Flying Your Aircraft for Business Purpose as an Employee of a Business

[poadeleted20]

AFAIK there is no law that says your expense reports with the company for driving reimbursement must jive with your IRS filings, as long as all cash flows are appropriately characterized and accounted for at the end of the day, to the IRS.

You aren't a CPA, are you? You might ask a CPA (especially one who specializes in taxes) about that -- I think you'll find your company expense reports can be used to hang you if they don't jibe with your personal income tax returns.

 

[poadeleted20]

First step for tort reform would be to remove the decision of award amount (er, I mean "just compensation") from manipulatable amateur juries to either the presiding judge or some professional panel (guided by law.)

Given the number of members of legislative bodies who have allegiances to the trial system (and are dependent directly or indirectly on those who get paid as a percentage of the judgment), I doubt that's going to happen even though I wish it would.

 

[poadeleted20]

You're lucky. Mine "forbids employees to use personally owned, rented, or borrowed aircraft (excluding approved charter services) for any activity on behalf of the Company, its Businesses, or subsidiaries," but allows for Preisdent/CEO approval for reputable charter services. Can I call myself a reputable charter service for myself?

Dunno -- do you have an FAA Part 135 commercial operating certificate? If not, I think their response would be

 

[dans2992]

I worked with a private company (family business) once that was almost bankrupted by a lawsuit resulting from one of their delivery drivers getting in a car accident.

He was going straight thru an intersection. Another car made a left turn directly in front of him. They had an infant, in the _front_ seat, not in a car seat, that was killed.

Somehow, the company was liable for this. God knows why....

 

[Somedudeintn]

So like I said earlier, I take it that all of these companies that prohibit using GA for business ALSO disallow said employee to use their own automobile, motorcycle, snowmobile, boat, ATV, etc???

If not, they how can they possibly single out GA over all the other forms of private transportation listed??

I believe my company also put an end to using a personal motorcycle for business use, but I will have to check to verify. Now to start drafting that letter to the CEO for when I buy my airplane....:wink2:

 

[beestforwardspeed]

I worked with a private company (family business) once that was almost bankrupted by a lawsuit resulting from one of their delivery drivers getting in a car accident.

He was going straight thru an intersection. Another car made a left turn directly in front of him. They had an infant, in the _front_ seat, not in a car seat, that was killed.

Somehow, the company was liable for this. God knows why....

A PERFECT example that is it utterly silly to think they is somehow less liability for an accident because it in an automobile vs a GA aircraft.

When was the last time you heard of non-occupants being killed in a GA crash???

It is so rare, it might as well be statistical noise.

They normally make such prohibitions on the use of aircraft only on company business, not all personal use (personal use prohibitions generally being limited to high level executives with big corporate key-man insurance policies). However, given the way juries react, they (and their insurers) know that involvement in a private aircraft accident on company time is likely to be far more expensive than involvement with a ground vehicle accident on company time. It is an irrefutable truth that juries tend to view light planes as inherently dangerous (making a finding of liability more likely), and award higher damages when third party injuries result. As such, this is a cost/benefit-based business decision which cannot reasonably be carried over to private ground vehicles for travel on company business.

If by "not OK" you mean you disagree with it, I can't argue. But it most definitely falls within the legal and generally accepted business practice boundaries.

The issue is not liability alone, but the financial risk involved, and as I said above, the numbers exist to show that the financial risks are demonstrably higher. The question, then, is whether the company feels the benefits are worth the risk, and that's the sort of decision corporate executives get to make for their own companies.

What are you talking about??? OF COURSE its solely liability! Financial risk IS liability, but you are parsing words by calling it 2 different things. Otherwise, (as many posters have shown) utilizing GA in many instances SAVES the company money.

And you'll cover the employee's financial losses if s/he gets fired for trying "don't ask, don't tell"? I doubt it.

C'mon Ron. Are you serious man? You normally ask intelligent questions, even if I disagree with you, but this is just laughably beyond the pale.

 

[Palmpilot]

Those fender benders at slower speeds are still adding to the mileage total which dilutes the picture and a butt load of miles are piled up every day at slow speeds in major cities.

Driving at slower speeds adds some to the mileage totals; fender benders do not.

There's a vast difference in death risk between driving 20 miles a day by doing it at 30 mph through a city (like where I live in DC/metro area) and driving 20 miles a day on a highway at 75mph.

Same for GA. There's a vast risk difference between VMC in a fixed gear single in the south and IMC in a twin in Alaska.

The only point is, all these "per mile" estimates are almost useless to judging individual risk within a given situation. As a pilot, you can mediate a lot of risk built into the statistics just by what type of plane you fly, conditions, terrain, etc.

BTW, the 5x more dangerous stat is actually conservative. I've seen studies say 16x more dangerous then driving. In reality, it's either a lot more dangerous then that or a lot less dangerous, as flying has so many more variables you can actively adjust vs. driving to mitigate risk.


My argument had nothing to do with persuading anyone. It was my opinion of how variable the situation is for the benefit of our discussion.

I was discussing how companies make decisions about the kinds of travel they allow on company business, in response to CoopAir's post. I didn't realize that you were discussing a different subject.

But to play off your post, maybe you could just point out the # of GA fatalities that include IMC flight, twin engine planes, and HP airplanes...all things you could presumably agree to not take part in fairly easily.

If I had that information, I would be happy to point it out, but I don't.

 

[ggroves]

Companies would save money by utilizing GA.

Myth perpetrated by pilots who don't want to keep their hobby and work life separated.

There are very, very few real life situations where this is true.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bonchie]

Driving at slower speeds adds some to the mileage totals; fender benders do not.

Not all driving is created equal. The mileage total statistics are misleading and lack context. That was the point. You cited them. I was just commenting on their flaws. I wasn't disagreeing with anything, just using your post to point that out.

I was discussing how companies make decisions about the kinds of travel they allow on company business, in response to CoopAir's post. I didn't realize that you were discussing a different subject.

See above. Sorry it offended you.

If I had that information, I would be happy to point it out, but I don't.

That information is public domain.

 

[dans2992]

Myth perpetrated by pilots who don't want to keep their hobby and work life separated.

There are very, very few real life situations where this is true.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The most common way is when a GA flight allows avoiding a hotel stay. But other than that, yes it is rare.

 

[mercurial]

No one's irreplaceable.

Especially after you just cost the company a few million dollars in a lawsuit they didn't know they were at risk for. If you were flying for business when you had an accident, the company is likely to still be on the hook for liability even if you were doing it without their knowledge and in violation of their policy, I'll bet---though that one might be for a jury to decide. At that point, don't expect to still be working for them.

True enough, but if I'm in a big accident in a plane that causes several million in damages, I likely have bigger things to worry about than my job.

 

[Palmpilot]

See above. Sorry it offended you.

No offense taken.

That information is public domain.

That's like saying, "The needle is in that haystack over there"!

 

[poadeleted20]

Y'all can have any opinion you want about these issues, but the facts are:

1. Companies don't have to allow their employees to do anything they want.
2. Companies have the authority to ban the use of airplanes while allowing the use of private vehicles, and many companies do just that.

If your company is one of those, you either convince your company that the benefit is greater than the risk, or else you don't fly your plane on company business unless you are willing to get fired if caught at it. Arguing about it here is pretty much pointless.