Flying for work

[M20F]

1 hour ago, FlyingDude said:

Some people just fly and claim mileage. Their verbal agreement with the boss is that if they crash, well they called in that day. I think that can "fly" in a small company... Definitely not in corporate...

This is really the way.  Take the car mileage which will cover gas in a Mooney and keep it to yourself.  99% of all businesses are never going to sign off so just don’t bring it up and take the car reimbursement you would have gotten for driving.  

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, Yetti said:

Ask if you can ride your motorcylce to the customer site.

Don't ask unless you are sure you will be okay with the answer.  

[hubcap]

My business actually owns Myrtle. About 80% of our flying is for business travel. That simplifies things for me. The boss (my wife) would far rather fly than drive. I have only had to drive as the result of weather twice in the last 4 years.

[201Mooniac]

I guess my previous experiences were an exception but I was allowed to travel for business in my 201 even by large corporations (well until my current employer).  I got permission from companies like IBM and Apple and other public companies but maybe things have just changed in recent years.  For most of my employers, there were conditions but they were easy to meet, extra training, higher liability, company being named insured, etc.  One company even took out a special policy that they paid for to cover additional liability.  All had simple reimbursement, either direct fuel cost or economy cost ticket, whichever was less.

[DCarlton]

Before I retired, I made over 83 round trip flights for work.  I was reimbursed air mileage up to the equivalent of what the trip would have cost by commercial air.  It was tough to compete financially with Southwest Airlines but I could complete the trip in the same amount of time as my coworkers.  Rental cars were waiting on me at the FBO which was awesome.  In and out very quickly.  I rescheduled two trips due to weather; none due to maintenance issues.  The Mooney was perfect for the mission.  

[midlifeflyer]

14 hours ago, JayMatt said:

Well as an update, they denied it altogether. The said "travel standard requires that “our personnel only fly on approved aircraft operated by reputable and audited operators”. So there we have it, it doesn't matter either way. 

Not surprising. It’s a common company policy. Sometimes completely internal risk management, but often driven by liability (if you hurt someone else, they pay) and workers compensation (if you get hurt they pay) insurance requirements. 

[JayMatt]

11 hours ago, Yetti said:

They trust you with millions of dollars of equipment and negotiate million dollar deals and makes lots of money for them, but they don't trust you to get there in the conveyance of your choosing.    Ask if you can ride your motorcylce to the customer site.

 

 

That's Warren Buffet for you. I spend millions of His dollars every year and he wants me to fly spirit Airlines cause it's cheapest. The idea of going wasn't really all that cool to me, unless I could fly myself. They can't make me drive 5.5 hours one way and right now they can't afford to replace me. At least for the next couple months. I thought of making the motorcycle argument also. But then I realized I really don't give a shat. I'll fly to san Antonio this weekend instead and go golf or something. 

[N201MKTurbo]

If we count commuting to work, I have made over 3000 compensated flights. I guess I have been lucky. The most were when I was working for Raytheon and Roche. They both eventually changed their policies. In both cases for irrational reasons. In both cases a new female HR director thought I had a death wish and was saving me from eventual death by airplane.

[McMooney]

I tend to expense what it'd cost for an airline ticket, seems fair.

[Pinecone]

10 minutes ago, McMooney said:

I tend to expense what it'd cost for an airline ticket, seems fair.

The problem with that is that some companies require the paid invoice for the airline ticket.

That is where the driving mileage can work better.

[dkkim73]

18 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

 They both eventually changed their policies. In both cases for irrational reasons. In both cases a new female HR director thought I had a death wish and was saving me from eventual death by airplane.

HR seems to have an increasingly cookie-cutter vibe and a surprising amount of comfort with behavior that they would otherwise call "paternalistic". 

I suppose it matters if you are on the clock or not when traveling, as to whether they have any say. 

Still, there is a capricious vibe to a lot of these anecdotes. I'm trying to get a determination regarding a mechanism to deduct expenses for my commute as a W-2 type. My position is an unusual hybrid where I travel to a remote worksite less than 50% of the time. But most organizations seem risk averse and look carefully for any downside.

Plus is I am not alone in this situation, there are a few others, though I am the only one I know of using the problem to slip the surly bonds of Earth... It really makes the position work whereas I question the sustainability of driving. 

 

[dkkim73]

5 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

 

That is where the driving mileage can work better.

What do you mean I didn't actually drive? I was right over I-90! 

[Yetti]

1 hour ago, JayMatt said:

That's Warren Buffet for you. I spend millions of His dollars every year and he wants me to fly spirit Airlines cause it's cheapest. The idea of going wasn't really all that cool to me, unless I could fly myself. They can't make me drive 5.5 hours one way and right now they can't afford to replace me. At least for the next couple months. I thought of making the motorcycle argument also. But then I realized I really don't give a shat. I'll fly to san Antonio this weekend instead and go golf or something. 

I narrowly missed working for that company when they acquired Northern Natural Gas.      The good news is I see Galveston may get more commercial flights to support the Booze Cruises.  I have a travel ban on Spirit. 

[N201MKTurbo]

59 minutes ago, dkkim73 said:

HR seems to have an increasingly cookie-cutter vibe and a surprising amount of comfort with behavior that they would otherwise call "paternalistic". 

I suppose it matters if you are on the clock or not when traveling, as to whether they have any say. 

Still, there is a capricious vibe to a lot of these anecdotes. I'm trying to get a determination regarding a mechanism to deduct expenses for my commute as a W-2 type. My position is an unusual hybrid where I travel to a remote worksite less than 50% of the time. But most organizations seem risk averse and look carefully for any downside.

Plus is I am not alone in this situation, there are a few others, though I am the only one I know of using the problem to slip the surly bonds of Earth... It really makes the position work whereas I question the sustainability of driving. 

 

With Roche, I had a written agreement with the CEO (of our division) that gave me permission to use the plane for commuting and business trips. So she said they wouldn't compensate me for business trips any more, but they would consider any way I traveled to work my business. because of my agreement they increased my salary the historic amount of the commute expenses. I called foul because now I was paying taxes on the amount and it should be higher. She told me to take it or leave it. Not long after, I took her up on her offer and quit. After 20 years with the giant biotech company, I needed a change anyway.

[Yetti]

29 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

With Roche, I had a written agreement with the CEO (of our division) that gave me permission to use the plane for commuting and business trips. So she said they wouldn't compensate me for business trips any more, but they would consider any way I traveled to work my business. because of my agreement they increased my salary the historic amount of the commute expenses. I called foul because now I was paying taxes on the amount and it should be higher. She told me to take it or leave it. Not long after, I took her up on her offer and quit. After 20 years with the giant biotech company, I needed a change anyway.

I have started having fun with the line "My family policy does not allow for that"  Or "that would go against our policies"    It's kind of fun to watch them short circuit when their whole career has been following the policy.   And now they are faced with another policy.   If they press the issue, then I just say "well um we would have to run that through the policy committee and it may take some time to get approval"  "I will write up your proposal and get back to you"

[mike_elliott]

16 hours ago, FlyingDude said:

 

Some people just fly and claim mileage. Their verbal agreement with the boss is that if they crash, well they called in that day. I think that can "fly" in a small company... Definitely not in corporate...

Someone I know once did that, but was strongly cautioned that during discovery if things go pear shaped, this might just seal the deal for the plantifs, as it will be found out as most misrepresentations are.

[MikeOH]

I've never understood the legal basis for how a company can control HOW you commute to work.  Say I live 100 miles away and choose to fly my plane to and from work every day rather than drive a car.  Can they actually fire me for that?  (Yes, I realize some states are 'at will' employment and they don't even need a 'reason').

How is that different than if I'm expected to commute and work at TWO different facilities?  And, to continue the hypothetical, why does the number, or location, of those facilities even matter?

Finally, if I'm commuting to a customer's facility instead, why would that change the scenario?  I merely need to commute to a different location to do MY work.

I guess what I'm really asking is how does the liability even flow to my employer based on my method of commute?  I thought part of the argument was that "I'm acting in the course of their business".  But, that logic would mean they could be sued if I hit someone DRIVING to work...I sure don't think THAT ever happens!  IOW, why are they 'off the hook' if I drive, but not if I fly?

Maybe one of our lawyers can explain this?  @midlifeflyer

[Boilermonkey]

20 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I've never understood the legal basis for how a company can control HOW you commute to work.  Say I live 100 miles away and choose to fly my plane to and from work every day rather than drive a car.  Can they actually fire me for that?  (Yes, I realize some states are 'at will' employment and they don't even need a 'reason').

How is that different than if I'm expected to commute and work at TWO different facilities?  And, to continue the hypothetical, why does the number, or location, of those facilities even matter?

Finally, if I'm commuting to a customer's facility instead, why would that change the scenario?  I merely need to commute to a different location to do MY work.

I guess what I'm really asking is how does the liability even flow to my employer based on my method of commute?  I thought part of the argument was that "I'm acting in the course of their business".  But, that logic would mean they could be sued if I hit someone DRIVING to work...I sure don't think THAT ever happens!  IOW, why are they 'off the hook' if I drive, but not if I fly?

Maybe one of our lawyers can explain this?  @midlifeflyer

I think there is a significant difference between commuting to/from work versus flying to a customer meeting/site for work.   In the latter case you are traveling at the request/responsibility of the company, hence liability.   Whereas getting to and from your place of employment is your personal responsibility.   Either way I think companies should look at the cost/benefit and allow properly trained pilots in well maintained aircraft to do both.  However, most in a position of authority or policy making just hear about accidents on the news and take the simple path towards excluding GA in a large company.  Whereas many small business know the benefits and fly a lot of GA.

[N201MKTurbo]

15 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I've never understood the legal basis for how a company can control HOW you commute to work.  Say I live 100 miles away and choose to fly my plane to and from work every day rather than drive a car.  Can they actually fire me for that?  (Yes, I realize some states are 'at will' employment and they don't even need a 'reason').

How is that different than if I'm expected to commute and work at TWO different facilities?  And, to continue the hypothetical, why does the number, or location, of those facilities even matter?

Finally, if I'm commuting to a customer's facility instead, why would that change the scenario?  I merely need to commute to a different location to do MY work.

I guess what I'm really asking is how does the liability even flow to my employer based on my method of commute?  I thought part of the argument was that "I'm acting in the course of their business".  But, that logic would mean they could be sued if I hit someone DRIVING to work...I sure don't think THAT ever happens!  IOW, why are they 'off the hook' if I drive, but not if I fly?

Maybe one of our lawyers can explain this?  @midlifeflyer

You are correct that an employer cannot fire you because of how you get to work. As long as you get to work in a timely manner. On the flip side, they are not responsible for compensating you for getting to work. In my case, My contention was that I worked from home and traveling to the office was business travel to another business location. This was supported for over 18 years. Then the crazy HR lady decided that those agreements were null and void, because she said so. I had complete support from the VP of marketing, VP of R&D, VP of IT and the CEO, but for some reason she got her way.

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, Boilermonkey said:

I think there is a significant difference between commuting to/from work versus flying to a customer meeting/site for work.   In the latter case you are traveling at the request/responsibility of the company, hence liability.   Whereas getting to and from your place of employment is your personal responsibility.

Perhaps, but that is why I asked the question if the company can control HOW you commute to your place of work (single site)...then went from there.

What I'm saying is I don't think there is a significant difference: I take a job with a company to perform work, why does WHERE I perform that work for them determine THEIR liability for how I commute that location?  If I'm going to work I'm certainly doing so at their request!

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

You are correct that an employer cannot fire you because of how you get to work. As long as you get to work in a timely manner. On the flip side, they are not responsible for compensating you for getting to work. In my case, My contention was that I worked from home and traveling to the office was business travel to another business location. This was supported for over 18 years. Then the crazy HR lady decided that those agreements were null and void, because she said so. I had complete support from the VP of marketing, VP of R&D, VP of IT and the CEO, but for some reason she got her way.

OK, if extra payment for commuting/travel is involved then the company is responsible.  That has some logic.  But implies that, at that point, they CAN control how you commute; they could ban you from using a motorcycle, for example.

Then the question is if YOU pay for all of your travel costs can the company still control how you commute?

[N201MKTurbo]

11 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

OK, if extra payment for commuting/travel is involved then the company is responsible.  That has some logic.  But implies that, at that point, they CAN control how you commute; they could ban you from using a motorcycle, for example.

Then the question is if YOU pay for all of your travel costs can the company still control how you commute?

So, no they cannot control how you get to work. But in most states, you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. If they don't like you flying to work in your plane they can fire you.

[MikeOH]

9 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, no they cannot control how you get to work. But in most states, you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. If they don't like you flying to work in your plane they can fire you.

Yes, I mentioned that 'out' in my earlier post.  I've always wondered how it would really hold up.  E.g., long term, well respected, history of promotions, above average raises, employee is suddenly fired when the company finds out the employee flys to work.  How about if the employee rides a motorcycle?  Seems tenuous.  But we're getting in the weeds here...

[geoffb]

18 hours ago, M20F said:

This is really the way.  Take the car mileage which will cover gas in a Mooney and keep it to yourself.  99% of all businesses are never going to sign off so just don’t bring it up and take the car reimbursement you would have gotten for driving.  

Don't ask, don't tell.  Back when we had employee business expense deductions, deductible expenses minus mileage reimbursement still yielded some nice tax savings.  Much less fun now, even with the boss covering my direct costs.

[midlifeflyer]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

I've never understood the legal basis for how a company can control HOW you commute to work.  Say I live 100 miles away and choose to fly my plane to and from work every day rather than drive a car.  Can they actually fire me for that?  (Yes, I realize some states are 'at will' employment and they don't even need a 'reason').

How is that different than if I'm expected to commute and work at TWO different facilities?  And, to continue the hypothetical, why does the number, or location, of those facilities even matter?

Finally, if I'm commuting to a customer's facility instead, why would that change the scenario?  I merely need to commute to a different location to do MY work.

I guess what I'm really asking is how does the liability even flow to my employer based on my method of commute?  I thought part of the argument was that "I'm acting in the course of their business".  But, that logic would mean they could be sued if I hit someone DRIVING to work...I sure don't think THAT ever happens!  IOW, why are they 'off the hook' if I drive, but not if I fly?

Maybe one of our lawyers can explain this?  @midlifeflyer

I agree with those who differentiate commuting (“travel some distance between one's home and place of work on a regular basis”)  with traveling to a discrete job. And, as I mentioned before it’s not just about liability to others but also about workers comp liability to the employee.  Another difference are the perceived risks of personal flying vs personal ground transportation. Not to mention insurance (both liability and workers comp) exclusions for personal flying.