ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (05/31/85)
> Personally, if I owned a company, I would not permit private flying > on company business. If the company is going to pay to send you > somewhere, there must be some important reason. Airlines are far more > a "sure" thing in getting you there on time. And far more reliable in > terms of returning a valued employee alive and well and ready to > continue his vital role in the company. (If I owned a company, I > wouldn't hire anyone I didn't consider to be valuable :-) If I owned a company, I would take the view that an employee who wishes to get from point A to point B for business purposes can go whichever way is most convenient, with the understanding that the risk for all forms of travel is on the employee. This is similar to the arrangement that currently exists at AT&T Bell Laboratories for people who want to use their own cars for business travel: the employee is reimbursed for mileage, and is expected to accept the risk, and carry insurance against, anything that might happen enroute. If your car gets totaled on the way to a meeting, that is your problem. (unfortunately, they do not make the logical extension of this sensible attitude to private airplanes, but that's a different story) The airlines are not always a "sure" thing -- sometimes they don't fly where you want to go, and some people don't want to do business with them.
bob@ulose.UUCP ( Bob B ) (05/31/85)
> > Personally, if I owned a company, I would not permit private flying > > on company business. If the company is going to pay to send you > > somewhere, there must be some important reason. Airlines are far more > > a "sure" thing in getting you there on time. And far more reliable in > > terms of returning a valued employee alive and well and ready to > > continue his vital role in the company. (If I owned a company, I > > wouldn't hire anyone I didn't consider to be valuable :-) Restricting an employee's mode of transport does not generate a good atmosphere. Generally, if someone is a pilot they would be more likely to kill themselves while flying for their own enjoyment rather than on company business - most private pilots fly whenever possible and for any excuse ... In any case, there is more risk to an employee driving somewhere on business than flying themselves somewhere if you look at the accident statistics (note, this is particularly true for those of us working around the MA area). I have quite frequently flown in to Boston/Logan for meetings in the city and in Cambridge. It has saved enormously on time and risk in traffic. Of course, if I were going from MA to CA, I would do so by airline simply because even with the delays they usually have, they still get there sooner than my <200 hp single engine machine would. I have done some investigation on employer's attitude to general aviation. Some are real "stick in the muds" about it, while others adopt a better outlook. My last company (Digital - Un*x Engineering), had a very reasonable policy - you could use general aviation, provided, as pilot in command you satisfied a certain number of hours logged in type/class and, for trips over 2 hours, had an instrument rating. Given this, DEC would even re-imburse reasonable fuel/oil expenses. At my current company (CADMUS), we have no restrictions - just that we can't claim more than the equiv. airfare or mileage expenses. See you in the air, Bob (decvax!ulose!bob)
cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) (06/01/85)
> > Personally, if I owned a company, I would not permit private flying > > on company business. If the company is going to pay to send you > > somewhere, there must be some important reason. Airlines are far more > > a "sure" thing in getting you there on time. And far more reliable in > > terms of returning a valued employee alive and well and ready to > > continue his vital role in the company. (If I owned a company, I > > wouldn't hire anyone I didn't consider to be valuable :-) Opinion here, but I think valid. If the pilot is current on instruments, in an instrument equipped airplane, let him/her use the airplane. As a pilot, show a logbook entry for a six month instrument competency check, and show participation in the FAA Pilot Proficiency Program. Sure, it is a burden on the employee, but if you want to fly on business, meet the currency requirements for a FAR 135 pilot-in-command. > If I owned a company, I would take the view that an employee > who wishes to get from point A to point B for business purposes > can go whichever way is most convenient, with the understanding that > the risk for all forms of travel is on the employee. This is similar > to the arrangement that currently exists at AT&T Bell Laboratories > for people who want to use their own cars for business travel: the > employee is reimbursed for mileage, and is expected to accept the > risk, and carry insurance against, anything that might happen enroute. > If your car gets totaled on the way to a meeting, that is your problem. > (unfortunately, they do not make the logical extension of this > sensible attitude to private airplanes, but that's a different story) > > The airlines are not always a "sure" thing -- sometimes they don't > fly where you want to go, and some people don't want to do business > with them. As for travel with the Labs, if I can arrange vacation around a trip, I will fly myself on my own time. I strongly dislike flying on an air carrier. Jeff Williams AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!cfiaime
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (06/03/85)
In article <3775@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >If I owned a company, I would take the view that an employee >who wishes to get from point A to point B for business purposes >can go whichever way is most convenient, with the understanding that >the risk for all forms of travel is on the employee. This is similar >to the arrangement that currently exists at AT&T Bell Laboratories >for people who want to use their own cars for business travel: I wonder if that principle applies at AT&T Bell Labs for company- provided AIRLINE tickets, though -- I know it does NOT for US Gov't agency/activity travel offices, and I would think that most large organizations would have travel regulations that tended to be somewhat similar. Here, the convenience of the traveller has absolutely NOTHING to do with the flights or classes of service selected. Flights are selected and travellers assigned to take them based on long-term contracts with airlines, if the flights are for frequently-travelled routes (like from the local office to Washington DC, probably the most common route for most activities outside the DC area). This means usually that the travel offices cannot take advantage of short-term price reductions (like special saver fares), but the overall average cost for all flights is better than just buying them at "retail". This situation can have great ill-effects on travellers, though. For example, for quite a while, our contract here in St. Louis for flights to major West Coast destinations (SF and LA) was with Northwest Airlines. This forced us to take a feeder flight from St. Louis to Minneapolis and then connect with wide-body flights from there to SF or LA, which stopped there on their way to Hawaii. These feeder flights and the Minneapolis-West Coast legs were usually not very full, which meant that Northwest could underbid for this particular route and still make good money on seats that would otherwise go empty. So, the fare was less to the activity, which could care less how abused the travellers were, with extra take-offs and landings exposing them to higher risk factors, delays in the initial flights causing missed connections and subsequent hours spent in the Minneapolis terminal, and simply many more hours spent cramped in airplanes. If this sort of thing does NOT occur in any large organization, to personnel low enough on the totem pole to have no control over the travel people or choose their own arrangements, I'd be surprised. (Even if the local travel offices tried to take traveller's needs into account, they were hamstrung by the fact that these contracts were made by GSA, on a regional basis, and regulations forced the travel people to assign travellers to use them.) Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (06/03/85)
> Restricting an employee's mode of transport does not generate a good > atmosphere. Generally, if someone is a pilot they would be more likely > to kill themselves while flying for their own enjoyment... I disagree strongly. Pilots do not fly in thunderstorms "for their own enjoyment." Pilots do not fly planes with known problems in the landing gear "for their own enjoyment". The FAA and the press muddy the waters considerably when they refer to "personal pleasure" flying. In most cases, this does *not* mean flying "for their own enjoyment". It usually means "making a vacation trip by plane." There is a huge difference, because vacation trips are often accompanied by the same pressures of having schedules to meet that business trips are. Going up on a nice day to bore holes in the sky just doesn't have that kind of pressure to "fly regardless of the situation". > In any case, there is more risk to an employee driving somewhere on > business than flying themselves somewhere if you look at the accident > statistics I suggest you actually *look* at those accident statistics, my friend. For each mile you cover, you are about 20 (yes, twenty) times more likely to die in a private plane crash than in a traffic accident. Private planes are more dangerous than motorcycles (which are "only" 16 times as dangerous per mile as cars). Figures from Aviation Consumer magazine. The relative figures for *occupants* of the vehicle are even worse, because non-occupants are seldom injured in private plane crashes, while here in the Phoenix area about half of all traffic deaths are pedestrians. Isn't it about time we quit sweeping the unpleasant facts under the rug while muttering made-up claims of "safer than cars", and instead face up to reality? -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug ^^^^^--- soon to be CalComp
rlr@avsdS.UUCP (Rhode L. Roberts) (06/04/85)
> > Airlines are far more a "sure" thing in getting you there on time. > > And far more reliable in terms of returning a valued employee alive > > and well and ready to continue his vital role in the company. No need to go into the *un-informed* speech here, a simple look at the AOPA FACTS CARD will blow both of those wives tales away. > > If I owned a company, I would take the view that an employee > who wishes to get from point A to point B for business purposes > can go whichever way is most convenient, with the understanding that > the risk for all forms of travel is on the employee. This is similar > to the arrangement that currently exists at AT&T Bell Laboratories > for people who want to use their own cars for business travel: the > employee is reimbursed for mileage, and is expected to accept the > risk, and carry insurance against, anything that might happen enroute. > If your car gets totaled on the way to a meeting, that is your problem. > (unfortunately, they do not make the logical extension of this > sensible attitude to private airplanes, but that's a different story) > > The airlines are not always a "sure" thing -- sometimes they don't > fly where you want to go, and some people don't want to do business > with them. There are somewhere's near 14000 airports in the USA, of which the Major Air Lines serve approx. 800. The FAA imposes strict maintinace rules for ANY plane that utilizes the AIR SPACE SYSTEM, not to mention the pilots. R. Roberts Ampex Corp. Redwood City, Ca.
cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) (06/07/85)
> > Restricting an employee's mode of transport does not generate a good > > atmosphere. Generally, if someone is a pilot they would be more likely > > to kill themselves while flying for their own enjoyment... > > I disagree strongly. Pilots do not fly in thunderstorms "for their > own enjoyment." Pilots do not fly planes with known problems in the > landing gear "for their own enjoyment". > > The FAA and the press muddy the waters considerably when they refer to > "personal pleasure" flying. In most cases, this does *not* mean flying > "for their own enjoyment". It usually means "making a vacation trip by > plane." There is a huge difference, because vacation trips are often > accompanied by the same pressures of having schedules to meet that > business trips are. I wish to disagree with Doug. Most of the accidents in general aviation are cause by people flying into weather that they can't handle. If the pilot is properly qualified (instrument rated, current), keeps up with weather information in flight, and does not fly junk aircraft, the possiblity of completing the flight safely is quite high. This is why I advocate the following criteria for flying on company business: 1. Instrument rating - self evident 2. Six month instrument competency check - maintain instrument currency, keep from developing bad habits 3. Instrument equipped airplane (a single radio Cessna 150 could probably qualify) - use the rating, schedule reliability 4. Annual participation in the Pilot Proficiency Program - the record speaks for itself as to the decrease in accidents for pilots who participate Notice, I don't advocate the 30 hour per year Private Pilot with no instrument rating flying on company business. If you want to fly on company business, give yourself the best chance of doing so safely and with reliability. Jeff Williams AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!cfiaime
medin@noscvax.UUCP (Ted Medin) (06/11/85)
Well I am glad you dont run a company I work for. Air carriers safer? Well I guess a little bit. In this age of deregulation there is a good chance they may not be going where your going or when your going. I love to fly from San Diego to LA and watch all that bumper to bumper trafic with all the frustration etc. Probably one thing that should be required is a current instrument rating.
david@infopro.UUCP (David Fiedler) (06/14/85)
> If the weather is BAD (ice, 100% coverage of thunderstorms, 100 knot > winds, and the like) go commercial. If it's really *that* bad, you might consider staying home anyway. Do you really want to be up in the air in weather like that, instead of hiding under your bed at home (:-)? -- Dave Fiedler {harpo,astrovax,whuxcc,clyde}!infopro!dave People Phone: (201) 989-0570 USMail: InfoPro Systems, 3108 Route 10, Denville, NJ 07834 Caldwell Tower, this is 16 Lima, inbound for runway 4 with information Idiot...
thompson@oberon.UUCP (mark thompson) (06/18/85)
> Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug > ^^^^^--- soon to be CalComp > > For each mile you cover, you are about 20 (yes, twenty) times more > likely to die in a private plane crash than in a traffic accident. > > Private planes are more dangerous than motorcycles (which are "only" 16 > times as dangerous per mile as cars). > > Figures from Aviation Consumer magazine. > > Isn't it about time we quit sweeping the unpleasant facts under the rug > while muttering made-up claims of "safer than cars", and instead face up > to reality? > -- Being a motorcyclist, I have developed quite an interest in how statistics like this really work. It turns out that that '16 times' figure is true (if ever) only when you look at the data just right. In particular, it lumps together a vast range of activities under one heading. As it turns out, the kind of riding I do is (after much hand waving) 'ONLY' about 5 times as dangerous as driving. I have lately become very interested in learning to fly, so I am curious as to how this risk figure is calculated. What activities are included in this figure, how is 'mileage' calculated (ie. point-point milage .vs. speed times time-in-air would could be vastly different), are some types of flying (eg. aerobatics, experimental, gyrocopter) vastly more dangerous than others? Any further light you can shed on this issue would help me, and probably be of some interest to the rest of the group. I hardly need to make my lifestyle any riskier. -mark -- mark thompson is THOMPSON@USC-ECLC.ARPA or { ihnp4 | hplabs | akgua | sdcsvax} !sdcrdcf!uscvax!oberon!thompson "Benson, Arizona, the same stars in the sky, The world seemed so much kinder when we watched them you and I..."