Flying for work

[Pinecone]

22 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

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. 

 

In the old days you could itemize your business expenses, then subtract any reimbursement, and if it was over a certain threshold, it was deductible.  Not sure the tax side as over the last many years my reimbursement was higher than what it cost me to travel.

[midlifeflyer]

On 6/19/2024 at 8:41 AM, Pinecone said:

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.

When I wanted to fly on business, I went to the client and asked them to cover the cost of a refundable airfare.  Made sense to them since the business reason could have been cancelled at the last moment. If I flew myself, the excess was on my dime. 

[Pinecone]

Dealing with a client is easier that dealing with your employer.

 

[JayMatt]

22 hours 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?

It's my understanding that they aren't paying you to travel to other locations, they are reimbursing you for your expenses based on Tax law. You could also opt to file that on your taxes yourself, they just do it for you in a way. I also don't understand how they get to decide one way or the other. IMO they can decide based on cost and what is cheaper. In my case, me flying is half the cost of any other where just based on the crazy location of where I was going to go. 

I ended up emailing them again as the comments about not being reputable got under my skin. I told them I have no intention of going either way anymore, but I didn't want there to be a misconception about aviation. I proceeded to sold them on the laws of aviation. 

[Texas Mooney]

7 minutes ago, JayMatt said:

I ended up emailing them again as the comments about not being reputable got under my skin. I told them I have no intention of going either way anymore, but I didn't want there to be a misconception about aviation. I proceeded to sold them on the laws of aviation. 

Are you Instrument Rated?

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, JayMatt said:

It's my understanding that they aren't paying you to travel to other locations, they are reimbursing you for your expenses based on Tax law.

I don't understand your understanding. It's not about "paying you to fly."  Bottom line, the company is paying the costs involved in traveling to a location of its  choice for its business purposes. Whether the employee (a) pays those costs out of pocket, fills out an expense report and gets reimbursed or (b) uses a company car and a company credit card so that not one penny even temporarily comes out of the employee's pocket, the company is paying the costs of the employee's transportation.

Whether the company is willing to accept the potential risk of exposure of authorizing  the use of a personal aircraft for that is really the only issue in this scenario.  Simple business choice.  And, unless they themselves are well-versed in the "laws of aviation,"  I can understand the reasons why they  wouldn't be. 

Even the tax law is pretty irrelevant. The only thing the tax laws are involved with is whether the expenses paid are deductible to the company and/or income to the employee.

 

[LANCECASPER]

On 6/19/2024 at 6:37 AM, JayMatt said:

They can't make me drive 5.5 hours one way and right now they can't afford to replace me.

 

4 hours ago, JayMatt said:

I ended up emailing them again as the comments about not being reputable got under my skin. I told them I have no intention of going either way anymore, but I didn't want there to be a misconception about aviation. I proceeded to sold them on the laws of aviation. 

 

I don't mean for this to sound harsh, but they can't afford to have you stay. If they give you an assignment, which they are paying you for,  to inspect some equipment they purchased, and it's going to take you an extra day or two, for which you are being paid for,  to do it, and you refuse to do it, they need to find someone else willing. You're not the only one in the world qualified to do this.

When evaluating employees I always looked at two things: Abilities and Willingness.  Someone who is willing can be trained to enhance the abilities they already have. If they don't have the willingness, no company could possibly afford that attitude to stay.

Not getting to fly your airplane doesn't mean that the job doesn't need to be done. If flying your airplane is more important than working for them, go start your own company and you get to set policy.

[whiskytango]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Dealing with a client is easier that dealing with your employer.

 

^^^^^^This.  I was an independent consultant, and my clients didn’t care how I got to the job sites as long as they weren’t charged for commercial airfare above Coach, or charged for long (8 hour) trips by car.  Of course the clients knew that I carried liability insurance on my aircraft, plus my consulting firm had E&O plus general liability insurance, so if things went south they could point the Plaintiff attorneys at me.  

I enjoyed those instances when my colleagues who arrived at a site by commercial air would complain about how their departing flights were delayed for hours due to flow control, Wx, etc.  I was happy to tell them that my flight was on time, and would be departing shortly after I arrived at the airport.

[N9201A]

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.  

Was a partner in a small firm and flew myself all the time, when we merged into a larger one it was “no small aircraft.” I just submitted mileage and never heard a peep.

I did NOT tell anyone anything or have some “side deal” with someone who could be replaced or overruled anyway or deny it, and definitely do not lie about it. As long as you get there on your own, they owe you the mileage as you got there somehow. I would not lie about it though for sure. It was “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

[Pinecone]

From what I understand, when you are traveling and being reimbursed by your company, they are responsible for you during that travel.

And interestingly, your car insurance may not pay if you get into an accident, as that is business use of your car.  Your company insurance would pay.

And based on this, they CAN tell you what means of travel you may use.

[N201MKTurbo]

A good friend of mine used to work for Intel. He tried mightily to get them to let him fly for work travel. They flat refused.

For about 5 years I was doing contract work for Intel and traveled to Oregon almost weekly. And guess who was paying me to fly my Mooney? Intel!

They try to tell you that blue badges have more privileges than green badges, but not always!

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

A good friend of mine used to work for Intel. He tried mightily to get them to let him fly for work travel. They flat refused.

For about 5 years I was doing contract work for Intel and traveled to Oregon almost weekly. And guess who was paying me to fly my Mooney? Intel!

They try to tell you that blue badges have more privileges than green badges, but not always!

Yes, an independent contractor is in a different position than an employee.

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

A good friend of mine used to work for Intel. He tried mightily to get them to let him fly for work travel. They flat refused.

For about 5 years I was doing contract work for Intel and traveled to Oregon almost weekly. And guess who was paying me to fly my Mooney? Intel!

They try to tell you that blue badges have more privileges than green badges, but not always!

Same experience here.   It was a hard no when I was an employee, but I don't know that it mattered because much of my travel was further than I'd have wanted to fly a GA airplane.   It's the usual distinction between employee and contractor, at least if you're not a direct contractor.

My actual badge when I worked at Intel.   This was not intentional at all, just a consequence of me experimenting with all the wack fields that they made you fill out in the HR site.    This one never showed up anywhere else, just the badge.   Nobody cared. 

[JayMatt]

18 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

 

 

I don't mean for this to sound harsh, but they can't afford to have you stay. If they give you an assignment, which they are paying you for,  to inspect some equipment they purchased, and it's going to take you an extra day or two, for which you are being paid for,  to do it, and you refuse to do it, they need to find someone else willing. You're not the only one in the world qualified to do this.

When evaluating employees I always looked at two things: Abilities and Willingness.  Someone who is willing can be trained to enhance the abilities they already have. If they don't have the willingness, no company could possibly afford that attitude to stay.

Not getting to fly your airplane doesn't mean that the job doesn't need to be done. If flying your airplane is more important than working for them, go start your own company and you get to set policy.

I get your point but it's not like that. I am in charge of everything on the capitol spend. The Buck stops with me sort of position. I report back to the CEO 3 times over 2 years on status and my direct boss never. He doesn't care what I do because I self manage. They don't pay me to inspect equipment, this would be the 12th hat I would be wearing in a severally understaffed department. I personally don't think there is any value to me going and looking at it as I already pay a certified company to evaluate and inspect the equipment along the path of it's build. For whatever reason my boss wanted me to go see it. I get it, you don't know me or my work ethic and I probably come off as obnoxious but this is a case of, "Well he does everything already anyway why not have him do this also," and this is just where I draw the line.