BeechTalk - BT - Cessna's Anti-GA Policy

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jun 2013, 23:46

Username Protected wrote:

When I posted this comment I didn't expect Cessna employees to be cruising around in jets, simply, if the tech owned a 182 or similar he could use it and get reimbursed at a flat rate permissible by IRS quidelines. This isn't a PR ploy. All your customers are located at small to large airports all across the country, your employer manufactures aircraft for business and personal use and you don't permit your employees to use aircraft, sounds like a joke. It's terrible PR to NOT let them.

And if the Cessna employee wants to fly his Bonanza to the meeting?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jun 2013, 01:22

Username Protected wrote:

"Insurance" is just another word for communism: spreading your personal risk and risk affecting decisions on "society". So the same things happens as in the political equivalent: More and more restrictive rules, and total loss of freedom of choice. They even have their own secret police. Where has the "pursuit of happiness", that was supposed to be a founding principle of this Union, gone? If I look at the average facial expression outside the pilot community, far far away.

Insurance companies get blamed for a lot of things, but I know several who's employees fly company or employee-owned airplanes for business transportation. Virtually all of the aviation insurance companies do it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jun 2013, 09:16

Username Protected wrote:

Nothing to do with anti-GA policy. The sales staff and some engineers/managers get to use company planes. Everyone else, nope. It is simple math.
-- The mechanics time, if not on a warranty call is paid by the customer
-- The mechanics time, if on warranty the time savings does not come close to the cost of the plane.
-- The associated liability costs and PR management if the mechanic crashes the plane are not even close to the potential benefits,

If I was running Cessna, I would make the same call.

Tim

Then you should sell your aircraft, and drive an MPV with a gazillion airbags at or below 35 mph, which is the only safe speed if conditions allow, otherwise it is 25. You are putting yourself & your family in mortal danger every time you touch that yoke!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jun 2013, 09:19

Username Protected wrote:

FWIW, I worked as counsel for a very large, but here nameless aviation company. They too would not let me use my own a/c for business purposes.

That decision was driven by the workers' compensation insurer, not the company itself.

The insurer did not concern itself with the irony.

could be worse.....that was the case for my old aviation company....now the new one allows it....but reimburses at customary lowest cost airline fares. :hammer:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jun 2013, 10:39

Username Protected wrote:

Then you should sell your aircraft, and drive an MPV with a gazillion airbags at or below 35 mph, which is the only safe speed if conditions allow, otherwise it is 25. You are putting yourself & your family in mortal danger every time you touch that yoke!

Robert,

Why? None of what you posted has anything to do with the risks Cessna faces or the potential costs.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jun 2013, 11:13

IMO, there's a difference between "sales staff and senior executives are allowed to use company aircraft, or personal aircraft and be reimbursed, while all other employees may not use company aircraft nor be reimbursed for personal aircraft usage" (a financial utility based argument)

and "sales and senior execs may use aircraft, but all others are prohibited from using aircraft on company business, even without being reimbursed" (a safety, liability, exposure based argument)

I don't have a problem with saying "job X is worth using an airplane for, while job Y is not".
I have more of a problem with "airplanes are safe enough for job X, but not for job Y", especially if you're in the business of selling airplanes.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jun 2013, 12:45

Username Protected wrote:

Tim,
A company and its employees fit together if the only guideline you have to give is "spend like it is your own" and "behave like you are at home". If that clashes with the way you want to run a business, you have either the wrong employee or the wrong expectations. One has to give. So if you decide it is safe to fly for you, you cannot ask from your employees not to do it. Called leading by example. So if you agree with the Cessna policy, the MPV is waiting. But it must be a hybrid with a 4-cylinders and 16 airbags.

Robert,

The answer is nope. Your assumptions about risk and leadership are in a vacuum.
The legal reality we live in states if I let an employee fly his/her plane on company business the company assumes a fair degree of liability. If I let an employee drive his/her car and expense it the company assumes some degree of liability. From an insurance perspective I am going on memory but the quotes I got were about the following:
Supplemental insurance of 5 mill liability was about $200 per employee a year for auto.
Supplemental insurance of 5 mill liability was about $5000 per employee a year for airplane.

It is for this reason, the board did not let me expense in costs of using my plane, and I had to get supplemental insurance and a few waiver conditions.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jun 2013, 16:56

My former employer always had a biz jet; we routinely carried $250 million of liability insurance on the aircraft.

They didn't want me flying my Bonanza ($1 million liability) on company business, said it was because of the liability.

Talked to the carrier, they asked to see my credentials (Instrument rated, more than 1,000 hours in my A36, etc.) they said "we'll cover you for no additional charge".

The problem is that's a sample of one. Extrapolate that to an aviation company and sooner or later someone is going to have an accident.

If an airplane crashes into a school or mall the results could be catastrophic.

It's not anti-GA, it's about protecting the business. Small businesses with not much to lose can inexpensively get $2mm of coverage and have few concerns.

For a business worth half a billion or more things are different. You are the deep pocket and if anything goes wrong the attorneys will be fighting over who gets to sue.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jun 2013, 17:31

Username Protected wrote:

My former employer always had a biz jet; we routinely carried $250 million of liability insurance on the aircraft.

They didn't want me flying my Bonanza ($1 million liability) on company business, said it was because of the liability.

Talked to the carrier, they asked to see my credentials (Instrument rated, more than 1,000 hours in my A36, etc.) they said "we'll cover you for no additional charge".

The problem is that's a sample of one. Extrapolate that to an aviation company and sooner or later someone is going to have an accident.

If an airplane crashes into a school or mall the results could be catastrophic.

It's not anti-GA, it's about protecting the business. Small businesses with not much to lose can inexpensively get $2mm of coverage and have few concerns.

For a business worth half a billion or more things are different. You are the deep pocket and if anything goes wrong the attorneys will be fighting over who gets to sue.

As time goes on Cessna's position becomes more apparent and hypocritical. I understand this position for companies that don't manufacture aircraft, but for Cessna, their position reminds me of a cigerette manufacture. Their in it for the money but it's use is not good for your business. Few others here will share this belief but I expect the aircraft manufacturers to be trailblazers and huge advocates for GA use instead of running from it. I'll admit it, I'm going to be hard on them for this position. It's fundamental to the industry.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jun 2013, 21:59

Username Protected wrote:

My former employer always had a biz jet; we routinely carried $250 million of liability insurance on the aircraft.

They didn't want me flying my Bonanza ($1 million liability) on company business, said it was because of the liability.

Talked to the carrier, they asked to see my credentials (Instrument rated, more than 1,000 hours in my A36, etc.) they said "we'll cover you for no additional charge".

The problem is that's a sample of one. Extrapolate that to an aviation company and sooner or later someone is going to have an accident.

If an airplane crashes into a school or mall the results could be catastrophic.

It's not anti-GA, it's about protecting the business. Small businesses with not much to lose can inexpensively get $2mm of coverage and have few concerns.

For a business worth half a billion or more things are different. You are the deep pocket and if anything goes wrong the attorneys will be fighting over who gets to sue.

And you hit a fuel truck with your car in a school zone because driving is so boring that you have to text with your misstress :roll: