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

[ggroves]

Good luck.....

If you're willing to take the "forgiveness rather than permission route", probably the best approach is to let them assume you're driving, and get reimbursed the IRS mileage rate...

Nope. Watched a VP get fired for this very thing...falsifying expense reports. Flying a personal airplane on company business is against corporate policy.

Seek approval, even if it means no. Unless you can afford to lose your job....

 

[ggroves]

I would just ask "If I charge the standard mileage rate...does it matter how I get there?" and leave it at that!

Yes, it matters.

 

[ggroves]

I guess I did not articulate my point well enough. You're reimbursing someone for traveling a certain distance to perform some work for your company. The cost and method of how they traveled that distance should not matter. It's the distance/reimbursement that matters.

Except most expense reporting systems, the line item says 'Personal Automobile Mileage'. The mode matters as well in most organizations.

 

[ggroves]

Can you carry company passengers?

Don't automatically assume your co-workers want to fly with you, especially if you are in a management role.

In a related story, a friend worked for a company where the site manager was a newly minted private pilot. Their business required client site visits, so the manager decided it would be cool to rent a plane, and fly himself and subordinates on business.

Several employees were uncomfortable with this, but were afraid to "rock the boat". They filed whistleblower complaints with the corporate ombudsman, and HR. That ended all flying activity.

 

[jtheune]

Nope. Watched a VP get fired for this very thing...falsifying expense reports. Flying a personal airplane on company business is against corporate policy.

Seek approval, even if it means no. Unless you can afford to lose your job....

The key difference here is that they already had a policy forbidding the use of a plane.

 

[ggroves]

The key difference here is that they already had a policy forbidding the use of a plane.

At the time, it wasn't spelled out in writing.

 

[tiger]

Corporate policy isn't the only "key difference" anyway. Claiming personal vehicle mileage at $0.56c for trips you didn't drive isn't accurate record-keeping. Whether or not it 'ought to' matter to the company or the IRS is not really relevant. In reality, it very probably will.

If you're bored, go and read IRS Publication 463. For expenses to be reimbursable tax-free, there are many requirements - including that detailed, timely and accurate records be kept. In the context of that guidance, I would be very surprised if the IRS would agree that it doesn't matter how you actually got there.

It doesn't even matter that what you did instead should have been reimbursable tax-free. The record-keeping requirement is one of the conditions for the tax-free reimbursement.

 

[Henning]

Nope. Watched a VP get fired for this very thing...falsifying expense reports. Flying a personal airplane on company business is against corporate policy.

Seek approval, even if it means no. Unless you can afford to lose your job....

If the company wants me to not use my own aircraft to their advantage, I wouldn't be particularly hip to work for them to begin with. I have never had someone tell me I can't use my plane on their business, typically they are quite happy with having that capability available to them. Life is too short to work for idiots.

 

[garyb]

Originally Posted by dell30rb
Start a consulting business.

.....

Just to be clear ... is this code for, "as long as I'm being forced to spend my money, I might as well spend it on myself, rather than on some entitlement program?"

 

[tmyers]

Seeing this thread again has me wondering if the congress critters that have given us the Pilots Bill or rights 1 and are now working on PBR 2 would consider tackling this one. Until the Marigold opinion (i know it isn't Marigold) it was pretty clear that the travel had to be incidental to the business and that you were not being paid to fly.

Nothing will change untill it, the opinion is challenged in court or struck down by law.

Something to ponder!!!

 

[Graueradler]

At a large company that I used to work for, I asked senior management what the policy was. The answer was "don't ask". I charged auto mileage rate by the quickest route which covered my marginal expenses.

 

[tmyers]

problem with that is when, god forbid you crash and take someone else out, your company and your survivors will get the liability. In some instances your aircraft insurance may not pay anything. While this may not affect you as in you are pushing up daises it could be very hard on your survivors.

Now, is this scenario any different if you have the blessing of the company, probably not.

 

[txflyer]

I'll beat the horse a little ... if you falsify documents in any way, the company can use that to fire you in most instances on the spot that day. It's that serious a violation of rules. The management cannot just look the other way, because that would make them complicit.

In a nutshell, it's a tough row to hoe. Maybe not impossible, but explicit and time consuming on other people which they don't normally take well to having to deal with liability and insurance issues....

Good luck OP. I hope you can get it done.

 

[Paul Hamilton]

Basically, you have to make the point that it helps the business. One example was last week, when I had to bring a bunch of equipment with me to Florida and back. That would have been possible, but more difficult, if flying commercially. If you have trips to make that are not served by airline connections, that helps.

Liability is the main concern. Having a formal set of operating standards, including required conditions to make a flight (ceiling, visibility) helps. Insurance people like stuff like that. By the way, joining NBAA is not a bad idea -- they can help you if you help them.

Paul

 

[Somedudeintn]

If the company wants me to not use my own aircraft to their advantage, I wouldn't be particularly hip to work for them to begin with. I have never had someone tell me I can't use my plane on their business, typically they are quite happy with having that capability available to them. Life is too short to work for idiots.

Not that I have my own aircraft, but I know my company has a no private aircraft for business use policy. I also doubt they will let me use one of their lear's when it would be convenient. I think most large companies prohibit using a personal aircraft. For now this job is funding my flying hobby so I'm sticking with it. Maybe one of these days I'll start a consulting gig, get my airplane and do the same work while traveling in my plane.

 

[beestforwardspeed]

If a company is going to prohibit an employee to use his/her own aircraft, then they need to ALSO ban ALL forms of private transportation and disallow one to use their own automobile, motorcycle, snowmobile, boat, ATV, etc.

Its not OK for them to single out one form of private transportation and not the others that I listed. If liability is their concern, then have them only take the bus or fly commercially.

But the bottom line is to let sleeping dogs lie and "don't ask, don't tell", and if they still find out somehow, then what Henning said in post #88 applies.

 

[mercurial]

Don't be a by the book square, just do it. And if your company finds out and makes a big stink about it, **** em. If you have the money to own and fly your own airplane, I'd hope that you have sufficient options to avoid working for those kind of companies. If the mileage compensation is less than depreciation/operating costs of the airplane, I'd try to take that as an additional write-off, as well. 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.

 

[deyoung]

I work for a large state university, and their rules allow it, but no one I know does it, and this may not be something doable in practice much. They have a list of requirements to meet---minimum hours (400-ish if I remember), instrument rating, a few others, and this little line item: "Pilots must obtain written authorization from their Dean or Vice President to operate aircraft on U of A business." I don't know how many attempts actually get past that one, but I haven't heard of many.

As far as "don't ask, don't tell" that's fine, but expect them to cut you loose completely if they can should anything go south.

If I were to do that, I would probably not bother to ask for reimbursement at the driving rate; technically, that's a falsification and if your employer decides to take an adversarial approach to the situation that'll give them a lot of support for whatever case they want to make. Better to just eat the cost and chalk it up to fun of flying.

At least, I'd guess that to be true -- I am not a lawyer.

 

[deyoung]

AFAIK there is no law that says your expense reports with the company for driving reimbursement must jive with your IRS filings

Well, they are both required to be true and accurate, so to that extent yes they are required to jibe. For expense reports this is probably just a matter of company policy rather than law, so you are probably only risking being fired rather than legal trouble if you falsify them.

 

[bflynn]

Liability is the main concern.

This is the major blocking point for almost every company. If you're flying on their behalf for any reason and have an accident, they will be on the hook for liability by whoever can claim they were harmed by the accident and they will lose millions. It's all about the broken tort system in our country. No amount of insurance or statements from you that they didn't create pressure to fly when it wasn't safe is going to be enough to convince a jury that the big rich company shouldn't pay.

Most companies that think it through figure they would rather lose a little for certain from normal travel inefficiencies that they know they can absorb than have any possibility of losing a whole lot that they know they can't afford. Would you hire an employee if you knew there was a tiny chance that person would cost you millions in liability? Or would you hire the person that you know won't?

They don't care that it's cheaper. They don't care that you've got your ATP. They don't care about your time. All those things come with the catch that you're putting them on the hook if you crash.

 

[paflyer]

.

If you are flying somewhere for work and crash into a school and kill a bunch of kids then guess who all the lawyers are going to go after? I really think it's about that simple for them.

.

How about you're driving your personal car on business and you get involved (as in "liable") in a wreck with a school bus full of kids? What's the difference? I'd say that scenario is 100x more likely.

It's all media-driven perception of how "stupid-dangerous" private aviation is.

 

[jsstevens]

How about you're driving your personal car on business and you get involved (as in "liable") in a wreck with a school bus full of kids? What's the difference? I'd say that scenario is 100x more likely.

It's all media-driven perception of how "stupid-dangerous" private aviation is.

Yep. It's perception. Which is what drives a lot of juries to award enormous amounts of money.

John

 

[paflyer]

Yep. It's perception. Which is what drives a lot of juries to award enormous amounts of money.

John

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.)

 

[Xcfire]

Scenario- Use your own plane, pay everything out of your own pocket, more efficient increase production back end more personal income?

 

[Somedudeintn]

Not that I have my own aircraft, but I know my company has a no private aircraft for business use policy. I also doubt they will let me use one of their lear's when it would be convenient. I think most large companies prohibit using a personal aircraft. For now this job is funding my flying hobby so I'm sticking with it. Maybe one of these days I'll start a consulting gig, get my airplane and do the same work while traveling in my plane.

Just looked up my companies policy and it doesn't state that you can't use a private aircraft, just that you have to get written permission from the CEO.

 

[mkosmo]

Just looked up my companies policy and it doesn't state that you can't use a private aircraft, just that you have to get written permission from the CEO.

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?

 

[beestforwardspeed]

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??

 

[paflyer]

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??

Right, it makes absolutely no sense, just like life insurance policies that specifically exclude GA.

 

[dell30rb]

Read through this and suggest a similar policy to your boss. Liability is the big concern, your policy should cover you on business flights where you are attending a meeting, trade show etc... the language on my policy is "private or personal business"

http://blink.ucsd.edu/travel/traini...rivate-aircraft.html#4.-Request-reimbursement.

I work for a smaller company and fly for business occasionally. When it makes sense, I send a request with the estimated costs of flying myself vs. driving. Last week I flew down to KCEU for a 10AM meeting and lunch after. $260 for 2.8 hours of flight time and I put 10 bucks in the crew car. Wheels up at 7:30AM and back home at 4 PM.

Driving would have been $340 for the driving mileage alone (600mi) PLUS a night in a hotel and dinner. Would be about 500 bucks. Not including the extra half day of work lost because I had to drive down the day before the meeting. (I am not spending 9 hours driving in one day for work)

So I saved the company $230 and a half day of my productivity.

My advice... put together something like this as an example for some of your trips, and make a proposal to the boss about how you can save them $$ and the liability will be covered by your insurance.

 

[Palmpilot]

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???

The data I've seen indicate that the fatality rate for GA is about five times worse than driving. However, I've heard that motorcycles are about the same as GA.

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

That one's easy to answer. It's the Golden Rule of Management:

"Them that has the gold makes the rules."​

 

[mercurial]

Well, they are both required to be true and accurate, so to that extent yes they are required to jibe. For expense reports this is probably just a matter of company policy rather than law, so you are probably only risking being fired rather than legal trouble if you falsify them.

Yes, that was my point exactly.

Looking up all the tiny rules and making HR inquiries is not a good path if you want to do this. You know they are going to tell you "No". If for no other reason than because you're a dummy and you've now created an official paper trail that robs them of any plausible deniability, if something did go wrong. Whereas if you got caught and could reasonably plead ignorance, you should walk away with a slap on the wrist (because as a highly skilled professional you are more than just a replaceable cog in the system and the company needs you, right?)

 

[deyoung]

you should walk away with a slap on the wrist (because as a highly skilled professional you are more than just a replaceable cog in the system and the company needs you, right?)

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.

 

[bflynn]

How about you're driving your personal car on business and you get involved (as in "liable") in a wreck with a school bus full of kids? What's the difference? I'd say that scenario is 100x more likely.

It's all media-driven perception of how "stupid-dangerous" private aviation is.

Systemic risk. Everyone who drives has the risk of crashing into a bus full of kids so there's no difference. Only pilots have the risk of crashing an airplane and causing damage to others.

Also, actual numbers betray you. You are more likely to die in a GA airplane than to have any kind of car accident - 1.7/mil of dying in GA accident vs 1.5/mil of having any accident in car. There could be statistical wiggle on the GA side, so let's call them roughly even. Granted that covers a lot of things that you're probably not doing, but companies don't necessarily care that you're not flying an experimental or avoiding clouds/ice/thunderstorms.

Like it or not, that is the reality of using an airplane for (someone else's) business. If you want to fly to/from jobs, work for a pilot. Yourself is the best choice.

 

[Bonchie]

The data I've seen indicate that the fatality rate for GA is about five times worse than driving. However, I've heard that motorcycles are about the same as GA.



That one's easy to answer. It's the Golden Rule of Management:

"Them that has the gold makes the rules."​

The numbers are all over the place depending on your criteria, but it's something like that.

Even then, the numbers are debatable. Most car accidents happen at low speed. Yet, everyone drives at 60+mph routinely (and for many it's the majority of miles spent driving). So what's the fatality rate for automobiles in accidents over 60+mph? Just how risky is it compared to driving 30mph? Or flying a 4 seat piston? I'd image things change when you take out all the fender benders.

Even the GA numbers are misleading. What's the fatality rate if you only fly VMC? If you never fly a twin? If you never fly in rough terrain with minimal safe landing zones? If you never fly HP/retract? Etc.

There's no doubt in my mind there are certain types of driving you can do (higher speeds, distractions, weather conditions, etc.) that we all routinely do that's as or more dangerous then a GA single engine in VMC, which is the majority of PPL flying.

 

[Bonchie]

Right, it makes absolutely no sense, just like life insurance policies that specifically exclude GA.

It's low hanging fruit. Not many people fly so it's an easy interest to cut out of policies knowing they won't get any pushback while saving money. If it were about risk, they wouldn't pay out if you die on a motorcycle, or working many job types, or whatever other risky behavior you can think of...so on and so forth.

 

[bflynn]

It's low hanging fruit. Not many people fly so it's an easy interest to cut out of policies knowing they won't get any pushback while saving money. If it were about risk, they wouldn't pay out if you die on a motorcycle, or working many job types, or whatever other risky behavior you can think of...so on and so forth.

That doesn't make sense. Companies would save money by utilizing GA.

I once pulled together some numbers to show a past risk management officer which took the accident rate * expected penalties to show a "cost" of GA, then showed the benefit of consultants being on site more (higher billings).

The company was much better off with GA, but the risk was deemed unnecessary. Better to normalize the risks and avoid ups and downs in revenue, especially in public companies.

 

[Bonchie]

That doesn't make sense. Companies would save money by utilizing GA.

I once pulled together some numbers to show a past risk management officer which took the accident rate * expected penalties to show a "cost" of GA, then showed the benefit of consultants being on site more (higher billings).

The company was much better off with GA, but the risk was deemed unnecessary. Better to normalize the risks and avoid ups and downs in revenue, especially in public companies.

My post was about life insurance.

 

[Palmpilot]

The numbers are all over the place depending on your criteria, but it's something like that.

Even then, the numbers are debatable. Most car accidents happen at low speed. Yet, everyone drives at 60+mph routinely (and for many it's the majority of miles spent driving). So what's the fatality rate for automobiles in accidents over 60+mph? Just how risky is it compared to driving 30mph? Or flying a 4 seat piston? I'd image things change when you take out all the fender benders.

The comparison I mentioned was for fatality rates per mile. Fender benders are seldom fatal, so taking them out wouldn't have much of an effect.

Even the GA numbers are misleading. What's the fatality rate if you only fly VMC? If you never fly a twin? If you never fly in rough terrain with minimal safe landing zones? If you never fly HP/retract? Etc.

There's no doubt in my mind there are certain types of driving you can do (higher speeds, distractions, weather conditions, etc.) that we all routinely do that's as or more dangerous then a GA single engine in VMC, which is the majority of PPL flying.

I don't think making your argument that complex would be very persuasive to company risk managers.

 

[Bonchie]

The comparison I mentioned was for fatality rates per mile. Fender benders are seldom fatal, so taking them out wouldn't have much of an effect.

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. 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.

I don't think making your argument that complex would be very persuasive to company risk managers.

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.

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.

 

[poadeleted20]

If a company is going to prohibit an employee to use his/her own aircraft, then they need to ALSO ban ALL forms of private transportation and disallow one to use their own automobile, motorcycle, snowmobile, boat, ATV, etc.

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.

Its not OK for them to single out one form of private transportation and not the others that I listed.

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.

If liability is their concern, then have them only take the bus or fly commercially.

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.

But the bottom line is to let sleeping dogs lie and "don't ask, don't tell", and if they still find out somehow, then what Henning said in post #88 applies.

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.