Overly restrictive business flying requirements.

"James Robinson" wrote in message ...

Hold it there. This brings up the debate of relative safety.
Statistically, travel by train has about the same safety record as
travel by commercial airlines in terms of fatalities per
passenger-mile. It is far safer than GA, or other non-scheduled
commercial air travel. Long distance buses are by far the safest mode of
all.

Of course, fatality isn't really the driving factor in the corporate liability.
Being disabled on company business is probably going to cost them more.

I had a friend ask risk management this very question. The response
was, basically, that they can't stop you, but you aren't covered by
University insurance.

Kind of what I suspected, so it's really a CYA thing. My company seems to be
similar.

John


The reimbursement is more of a grey area; it kind of depends on if you
have a cool accountant or not.

WW

"Wily Wapiti" wrote in message
om...
Another point on this:
What really gets me, is that I could probably become a commercial,
Part 135 operator in far fewer hours than the University minimums
required for flying myself. I could then charter flights back to the
U and fly paying customers (perfectly legal according to another reg).
In fact, the University owns and flys a King Air, a Conquest, and a
couple of other passenger planes, and I believe a pilot would qualify
for these jobs before being able to fly himself legally on business in
a piston single.

WW

Why don'y you find out? My guess is that the university is employing
professional pilots, paying for annual recurrent sim training ext.

Mike
MU-2

I agree with Rick, and others here, that is a most reasonable policy.
I do work for Toyota and GM, and you can't fly on GA, or chartered
aircraft. Only scheduled airline flights. I'm not sure if that will
change when when/if they decided to build GA aircraft.

Again the only real level of freedom is your own busines. With risk
comes reward.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message v.net...

The more cowardly BS I see from these companies, the more I realize that I
will only ever be happy with my own company.

And when you do own your own company, will you happily accept the
liability for your employees to fly their own planes on company
business? One accident could wipe you out.

I don't know if I'd call these companies "cowardly". In today's
legal environment, they're merely covering their butts. I can
certainly understand why.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"RevDMV" wrote in message
m...
I agree with Rick, and others here, that is a most reasonable policy.
I do work for Toyota and GM, and you can't fly on GA, or chartered
aircraft. Only scheduled airline flights.

What do their executives fly on?

I'm not sure if that will
change when when/if they decided to build GA aircraft.

The big difference is "COST". They'll gladly spend $5 a mile for an
executive, but want to reimburse 30 cents for other peons.

"John Galban" wrote:
And when you do own your own company, will you happily accept the
liability for your employees to fly their own planes on company
business? One accident could wipe you out.

One auto accident could wipe me out, too. It is something I take very
seriously; I have fired an otherwise good employee for driving
infractions. But your question is valid. If one of my employees became
a pilot, I believe I would permit him to fly on business. The only
restriction I can think of off-hand: no passengers.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...

Hold it there. This brings up the debate of relative safety.
Statistically, travel by train has about the same safety record as
travel by commercial airlines in terms of fatalities per
passenger-mile. It is far safer than GA, or other non-scheduled
commercial air travel. Long distance buses are by far the safest mode of
all.

Of course, fatality isn't really the driving factor in the corporate
liability.
Being disabled on company business is probably going to cost them more.



The worse thing would be for you to injury or kill somebody else while on
company business.

That is suprising since Toyota bought the AirFlite FBO in Long Beach for
executive transport.

"RevDMV" wrote in message
m...
I agree with Rick, and others here, that is a most reasonable policy.
I do work for Toyota and GM, and you can't fly on GA, or chartered
aircraft. Only scheduled airline flights. I'm not sure if that will
change when when/if they decided to build GA aircraft.

Again the only real level of freedom is your own busines. With risk
comes reward.

Sounds like the way to go. I wish my employer had a King Air, Conquest or
something else for which I could try to get qualified..

jerry

"Wily Wapiti" wrote in message
om...
Another point on this:
What really gets me, is that I could probably become a commercial,
Part 135 operator in far fewer hours than the University minimums
required for flying myself. I could then charter flights back to the
U and fly paying customers (perfectly legal according to another reg).
In fact, the University owns and flys a King Air, a Conquest, and a
couple of other passenger planes, and I believe a pilot would qualify
for these jobs before being able to fly himself legally on business in
a piston single.

WW