Responders to last month’s blog in this space noted that companies often prohibit the use of personal aircraft by employees for business transportation. Other readers lamented that many employers allowing the use of a GA aircraft on company travel establish policies that are so restrictive that few private pilots can comply. In my opinion, outright bans as well as nearly impossible provisions that are de facto rejections of employee use of owned or rented aircraft for business travel simply reflect an uninformed bias against an efficient and safe form of travel.
Employees who have demonstrated their proficiency by earning a Private Pilot’s certificate with an instrument rating should be allowed to conduct business travel just as they are allowed to use their personal car for such trips. Use of employee-owned or rented aircraft increases employee productivity, provides more efficient use of travel time compared with use of a personal car, and is not a risk to shareholders or private owners of the company. Furthermore, such travel is safe.
The argument about which form of travel—via car or private aircraft—is safer need not be debated in this forum. Personally, I prefer to travel via GA. As pilot–in-command, I have more control over my response to factors influencing safety, such as unacceptable weather conditions or personal fatigue or the actions of third parties. I suspect that I am far more likely to overestimate my ability to deal with challenging safety factors when travel by car than by an aircraft I am piloting. Also, the probability of being the victim of another person’s error is significantly less when flying my own aircraft than when driving my own or a rented car.
Good governance demands that Boards establish travel policies, and efficient governance dictates that all forms of travel, including use of personal aircraft, should be allowed. Motivation for such a policy should be obtaining the maximum productivity from employees and time—not protection against travel-related mishaps. Companies simply do not have the ability to assure that an employee will follow procedure. Nor will an injured party be discouraged from pursuing the deep pockets of the employer should there be a mishap, regardless of what policies are in-place.
All companies, public or private, should obtain liability coverage to protect the firm from errors made by employees and by unaffiliated third parties. For example, a company is well advised to have non- owner liability insurance for car and aircraft. Having a policy prohibiting an employee from traveling on company business in his or her car or aircraft is not sufficient protection should there be an accident.
A company might require employees using a personal aircraft on business to carry a certain level of liability insurance and name the employer as an additional insured. But company-imposed limits should be reasonable. Surprisingly, such liability coverage is not prohibitively expensive.
There is no rational excuse for refusing to treat a personal aircraft for business travel differently from using a personal car. Requiring ground travel when a private aircraft is available is simply a waste of time and an example of poor management.
The opinions expressed by the bloggers do not reflect AOPA’s position on any topic.