There is no comprehensive answer to your question because it is determined
by each company on a case-by-case basis. I'm pretty sure that if they had an
unequivocal statement in their employment contracts that travel would be
only by car or commercial carrier, flying in a light aircraft would be
grounds for dismissal. A less stringent sanction would be refusal to
compensate, as you suggest, or compensate at the automobile rate. I'm
neither a lawyer nor an insurance agent.

Back in the 60s I owned a 175, and my employer was delighted at the way I
covered my territory and reimbursed me at the automobile rate. It took only
one trip, with a fellow employee on board, that ran into severe weather
problems and caused delays, to have my employer pull the plug on using my
own airplane. I wasn't there much longer.

Bob Gardner

"John Harper" wrote in message
news:1061514219.442569@sj-nntpcache-3...

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:mNd1b.170452$Oz4.43720@rwcrnsc54...
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the University's
insurance carrier.

Many institutions/companys flat out forbid travel by non-commercial air.

What does that mean? Does it mean they fire you if you fly yourself to
a business meeting, or just that they won't reimburse for it?

John