Jump to content

Chester CO PA (KMQS) Breakfast on Sat 6th

GeorgePerry

By GeorgePerry
in Miscellaneous Aviation Talk

 Share

Recommended Posts

Marauder Grand Master

Marauder

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, GeorgePerry said:

Some of the crew from AOPA is planning on flying into KMQS on Saturday 6 Feb. 2016  Weather is supposed to be nice.  I'll be there with my M20S.  If any other Mooney drivers want to come out for breakfast, I'd be great to see you there. 

Plan is to land around 0900 and get Breakfast at the Flying Machine Cafe

 

http://www.chestercountyairport.com/

Chester CO.jpg

I'll try to make it up from N57.

  • Like 1
GeorgePerry Veteran

GeorgePerry

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Marauder said:

And would have thought an F was faster than an S? emoji57.png

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If I said headwinds would you believe me? Great having breakfast w you Marauder!

  • Like 1
GeorgePerry Veteran

GeorgePerry

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Marauder said:

Same here George. I'm renewing my expired membership just because of you.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's great news!  I really liked hearing what you thought AOPA could do better.  I agree with you!  The "pre-Baker" years were tough.  But there's been a lot of positive change in the past 24 months.  

Any time issues come up or you have a question, like the things you and I discussed this morning, please let me know.  And that goes for all the folks on MooneySpace.  If your an AOPA member, I (and everyone at AOPA) work for you!  

The new leadership within AOPA understands that.   Doing right by our members and providing the best Media, Safety content and Advocacy efforts along with personal service it what we are committed to do going forward.

  • Like 5
takair Grand Master

takair

Posted
Posted

George,

Speaking of advocacy, what can be done about large corporations adverse reaction toward GA.  I know it is related to liability, but imagine the growth that might happen if those who worked for large corporations, many are large aerospace corporations, could use their aircraft for appropriate travel.  I suspect there is a correlation to the decrease in GA to this issue.  I personally know many folks who would become pilots or owners if they could see more practical issues of their aircraft than just burger runs. Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with a burger run, but a day trip for work would be especially nice.

Rob

carusoam Grand Master

carusoam

Posted
Posted

Good point, Rob.  

George I think Rob's point is something like this...

I have had the experience of having the corporate travel rules change from no issues to needing an IR to needing a commercial license.  

Recently I saw somebody post the IRS guidance on the appropriate and acceptable reimbursement costs for GA travel.  Indicating that it is normal to actually use a plane for business travel and expense it properly.

Traveling by Mooney is similar in costs to driving.  But it is imperfect to use driving costs in place of the actual flight costs.

I think that it could be helpful for AOPA to write a piece on how to best handle the proper expense reporting that would work for pilots.  This would help a pilot when interpreting the, sometimes onerous, expense reporting guidelines that a company has randomly put in place.

The FAA has rules for when a PIC can carry passengers.

The IRS has rules of how to reimburse real expenses.

The insurance company covers the possible loss.

Is it possible that 'don't ask, don't tell' is the best plan for using an GA airplane when traveling for work?

We have AOPA to help us understand all of these together.  It would be nice to have the guidance to use the plane just as we would use a personal automobile for business.

The best company to work for has a PP at the top of the chain.  They often intentionally leave the door open in the corporate expense report system.

 

Sorry I missed you guys.  It takes me at least a week to do the preparation for a short flight.  This one had too much snow involved.

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 1
takair Grand Master

takair

Posted
Posted

George,

Will send you a note.  Anthony is close, but it goes beyond purely expenses, it is a full restriction against using personal aircraft for travel.

Marauder Grand Master

Marauder

Posted
Posted
George,

Will send you a note.  Anthony is close, but it goes beyond purely expenses, it is a full restriction against using personal aircraft for travel.

What Rob is referring to is restrictions placed on using GA in your work. When I worked for HP, you could fly your plane to customer sites. Then they shifted to requiring an IFR rating, then requiring an IPC every 6 months, then a $5M liability policy made out to them. Most of us just stop flying for work.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
takair Grand Master

takair

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Marauder said:

What Rob is referring to is restrictions placed on using GA in your work. When I worked for HP, you could fly your plane to customer sites. Then they shifted to requiring an IFR rating, then requiring an IPC every 6 months, then a $5M liability policy made out to them. Most of us just stop flying for work.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's exactly right.  This also happens to be a great target audience for GA.  They have the means, the need and the technical savvy in most cases.  Want to grow GA, bring it back to corporate America, not just the top 1% of corporate America, but to the average middle class person who could really benefit.

  • Like 2
Danb Grand Master

Danb

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, carusoam said:

Good point, Rob.  

George I think Rob's point is something like this...

I have had the experience of having the corporate travel rules change from no issues to needing an IR to needing a commercial license.  

Recently I saw somebody post the IRS guidance on the appropriate and acceptable reimbursement costs for GA travel.  Indicating that it is normal to actually use a plane for business travel and expense it properly.

Traveling by Mooney is similar in costs to driving.  But it is imperfect to use driving costs in place of the actual flight costs.

I think that it could be helpful for AOPA to write a piece on how to best handle the proper expense reporting that would work for pilots.  This would help a pilot when interpreting the, sometimes onerous, expense reporting guidelines that a company has randomly put in place.

The FAA has rules for when a PIC can carry passengers.

The IRS has rules of how to reimburse real expenses.

The insurance company covers the possible loss.

Is it possible that 'don't ask, don't tell' is the best plan for using an GA airplane when traveling for work?

We have AOPA to help us understand all of these together.  It would be nice to have the guidance to use the plane just as we would use a personal automobile for business.

The best company to work for has a PP at the top of the chain.  They often intentionally leave the door open in the corporate expense report system.

 

Sorry I missed you guys.  It takes me at least a week to do the preparation for a short flight.  This one had too much snow involved.

Best regards,

-a-

I would Google Aopa IRS flying expense deductions,business travel etc. the Aopa has over the years written some very good articles re.deductibility of using our airplanes and deductibility. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the articles simply stating they are present and have valuable content, I feel the Aopa has done a fine job in this area.

  • Like 1
GeorgePerry Veteran

GeorgePerry

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 2/6/2016 at 1:55 PM, takair said:

George,

Speaking of advocacy, what can be done about large corporations adverse reaction toward GA.  I know it is related to liability, but imagine the growth that might happen if those who worked for large corporations, many are large aerospace corporations, could use their aircraft for appropriate travel.  I suspect there is a correlation to the decrease in GA to this issue.  I personally know many folks who would become pilots or owners if they could see more practical issues of their aircraft than just burger runs. Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with a burger run, but a day trip for work would be especially nice.

Rob

Rob

That's a tough one.  When it comes to individual corporate T&I policy it's really up to the company.  AOPA could certainly write about the issue and show the positives associated with GA travel for business but if I'm honest there's a limit to what AOPA can do to influence the way business leaders decide to run their companies.  Like it or not we live in a litigious time.  Lawyers often dictate what employees can and can not do based on the risks of a lawsuit.  

I'll bring this up with the AOPA Pilot Magazine publishers and see if this is something we can write on.  I'll let you know what happens...

George

Bob_Belville Grand Master

Bob_Belville

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, GeorgePerry said:

Rob

That's a tough one.  When it comes to individual corporate T&I policy it's really up to the company.  AOPA could certainly write about the issue and show the positives associated with GA travel for business but if I'm honest there's a limit to what AOPA can do to influence the way business leaders decide to run their companies.  Like it or not we live in a litigious time.  Lawyers often dictate what employees can and can not do based on the risks of a lawsuit.  

I'll bring this up with the AOPA Pilot Magazine publishers and see if this is something we can write on.  I'll let you know what happens...

George

George, what I think we're looking for in this matter is advocacy, not with the IRS or the FAA but with the companies who let their lawyers run their policies. What if AOPA's legal eagles told management that the corp should reduce potential risk by prohibiting employees, e.g. George Perry, from using their personal plane while on company business? 

If that's absurd for AOPA why is it? If AOPA can overrule their lawyers why can't XYZ International? What sort of white paper can your marketing folks put together to help. Safety stats, insurance considerations, productivity considerations, testimonials... can we get some ammunition to help justify changes? One would think that the corner office folks who have a flight department at their beck and call should be naturally sympathetic to employee/pilots. 

Surely pilots as a class make superior employees. Why would a progressive company punish their present staff and hinder their recruiting by an antagonistic policy? I see an analogy to hiring vets. Just good business.  

  • Like 1
GeorgePerry Veteran

GeorgePerry

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

George, what I think we're looking for in this matter is advocacy, not with the IRS or the FAA but with the companies who let their lawyers run their policies. What if AOPA's legal eagles told management that the corp should reduce potential risk by prohibiting employees, e.g. George Perry, from using their personal plane while on company business? 

If that's absurd for AOPA why is it? If AOPA can overrule their lawyers why can't XYZ International? What sort of white paper can your marketing folks put together to help. Safety stats, insurance considerations, productivity considerations, testimonials... can we get some ammunition to help justify changes? One would think ther the corner office folks who have a flight department at their back and call should be naturally sympathetic. 

Surely pilots as a class make superior employees. Why would a progressive company punish their present staff and hinder their recruiting by an antagonistic policy? I see an analogy to hiring vets. Just good business.  

I agree and don't think its absurd but there's a limit to what AOPA can do to influence the way business leaders decide to run their companies.  Since each company is different its up to the decision makers and their employees to decide what works best for them.  What AOPA can do is tout the benefits of GA travel and the positive impact its had on business, both small and large.  

  • Like 1
takair Grand Master

takair

Posted
Posted

George

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this.  I really didn't intend to hijack a pleasant breakfast discussion.  I really don't have any big expectations that AOPA would alter course from the big issues.  Besides the obvious benefit to me, I really just wanted to point out that there is a large pool of potential GA pilots and aircraft owners that are turned off because they can't justify GA on a routine basis.  I can't prove it, but I suspect that if we were to analyze the reduction in our pilot numbers, it would be due to the very corporate policies we are discussing. Perhaps this is just something to keep in mind should the opportunity to influence it come up.

Rob

GeorgePerry Veteran

GeorgePerry

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Rob, 

No worries...Like I said, when it comes to GA I work for you.  One of the most difficult parts of my job is being told about problems such as this -that I agree with- but don't have any ability to help facilitate immediate change.  That's not to say that things can't be done and I will keep this in mind the next time an opportunity to influence arises.  

On a different note, here's a picture from the group that showed up for breakfast.  Anyone who reads AOPA magazine or watches the weekly web show will recognize many of the faces.

AOPA_flyout_mqs_0206_1112.jpg

  • Like 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.