Gamesmanship with travel policy

Old Jan 16, 14, 10:32 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 634
Gamesmanship with travel policy

More anecdotally than anything else, but I'm curious what experiences people have had of this:

Our threshold for going WT+ on non-client funded travel is a miserly 8 hours. Funnily enough, NY is our second biggest office.

However, there are certain flights (BA 173 and 185) which clock in at 8 hours, 0 mins. So in theory I should be able to go WT+.

Am I being a cheeky bugger playing the system and selecting those flights, thus hitting that threshold? Or is it fair enough?

What are your thoughts about the return sector obviously being a fair bit shorter? What would senior managers on here feel about their staff applying this 'loophole'?

Have people done this with their own limits?
Cynically, are BA acting in regard to such policies - another reason for increasingly roomy sector times!?
cazoz is offline  
Old Jan 16, 14, 10:36 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,463
Originally Posted by cazoz View Post
Our threshold for going WT+ on non-client funded travel is a miserly 8 hours. Funnily enough, NY is our second biggest office.
Does the travel policy state "over 8 hours" or "at least 8 hours" for WT+? If it's the former then those flights are still within the Y limit.
SteveF is offline  
Old Jan 16, 14, 10:37 am
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 27,437
Our policy used to be 7hrs to go in J. It is now either 8 or 9hrs. Anyway, the site I go to is near Philadelphia so well under the threshold.

My view on your situation would be yes you would be a cheeky bugger, sorry.
KARFA is online now  
Old Jan 16, 14, 10:42 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,146
So much of this answer would depend upon the culture at your office and the relationship you have with whoever will approve this travel. If you have a good relationship, could you just ask if it will be allowed? Or if you could book WT and then see if you could expense an airport upgrade if one is available, as those usually are not too expensive. Perhaps go WT+ on the overnight sector and WT on the daytime flight?
Jagboi is offline  
Old Jan 16, 14, 10:44 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: LON, RUH and DXB
Programs: BA Bronze, GF, EK, WY
Posts: 2,607
There was a very similar question/thread last year: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...ur-favour.html

Have a read to see what the likely responses will be. I predict you'll be called anything from a 'chancer' to a 'thief'

Not that you'll need a flame-proof suit. People here are far too nice for that !
dunk is offline  
Old Jan 16, 14, 10:49 am
  #6  
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 42,360
Originally Posted by dunk View Post
Not that you'll need a flame-proof suit. People here are far too nice for that !
Yeah right, but maybe your incurable optimism is infectious?
corporate-wage-slave is offline  
Old Jan 16, 14, 10:50 am
  #7  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold, UA Silver, CC Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,000
Would entirely depend on the person who was flying.

If they were a 4 or a 5 - yes, 3 or below, not so much. To be honest, I am not massively keen on signing of travel at all for a 2 unless it's within the EU only
dc2447 is offline  
Old Jan 16, 14, 10:54 am
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Silver / VS /IHG Spire & Ambassador
Posts: 11,491
I think you are playing the cheeky bugger.

Your 'loophole' could be someone elses dishonesty.

And that could then lead to others thinking 'what else is is fiddling'

And it will more likely than not get picked up by someone in the organisation either from reviewing travel bookings or expenses or even a colleague on the same flight who is in WT and notices you are in WT+
UKtravelbear is online now  
Old Jan 16, 14, 11:00 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by dc2447 View Post
Would entirely depend on the person who was flying.

If they were a 4 or a 5 - yes, 3 or below, not so much. To be honest, I am not massively keen on signing of travel at all for a 2 unless it's within the EU only
What do these numbers mean?
ba_cityflyer is offline  
Old Jan 16, 14, 11:01 am
  #10  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold, UA Silver, CC Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,000
Originally Posted by ba_cityflyer View Post
What do these numbers mean?
http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/performanc...s/rating-scale
dc2447 is offline  
Old Jan 16, 14, 11:09 am
  #11  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 36,476
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear View Post
... or even a colleague on the same flight who is in WT and notices you are in WT+
If picking that specific flight allows travel in WT+ because of its duration, why would colleagues on that flight be in WT?

Someone recently reminded me of this:-

Globaliser is offline  
Old Jan 16, 14, 11:28 am
  #12  
Hilton Contributor BadgeAccor Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Bristol, UK
Programs: Accor Gold, HH D, BA Silver
Posts: 5,275
Our company policy (for all staff) is WT for departing flights that are up to 7:59 and WT+ for flights that are 8 hours or longer.

There are no exceptions.

I do see staff going out the farthest distance on the first leg to qualify for WT+ and then getting connecting flights back to other locations that are under 8 hours for the return, however, this is accepted at our workplace.

I'd personally book WT and then see if you get an POUG or Airport upgrade offer if the flight is generally under the timing threshold (ignoring the exceptions you mentioned).

Can you book the flight privately and then claim back whatever WT would have cost at that time (take a screenshot)? This would allow you to fly the cabin you wish and work only pays an amount in line with company policy.

Would you fly WT+ for the same journey if it was your own money? If not, then hard to justify work paying for it...

Hope this helps, safe travels!
BotB is offline  
Old Jan 16, 14, 11:51 am
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold, IHG Spire Ambassador
Posts: 14,117
6 hours is the threshold at my company for travel in J on planes and F on trains. This is relatively good because it means the whole BA longhaul network with the exception of DME is J.
Genius1 is offline  
Old Jan 16, 14, 11:56 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Programs: BAEC Bronze
Posts: 244
Originally Posted by BotB View Post
Would you fly WT+ for the same journey if it was your own money? If not, then hard to justify work paying for it...
Where's the logic??

If I'm going to sit on a beach in Miami for 2 weeks then Y is fine. If I'm expected to pitch up at the office on arrival or the following morning then WT+ is the minimum for such a flight.

And don't forget, while your employer may have a policy, so have you. If you don't want to fly Y for 8+ hours don't do it. They can't force you. Most employers will try and get away with the cheapest possible ticket.

I fell for all that nonsence years ago and vowed never to travel under such duress again. Never sat at the back since.
Lee_Again is offline  
Old Jan 16, 14, 12:00 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,344
I don't get why some of you wouldn't at least ask your employer if it's ok? Of course, if they say no then you're not going to want to argue over a technicality in the policy, but that's the worst thing they can say.

So basically, you stand to lose nothing and possibly come away with a free upgrade. Win-win? (Though obviously say "I will travelling on BA173" not "I deliberately timed my schedule to get on one of the few flights that breach the 8 hour rule"!)
callum9999 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: