evergrn

I didn't know that, but I suppose that's a good reason for companies to keep this corporate travel thing going.
A corporate travel person explained to me that the reason for mandatory booking through corporate travel is so that the company is able to keep tabs on the employee's exact whereabout. I wasn't sure if that was a credible reason, but the financial kickback certainly makes sense.

NoLaGent

You've both added great input on this topic, but I do need to say that most in that industry would prefer the term commission over kickback, as that revenue source is calculated as part of the travel departments overall compensation to offset the labor costs (whether implants, or remote) and a significant factor in those kind of complex contracts.

Often1

That is way down on the list of reasons. Most often, the reasons for using a corporate TA and and overlay compliance software such as Concur has to do not just with discounts and rebates, but also with the fact that the typical corporate TA integrates with its client's back office accounting system. Thus, fewer people needed in finance to review and input data. It should all be seamless.

While it is always possible that there are occasions when one can get a better deal through some oddball website, anyone who has looked at managing a significant travel budget knows that the savings come from keeping things simple.

As to OP's specific problem, one thing which a growing number of employers do is to permit employees to keep a personal card on file with the TA. The TA lists the permitted fare basis and dollar amount and charges that to the corporate account, while the balance is charged to the employee's personal account and the ticket is issued just once. This isn't to get around AS' poor IT, but also to make things simpler.

dayone

I've seen it referred to as a rebate.

Often1

It is a rebate, not a kickback. The former is a sum returned to the customer, e.g., the employer, when it meets certain thresholds. The latter is an unlawful payment to a third-party such as a CFO or travel manager in return for steering business.

Rebates are a not merely legal, but a perfectly ethical and good way to do business. They merely cause some confusion among people in an organization who are not part of the finance team and thus have no idea what the real costs are of their own travel, leading them to gleefully point to minor savings they think they could have achieved, when they can't.

Tracer_SEA

It's called "duty of care" and knowing where your employees are when they are traveling for work is indeed a responsibility/liability that companies take seriously

NoLaGent

Same. On the hotel side, that $15 difference in rate can also commonly be the difference between a commissionable and a non-commissionable rate, and those funds go towards the rebate a company receives.

beckoa

Apparently I used the wrong terminology

Yes, AS and Concur should figure this out ^

evergrn

I don't know if I'd be comfortable keeping my credit card info on file with my employer (our corporate travel is part of our company). Moreover I don't think that would change my inability to purchase Premium seat upgrade on AS, because I'd still have to book through the same corporate booking portal... unless they changed the portal so that it gave us the ability to purchase a la carte options on their portal (eg, Premium/E+ upgrade, priority boarding, checked bags). But I just don't see that level of sophistication coming to fruition anytime soon.