It is such an overused device, one has to shake their head, I think

With my company, you only get the flex option when booking. Tango isn't shown. I talked to our procurement and they said it was a combination of flexibility (change fees), lack of price difference (on our major routes) and volume rebates where tango either earned zero or even negative (depended on the contract). Bottom line - it can be companies that make booking class decisions rather than the travellers.

This is reasonably common for the larger AC contracts.

Chasing status isn't worth it, and this just proves it to you. Add up the cost in Tango/Flex price differences to hit your desired status level and try and make a business case for it. You'll fail.

I recently flew Tango to LHR for a huge discount over flex. For the first time in 10 years I was in Europe without access to an AC lounge. You know what I did? Bought a coffee and a muffin and sat in a nice comfy chair with a view of the tarmac and some free WiFi until it was time to board. I've been in the new LHR lounge and it is nice, but honestly I didn't care and the cost of the coffee versus hundreds of dollars for a flex ticket is totally a no brainer.

Flex fares are a tax for the math challenged.

+1 with one exception. Flex make sense if you have a very high probability of upgrading.

Jalinth brings up an interesting point here, such that the difference to the corporation for buying Flex could actually be much smaller than one expects when just comparing prices on the AC website.

But here's a question for you and the other Tango-pushers for corporate travel. At what point is enough enough? Most major companies that are flying around don't make employees stay at Motel 6 when they go on business. I'm sure that there are dozens of cheaper hotels in Toronto, Calgary, New York, etc than what most companies are willing to pay for where they could easily save $20 or $50 a night. Or they could mandate that we eat at McDonald's all the time, because that's cheap.

But they don't. At some point, don't employees deserve some consideration for their comfort too?

I'm a finance guy and all for maximising profits, but that doesn't mean pinching every penny.

I'll use myself as an example. The company expects me to travel for all these different things. Client meetings, conferences, internal seminars, etc. I work extremely long hours already, but travel is a step beyond that. It involves a lot of wasted time in transit and often trying to cram the same amount of work into a lot fewer hours. It takes me away from my girlfriend, my home, various activities that I would like to do. It takes a big toll, as many around here can attest.

Does the company really want me to be pissed off every time I travel somewhere because my Tango fare got me stuck in 31B (or I paid out of pocket to make the experience less awful)? Do they want me to start saying "no, sorry, I can't go to NY on 48 hours' notice for that meeting" or "sorry, I can't come to that pitch in Houston next week, I'll do it by phone" because they've made travelling such a miserable experience that I cut back or quit? I can tell you the day they start making me fly Tango, I will cut my travel virtually to zero overnight.

What I spend on air travel on the company dime is a tiny fraction of what they pay me, let alone the revenues I generate for the company. The difference between a Tango and Flex ticket is also a pretty small component of the total expenses of a trip, which will generally include taxis to and from the airport at both ends, a couple nights of hotel, meals and other expenses.

Heck, what if I buy a Tango ticket and get bumped from a flight as a result, missing my meeting and negating the purpose of the whole trip?

If letting me buy Flex so that I can earn AC status and use upgrades is the price to pay for keeping things functioning smoothly, I'd argue that's a pretty small price to pay.

Even with a Tango ticket, you wouldn't be bumped since you're a SE100K.

The dichotomy that you are referencing is because some finance guy in some cube ends up setting policy that doesn't fly/travel for work. According to that dude or dudette, if they can save $30 or whatever, they can and will. it makes them look good. :rolleyes:

I'm with you 100% though. The day I have to fly Tango is when I tell my boss to kindly go * himself. I'll either find a new job or quit...and then find a new job.

With reference to your food comment, I am surprised that employers don't do that. However, the penny pinchers usually allocate a per diem. If the employee chooses to eat at McD's, then they pocket the difference. (you'd be surprised at how cheap people get). The other option is to allocate a $ that one can spend a day. (e.g. in my case)

But at what point is enough enough as you asked? When people start quitting because of the ridiculousness of it all. But then again, there's always someone who is willing to do our job cheaper...

Plus, haven't you heard it from your friends/work colleagues? Business travel is freaking glamorous.

:rolleyes:

With thoughts like that, they will continue squeezing our heads :td:

In general, I would say that companies (better ones, anyway) do exactly that sort of internal dialogue and don't opt for the cheapest hotels, meal plans (per diem or max $/day), or flights. They are not stupid, as mkjr points out. I don't have much contact with our corporate travel head office, but I have enough to recognize that they are trying to balance $ and employee satisfaction. And that employee satisfaction carries a significant weighting in that equation. I would characterize my company as pretty aggressive with saving money, but they still make the types of concessions designed to retain high mileage travelers. In general, I would say that J/C/Z/P fares are really the only thing that we are really strict about (you can do them, but only under very specific and difficult conditions--like a minimum of 10 hours air time on shortest route, for example).

Your argument might make sense if the price difference between Tango and Flex meant that you were more comfortable - but I've got news for you... it is the same seat in the same aluminum tube.

For a small fraction of the price difference between Tango and Flex anyone can pre-book their choice of aisle or window - heck they can even buy up to a "premium" seat and get the comfort you point to above for less than the price of Flex. (Of course as an SE you get these benefits for free even on Tango fares.)

Right now the difference between Flex and Tango can be enough to pay for 2 nights hotel, meals and taxi ride on both ends.

I've bought many Tango tickets and never got bumped. Get pre-assigned seating and other than Irrops, you won't get bumped.

The truth finally comes out in your last sentence. ;)

My previous company and the current one I work for both mandate LPF within reason (scheduling, connections) and the tipping point seems to be $200 rtn. They have already given up on the price differential that is flex. Current company does not have enough of a Cdn presence to have a AC contract. They decided the price diff was not worth it. They do pay for PE for TPAC. Quite often I end up in flex because of booking late (Tango sold out) or on routes that for some reason seem to have flex more often (YYZ-SFO). I have picked AC PE on my last TPAC but that was for the upg. On my own dime I would not get flex unless a) I was chasing a upg or b) I really need AQM. I might pay for PE or Z but in that case any decent carrier with the right fare/schedule wins as I would not have to buy AC.
I have two more TPACs and will have to see what the AC price diff in PE is v/s other carriers. I will obviously not have enough eupg for two TPACs.
Bottom line - I liked it with Flex was a reasonable $50-$100 more than tango. Easy to justify and the once a year crowd was not likely to step up even for that amount.

My thoughts exactly!

a) most companies don't allow these sort of things to be expensed, so by booking Tango they are asking the employee to pay out of his own pocket not to be miserable when travelling for work.

b) booking Tango means quartering earnings, so one would have to travel 400k miles to remain SE.

Let's take a two-day business trip for a consultant based in YYZ, travelling to YYC. Of course, normally the consultant would be staying three nights, but you said only two.

Taxi to&from YYZ: 2*$65=$130
Taxi from YYC: 2*$40=$80
Hotel in Calgary: 2*$150 = $300
per diem 2*$50 = 100

So more than $600, and I've been conservative with most things here, particularly the hotel room. And in all of this we're casually neglecting the actual cost for the consultant's hours. ;)

Right, because there's no way you could ever get bumped as a newly minted E35 on a Tango fare on the 7am YYZ-YYC Monday morning. ;)

vs. $470 price difference on the ticket - still pretty close, but I admit I exaggerated slightly (mostly because I forgot it was 4 tax rides not 2). In my case I usually take the TTC, so that reduces things by $124 making them almost identical.

Not sure what the consultant's hours have to do with Flex vs. Tango.


Highly doubtful given that there's bound to be a few non-status passengers with no seat assignment that they'd pick on first. (besides I'm MM, so would be at least E50KMM :p)

How does that factor in?
Would one not have to bill for the same taxi rides whether in flex or tango??

I work for a Vancouver-HQ company traded on the TSX.

- Tango-only, no flex

- Asking to expense lounge access would get me laughed out of the VP-Finances office

All my peers working for other companies in Vancouver state the same.