can I get paid?

I'm going to put this in the dictionary next to "circular argument." He is
"permitted to" collect his salary? Give me a break, Peter. His original
question and my original answer had nothing to do with his collecting his
regular paycheck, whether he flew a private airplane or stayed home slaving
over a hot desk. The thrust of his original post was how he should be
reimbursed by his employer for travel costs...nothing more. I still think
that the original subject line could have been better worded in order to
elicit the information he required.

Bob Gardner

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:inCrb.115345$275.332456@attbi_s53...
I think that you and teacherjh are the ones who are splitting hairs. It
is
obvious that he will collect his paycheck for his employment

And he's permitted to. It's the reimbursement for the cost of the
airplane
he was asking about, which is not his paycheck. He can get paid, AND he
can
get paid (except, of course, by your overly strict definition of "paid").

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:HDCrb.116785$ao4.358892@attbi_s51...
[...] The thrust of his original post was how he should be
reimbursed by his employer for travel costs...nothing more.

I know that. I don't see how his subject line in any way interferes with
that question. But then, I don't have as such a strict interpretation of
the word "paid" as you appear to have.

Which, oddly enough, was my point.

I still think
that the original subject line could have been better worded in order to
elicit the information he required.

Hard to say, since it's still the weekend and many people haven't had a
chance to reply. But so far, he's gotten a few useful replies, one reply
that obviously misunderstood the post (but not the subject line), and one
that complained about the subject line. So far, most of us have not found
the subject line to be a problem at all.

Seems like, in spite of the usual low Usenet signal-to-noise ratio, he's
elicited some useful information, in spite of the subject line he used.

Pete

And I'm glad he did. Makes all this at-keyboards-drawn combat worth while in
the end.

Bob

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:HDCrb.116785$ao4.358892@attbi_s51...
[...] The thrust of his original post was how he should be
reimbursed by his employer for travel costs...nothing more.

I know that. I don't see how his subject line in any way interferes with
that question. But then, I don't have as such a strict interpretation of
the word "paid" as you appear to have.

Which, oddly enough, was my point.

I still think
that the original subject line could have been better worded in order to
elicit the information he required.

Hard to say, since it's still the weekend and many people haven't had a
chance to reply. But so far, he's gotten a few useful replies, one reply
that obviously misunderstood the post (but not the subject line), and one
that complained about the subject line. So far, most of us have not found
the subject line to be a problem at all.

Seems like, in spite of the usual low Usenet signal-to-noise ratio, he's
elicited some useful information, in spite of the subject line he used.

Pete

King Air is a twin, you got PP ASEL.... good luck flying pic. Youd have to
have a MEI with you to fly that thing.
"Frederick Wilson" wrote in message
news:hcBrb.156752$Tr4.421184@attbi_s03...
Hello All,

I know that this topic has been discussed several times and that the
answers
are pretty common. I just want to ensure in my particular idea if I
understand the facts.

For my civilian employment I am a computer compliance specialist. There
are
occasions that I need to go to our corporate office a few states away and
others go too. Typically, if there are enough going they charter a King
Air
to take us. However, it is more likely than not that not enough go to get
a
Charter. If I were to fly with a PP-ASEL, could I be reimbursed for the
rental cost? Further, if I were to take my own airplane, could I recover
the
fuel cost?

I think that I could do either of the above. I am not for hire to be a
pilot. Regardless if I use a plane or not, I am still going.

What are your opinions again?

This would be so much easier if it were a helicopter because I have a
commercial and an IR in them.

Thanks,
Frederick Wilson

)


"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:YxBrb.14253$Zb7.3400@fed1read01...
Tim you idiot.. re read the post.. he said when there is enough people
going
the COMPANY CHARTERS A KING AIR..

his question is.. when it's just him.. can he legally get the company to
reimburse his travel (rental) costs.. for the SEL

what a dolt..

BT

"Timothy Oneal" wrote in message
...
King Air is a twin, you got PP ASEL.... good luck flying pic. Youd
have
to
have a MEI with you to fly that thing.
"Frederick Wilson" wrote in message
news:hcBrb.156752$Tr4.421184@attbi_s03...
Hello All,

I know that this topic has been discussed several times and that the
answers
are pretty common. I just want to ensure in my particular idea if I
understand the facts.

For my civilian employment I am a computer compliance specialist.
There
are
occasions that I need to go to our corporate office a few states away
and
others go too. Typically, if there are enough going they charter a
King
Air
to take us. However, it is more likely than not that not enough go to
get
a
Charter. If I were to fly with a PP-ASEL, could I be reimbursed for
the
rental cost? Further, if I were to take my own airplane, could I
recover
the
fuel cost?

I think that I could do either of the above. I am not for hire to be a
pilot. Regardless if I use a plane or not, I am still going.

What are your opinions again?

This would be so much easier if it were a helicopter because I have a
commercial and an IR in them.

Thanks,
Frederick Wilson

"Frederick Wilson" wrote in message news:hcBrb.156752$Tr4.421184@attbi_s03...

I think that I could do either of the above. I am not for hire to be a
pilot. Regardless if I use a plane or not, I am still going.

What are your opinions again?


You can get reimbursed for your expenses as long as the flight is
incidental to your work and you're not carrying passengers or property for hire.

This sounds like it is the case for you.

"BTIZ" wrote in message news:qDBrb.14279$Zb7.14106@fed1read01...

You're corporate policy and insurance liability are well taken. Remember if you
are travelling on business the company is liable and many are a bit reticent to
expose that risk.

as far as FARs.. AOPA would have the best answer, but as long as it's "just
you", you are not on company time (payroll, not flying for hire)

Nothing keeps you from being on the company time nor from carrying passengers.
The operative words are "incidental to business" and "not carrying passengers or
property for hire." If me and my office mate need to head up to Philly for a meeting,
we can both hop in the Navion and go and I can get my gas money, landing fees,
etc... reimbursed.

when your
traveling, and you get reimbursed at xxx cents per mile for travel.. as long
as that does not exceed the cost of the rental you should be ok.

You can get reimbursed for the full cost (direct operating expenses or rental
as appropriate).

"Teacherjh" wrote in message ...

You obviously cannot
get paid for flying.


Is that really true? So long as the fllying is "incidental" to the business, I
beleve you can get "paid for flying" - i.e. you can be on salary during the
trip.

You'd get the salary anyhow. You're not being expressly paid for the flying
duty.

You may not be reimbursed for your time when you are piloting
the airplane.


Where does it say this (if it's incidental to your business)? I believe you
can draw salary.

And I wasn't necessarily addressing the orignal question only, but also the
follow-up questions that often cloud the issue.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Ron... notice key words.. "do not exceed" the cost of the rental...

BT


when your
traveling, and you get reimbursed at xxx cents per mile for travel.. as
long
as that does not exceed the cost of the rental you should be ok.

You can get reimbursed for the full cost (direct operating expenses or
rental
as appropriate).