! Hopefully, they'll both be turned onto flying!

 

[denverpilot]

I work for a Teledyne division. Shortly before the sale of Teledyne Continental was made public, we got an e-mail prohibiting use of private aircraft, or piloting an airplane, for corporate travel. I wondered how TCM was going to test new engine ideas...then I found out.

That right there is a great reason to seriously look at hanging something different than a TCM engine on the front of the 182 when it comes time to rebuild... ahem, upgrade I mean.

That level of brain damage doesn't amaze me any more from Korporate Amerika, but it surely does **** me off.

When you choose to be owned and operated by your lawyers... and vote almost all lawyers into Congress... you reap what you sow.

 

[AdamZ]

Thanks for the reference, Jeff. There are some nuances there that I hadn't previously considered. Here's a slightly expanded version of your quote from that letter:
So it looks as if the § 61.113(b) exemption would be inapplicable. However, were I to receive monies only from my colleagues directly and not the company and I was paying my pro rata share, then it would fall under the common purpose clause. It's a moot point in any case, since the company won't reimburse me and I'm not intending to share the expenses, but it's good to know should the company ever change their mind.

Oh, and a second colleague has asked to fly on the trip with me! Hopefully, they'll both be turned onto flying!

So here is the insanity of all this. ( Assuming your company would let you fly yourself and reimburse you) The FAA allows you to seek and accept reimbursement for the cost of flying yourself to the business meeting but will not allow you to do so if you fly your colleauges as well EVEN THOUGH the cost is the same, Your rental costs don't increase, your fuel costs may increase marginally but for the most part your not increasing costs and your not asking for more money.

Many years a go I had court appearances away and wanted to fly. it would take me 3 hours to drive and 45 min to fly. I bill by the hour and even if my firm reimbursed me the cost of the flight and paid my hourly rate and billed that to the client they were making out better than if I drove so it made sense. The client's representative had to make the same trip and didn't want to waste 6 hrs on the road himself so now I have to leave him on the ground and tell him I'll meet him up there. It wouldn't increase the cost or my reimbursement one cent to take him it would only make his life easier.

This is really something AOPA needs to work on IMHO.

 

[SkyHog]

I have a lot of trips coming up to Louisville and Hilton Head, and I'll be flying myself. I have no desire to take a commercial flight or drive that short distance, so whatever.

If my company prohibits it, I'll just find a reason to be there those weekends personally and fly myself for that reason (and do work while I just happen to be there).

The benefit of being here is that I'm actually close enough to my business trips for this to be an option. From Santa Fe, every trip I would have taken took me all the way out to the east coast.

 

[JeffDG]

Well I guess you could play the sematics game with the first statement. No Mr. Bean Counter it was not my personal aircraft ...............under your breath "I rented it"

The sentence before that prohibits Charter Aircraft without specific written approval of an EVP/SVP level officer.

 

[JeffDG]

Thanks for the reference, Jeff. There are some nuances there that I hadn't previously considered. Here's a slightly expanded version of your quote from that letter:
So it looks as if the § 61.113(b) exemption would be inapplicable. However, were I to receive monies only from my colleagues directly and not the company and I was paying my pro rata share, then it would fall under the common purpose clause. It's a moot point in any case, since the company won't reimburse me and I'm not intending to share the expenses, but it's good to know should the company ever change their mind.

Oh, and a second colleague has asked to fly on the trip with me! Hopefully, they'll both be turned onto flying!

Here's what it permits:
If the two of you travel, you can receive 1/2 the costs from your buddy. He's free to seek reimbursement through whatever channels. Of course, if you take two people then you need to pony up 1/3 yourself.

You, however, cannot be, in any way, reimbursed for the other half (or third). You cannot be "on the clock" being paid for your time either, as that type of thing is covered under the 61.113(b) exception. Oh, and if you travel somewhere and are reimbursed by the company, and you bring your wife along, you're also outside the exception. Finally, again if your company does reimburse you, better not carry parts or samples with you, as that would be carrying "property" for hire. I think you can get away with tools that you intend to keep and bring back with you, however.

This letter is nearly an "arbitrary and capricious" interpretation of the regulation (I only say "nearly" because I'm not sure enough to violate it and have a court rule it so)...plus my company won't even let me try!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You may want to rethink taking a colleague of yours along on business trips that you both fly yourself and receive expense reimbursement for:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...erpretations/data/interps/2009/Mangiamele.pdf

It sounds to me like they were answering that question with the assumption that there was no common purpose, and that the pilot was making the trip solely to transport the colleagues.

In Grant's case, he has common purpose.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Finally, again if your company does reimburse you, better not carry parts or samples with you, as that would be carrying "property" for hire. I think you can get away with tools that you intend to keep and bring back with you, however.

You can also carry things that you have to be there to install. For example, a new computer system that you're going to install, you can carry - But if you just take the box and drop it off at the door for them to install, you're hosed.

 

[gismo]

In the past, the company for whom I work has been willing to reimburse me for business travel based on the lowest commercial airfair for the destination. This time, I had a colleague who would be flying with me one way, and I made the mistake, at my manager's suggestion, of determining the best way of putting in the reimbursement prior to the trip. You guessed it. We have a new "interim" controller who decided to rethink the entire thing, talk with the insurance company, and decide that, horror of horrors, we had best not reimburse the pilot anything, lest we make ourselves liable. Of course, should I need to use my fallback in case of weather and drive it, they'll reimburse me based on the lowest commercial airfair for the destination. Argh! And it now looks as if I'll be taking TWO colleagues on the trip, instead of just one, albeit one way, as I'm returning later than they are. I just won't get reimbursed for it! (Not that the commercial fare made up more than a fraction of my cost to rent, of course.) I'm certainly not in this to make a profit or even come out even, but come on, a little help would be appreciated!

Why is the liability of someone flying themselves any more than the liability of someone driving themselves?

Just me venting a bit.

CFOs and comptrollers seem to universally be of the mindset that "small airplanes" == unmanageable risk. Have yours look into the coverage and protection afforded the company by the existing Workers Compensation policy and related laws.

At the company I used to work for we went through several different policies on employee flown aircraft used in business. At first it was allowed with no restrictions for a few years, then we got a new CEO who was afraid to fly on the airlines and deathly afraid of "little airplanes that crash into school yards all the time" and all such flying was banned. But after 9/11 I convinced him that by making me fly on airlines when I could pilot myself he was exposing me to risks I could avoid and solo flight was once again allowed. Then we got another new CEO who asked the CFO to actually check what the company's insurance would cover and he found out they were covered as long as the pilot held a commercial certificate or higher rating and I was able to make several more flights carrying other (willing) employees. Ironically that ended when the company founder and original CEO took up flying himself. Somehow the BoD got involved and decreed that the founder (who only had a PPL) would be allowed to fly his Cirrus on business but no one else in the company could do the same thing in their own airplane, go figure.

 

[gprellwitz]

It sounds to me like they were answering that question with the assumption that there was no common purpose, and that the pilot was making the trip solely to transport the colleagues.

In Grant's case, he has common purpose.

Kent, I'm not sure that's true. When I read the letter, I noted they said "The exception in paragraph (b) allows you to use your private pilot certificate only for compensation or hire if the operation is incidental to your employment and you are not transporting other passengers or property." Going to a conference certainly meets the "incidental" clause, but taking coworkers makes the second clause false.

Now, however, the common purpose does bring me into the pro rata share portion of the regulation, where I think I would fit as long as the passengers are reimbursing me directly. As you say, there's certainly no question about there being a common purpose.

 

[Ted]

I work for a Teledyne division. Shortly before the sale of Teledyne Continental was made public, we got an e-mail prohibiting use of private aircraft, or piloting an airplane, for corporate travel. I wondered how TCM was going to test new engine ideas...then I found out.

Testing of engines is different than travel for business purposes, and the two policies are probably unrelated. Also, they may contract out the actual flight responsibilities to professional test pilots. They certainly would want to limit who was flying the plane and not allow an experimental engine design to be flown by employees for corporate travel. If nothing else, there would likely be some pretty significant restrictions about it being VFR only for the first bunch of testing.

Everyone needs to decide what line they'll draw with their company regarding use of GA for business travel. I would make sure you get reimbursed something, though. It's fair for the company to only want to reimburse you up to the cheapest other option unless there's a compelling reason why GA saves enough time and time = money. It's not fair for the company to not have to pay any of your travel expenses, and you effectively making a donation to the company in the form of not making them pay for your travel.

 

[poadeleted20]

The company can forgo reimbursing you, and would probably counter-sue your estate if you were flying to a sales meeting and everybody knew you were departing location A to get to B where business was scheduled.

If the company knows you're flying on company business and doesn't stop you, I suspect they will be just as liable for any third party injuries or damage whether they reimburse you or not.

 

[poadeleted20]

So it looks as if the § 61.113(b) exemption would be inapplicable. However, were I to receive monies only from my colleagues directly and not the company and I was paying my pro rata share, then it would fall under the common purpose clause.

Let's be clear -- under this clause, while your passengers can accept reimbursement from the company for their shares of the cost of the flight, you cannot, and will have to be out of pocket for your share (although you should still be able to claim it on your taxes as an "unreimbursed business expense").

 

[poadeleted20]

This is really something AOPA needs to work on IMHO.

They are. They either recently did or are about to send a protest letter to the Chief Counsel's office on this and a few other bizarre interpretations from the last year or two.

 

[poadeleted20]

It sounds to me like they were answering that question with the assumption that there was no common purpose, and that the pilot was making the trip solely to transport the colleagues.

In Grant's case, he has common purpose.

Actually, the interpretation ignores common purpose completely in that case, and that's the legal flaw in the argument which AOPA Legal is pointing out to them. However, for the moment, even if there is common purpose, the Chief Counsel's position is that a private pilot cannot accept any reimbursement from the company for a business flight if anyone other than the employee/pilot is aboard.

 

[JesseD]

Thanks for the reference, Jeff. There are some nuances there that I hadn't previously considered. Here's a slightly expanded version of your quote from that letter:
So it looks as if the § 61.113(b) exemption would be inapplicable. However, were I to receive monies only from my colleagues directly and not the company and I was paying my pro rata share, then it would fall under the common purpose clause. It's a moot point in any case, since the company won't reimburse me and I'm not intending to share the expenses, but it's good to know should the company ever change their mind.

Oh, and a second colleague has asked to fly on the trip with me! Hopefully, they'll both be turned onto flying!

Hmm, this brings up a salient point for me. My wife and I are in a joint company (consulting) and swap off which one goes long distance on a contract.

When she's the one going to, let's say NY, NY if I flew her, we'd still be able to expense that, I think. The accountant is looking at that.

Would that break any FAR's? The airplane would be owned by the Corp, and figure a minimum of 13 weeks a year of 6 hrs or more for pure business travel 2-3 hours each way, twice that if I'm flying the wife. Flying myself shouldn't be a problem.

Flying the wife, might that fall under some weird interpretation of the compensation rule?

 

[Ghery]

Why is the liability of someone flying themselves any more than the liability of someone driving themselves?

Beats me. Probably the "if you have an accident in the car, nobody notices. If you have an accident in the plane it makes the front page" argument.

I have asked that question of HR departments before and it causes them to have an internal blood vessel breakage because they cannot come up with a reason.

I had this discussion with our risk management folks and it basically came down to "that is what it says in the regulations because that is what it says in the regulations". Unless, of course, the GA aircraft had tail numbers that line up with our shuttle fleet (1 B-1900 and several ERJ-135s).