Overly restrictive business flying requirements.

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

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:ncf1b.220551$Ho3.28819@sccrnsc03...

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.

The Army would reimburse private airtravel at the POV (automotive) rates provided
we got our division chief to sign off on it being "more advantageous to the government"
than other modes of travel. Actually, you needed the same sign off to drive your
car on government business. Of course, it wasn't hard to prove that personal car
travel was more advantageous as the alternative was to go out and rent a car
instead (We used to do this).

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

The Army would reimburse private airtravel at the POV (automotive) rates
provided
we got our division chief to sign off on it being "more advantageous to
the government"
than other modes of travel. Actually, you needed the same sign off to
drive your
car on government business. Of course, it wasn't hard to prove that
personal car
travel was more advantageous as the alternative was to go out and rent a
car
instead (We used to do this).

The AF was the same way -- If you were flying *your* airplane. Problem was
that the TDY mileage rate wouldn't come close to covering your true
expenses. OTOH, if you rented a plane (typically from the aero club), they
considered it a "hired vehicle" and paid the full amount of the rental,
tiedowns, etc. up to the cost of the commercial airline ticket. And you
could use all travelers in your cost justification, so with two traveling
you could almost always cover the entire cost of the rental.