Dr. Mack's proposed law.

[Mafoo]

A friend of mine in Dallas works for a company that is based in Atlanta. He flies an airplane that would make the trip in about 4 hours. His company has told him that if he could bring one or two of his co-workers (he and his coworkers are directors) to monthly senior management meetings in Atlanta they would be willing to reimburse him for the expenses related to the use of his airplane in accordance with the GSA rate (it's a government contractor). He has told them that he cannot do so in compliance with 61.113(b)(2). He does not work for a big corporation. It is a small business. I think it is an outrage that he cannot use his private property for private benefit and I am sure there are tens of thousands of small businesses in this country who could benefit from this type of general aviation operation.

Sorry, but when you say it like that, is sounds an awful lot like the company is hiring your friend to fly some people around. Not sure I agree something like that should be allowed without a comercial license.

The above example is why the law is in place. If this was allowed, and your friend agreed to it, those two directors are being placed on a flight that they most likely feel the pilot is qualified for. There is an expected level of safety when you are told by your company that they have booked air travel for you.

 

[ronnieh]

I think you might be misinterpreting what Dr. Mack is saying. The person with the plane works for the company in question as does the two co workers. All three have a reason to be in Atlanta and they can come any way they want to including in a private airplane. However if the co workers are in the pilots plane he can not be reimbursed. This is the part of the law Dr. Mack wants changed.

In this particular situation it appears they will only reimburse if all three people attend the meetings. It appears they might be some pressure for the two co workers to fly in the private plane if the law were changed.

Dr. Mack, "tens of thousands?" really? Maybe just tens of businesses. I started this thread to try to get a feel of how many might benefit from this change. Does not seem to be much interest. JMO

 

[ChrisK]

I think you might be misinterpreting what Dr. Mack is saying. The person with the plane works for the company in question as does the two co workers. All three have a reason to be in Atlanta and they can come any way they want to including in a private airplane. However if the co workers are in the pilots plane he can not be reimbursed. This is the part of the law Dr. Mack wants changed.

In this particular situation it appears they will only reimburse if all three people attend the meetings. It appears they might be some pressure for the two co workers to fly in the private plane if the law were changed.

Dr. Mack, "tens of thousands?" really? Maybe just tens of businesses. I started this thread to try to get a feel of how many might benefit from this change. Does not seem to be much interest. JMO

My business partner and I would benefit from being able to travel to client sites together in an airplane i am flying, so yes, put me and another thousand like me on the list.

Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ronnieh]

If ya'll are business partners and own the company I think you can reimburse yourself under present laws. It is the third party that presents the problem. Anyway, I am sure Dr. Mack will give us the facts since I am not an expert in the interpretation of FAR's

 

[wabower]

In what type plane? What level of pilot experience and qualifications? Proficiency and recurrent training adequate for such a trip? Age and physical condition? Have you flown DAL-ATL frequently in a small plane? How many hours for the return flight? Traveling either way on the same day as the meetings?

FWIW, some railroad execs in FL probably had similar thoughts last week about meetings in Chicago. Their services are tomorrow.

A friend of mine in Dallas works for a company that is based in Atlanta. He flies an airplane that would make the trip in about 4 hours. His company has told him that if he could bring one or two of his co-workers (he and his coworkers are directors) to monthly senior management meetings in Atlanta they would be willing to reimburse him for the expenses related to the use of his airplane in accordance with the GSA rate (it's a government contractor). He has told them that he cannot do so in compliance with 61.113(b)(2). He does not work for a big corporation. It is a small business. I think it is an outrage that he cannot use his private property for private benefit and I am sure there are tens of thousands of small businesses in this country who could benefit from this type of general aviation operation.

 

[ChrisK]

If ya'll are business partners and own the company I think you can reimburse yourself under present laws. It is the third party that presents the problem. Anyway, I am sure Dr. Mack will give us the facts since I am not an expert in the interpretation of FAR's

Yeah I suppose I knew that

 

[n20junkie]

Tens of thousands?


Yea, like is said, to make low budget and dangerous wana be corporate flight departments with PPL's.


Legitimate uses? Maybe in the order of 100 pilots or so realistically.

 

[Mafoo]

I think you might be misinterpreting what Dr. Mack is saying. The person with the plane works for the company in question as does the two co workers. All three have a reason to be in Atlanta and they can come any way they want to including in a private airplane. However if the co workers are in the pilots plane he can not be reimbursed. This is the part of the law Dr. Mack wants changed.

In this particular situation it appears they will only reimburse if all three people attend the meetings. It appears they might be some pressure for the two co workers to fly in the private plane if the law were changed.

Dr. Mack, "tens of thousands?" really? Maybe just tens of businesses. I started this thread to try to get a feel of how many might benefit from this change. Does not seem to be much interest. JMO

I think the part that caused the red flag in my brain, was that the company is the one coming to the pilot, and asking him to take two coworkers with him.

If the company said to each person "get to Atlanta any way you want, and we will pay for it", and the two directors on there own made the choice to get there by flying with his friend, that would be cool. But the company asking him to fly two people seems very much like a pilot for hire to me.

 

[PilotAlan]

In the 31 years I've been working and flying, it wasn't until I became employed by a company involved in the manufacture of GA aircraft, engines, and propellers that use of private aircraft became banned.

Yep. I work for a company that builds fighter aircraft, and bans all forms of non-airline travel (expect for corporate aircraft, which they also build).
Ironic, because my current job requires travel to five area states every quarter, and a personal aircraft is perfect for my travel profile

So, I just upgraded to United Club (we also can only use corporate-contracted airlines, so spawn-of-the-devil-United is my only option).

 

[DrMack]

Sorry, but when you say it like that, is sounds an awful lot like the company is hiring your friend to fly some people around. Not sure I agree something like that should be allowed without a comercial license.

The above example is why the law is in place. If this was allowed, and your friend agreed to it, those two directors are being placed on a flight that they most likely feel the pilot is qualified for. There is an expected level of safety when you are told by your company that they have booked air travel for you.

All three of them are directors.

 

[Mafoo]

All three of them are directors.

It doesn't matter what position the pilot holds. The company is coming to him and asking him to fly others around for a fee.

That seems like it's the reason we have a comercial license in the first place.

 

[SkyHog]

Size of companies, number of companies, type of business?

My company gave the go ahead, provided I claim the standard mileage as if I had driven.

Don't want to name the company, but we are #302 on the fortune 500 list.

 

[Ted]

My company gave the go ahead, provided I claim the standard mileage as if I had driven.

Don't want to name the company, but we are #302 on the fortune 500 list.

What this means is that you're actually paying to do business travel.

I've set a personal policy that I will not do that unless there's a compelling personal benefit.

 

[DrMack]

I've set a personal policy that I will not do that unless there's a compelling personal benefit.

And that is why I include the common purpose clause in the proposed legislation.

 

[SkyHog]

What this means is that you're actually paying to do business travel.

I've set a personal policy that I will not do that unless there's a compelling personal benefit.

There is only one trip where this would work for me, and I figured out the numbers - actually winds up netting me money:

Winston-Salem, NC to Hilton Head, SC (one of our vendor locations)
By Car: 680 miles, 12 hour drive (Round Trip). Reimbursed $377.40
By airplane: 470.6nm, 5 hour flight (Round Trip). Actual Cost - about $360.

The difference: Actual cost of the flight is about $20 cheaper.

 

[DrMack]

There is only one trip where this would work for me, and I figured out the numbers - actually winds up netting me money:

Winston-Salem, NC to Hilton Head, SC (one of our vendor locations)
By Car: 680 miles, 12 hour drive (Round Trip). Reimbursed $377.40
By airplane: 470.6nm, 5 hour flight (Round Trip). Actual Cost - about $360.

The difference: Actual cost of the flight is about $20 cheaper.

You are neglecting the (7-hours) X ($value of your time) = lost opportunity cost which for professions like sales or senior management in any enterprise is not trivial.

 

[n20junkie]

7 hours? FYI your not worth that much.

Those that are have corporate flight crews and their own jets. Lets be real here.

 

[TMetzinger]

My previous job would benefit. I've taken rental planes on trips with co-workers on board before the opinion and had the company pay the bill.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

 

[DrMack]

7 hours? FYI your not worth that much.

Those that are have corporate flight crews and their own jets. Lets be real here.

While our individual seven hours (difference between flying and driving) may not be worth much, when we aggregate them over the entire economy it is not trivial.

 

[wabower]

How much money would you reckon I have lost in the whiz over my career?

While our individual seven hours (difference between flying and driving) may not be worth much, when we aggregate them over the entire economy it is not trivial.