can I get paid?

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...he wanted to
know what method was appropriate so that he could recover his costs.

Bob Gardner

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:FQBrb.155284$HS4.1275807@attbi_s01...
Wrong subject line...you mean "Can I get reimbursed?" You obviously
cannot
get paid for flying.

Don't you think you're splitting hairs a little finely there? "Paid" does
not necessarily mean you have been hired. It simply means you've received
money. A reimbursement is just as much a payment as a paycheck is.

The thing I really don't get is that I'd have thought that you'd know the
answer to his question, but for some reason you didn't take the time to
comment on *that*. That would have been a more helpful reply than what
you
offered, I think.

Frederick: BTIZ's reply pretty much sums it up (his first one, that is
).
Since the flight is incidental to your business, you may be reimbursed
according to the FARs. You could even carry your coworkers, if they
wanted
to come along. However, as he says, your employer may not think it's such
a
great idea anyway. Corporate lawyers are notoriously jumpy about small
aircraft being used in the furtherance of company business.

Pete

"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").

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