scubadu

If someone is in the infinitesimally small sub set of the population that can afford to turn down a "really good job" (because that is the subject of this thread, not an ok job, not a mediocre job, but a really good job) because they don't like the travel policy, well... those folks will probably end up ok. If you do not fall into that population, you'd do well to not let the tail wag the dog, so to speak...

Regards

TTmex

Problem is that everyone is so hell-bent on fairness nowadays that if you give a J policy to one, you'll have to start giving it to everyone. Sure, you might be able to defend it from a legal standpoint and argue its a individual benefit, but you can't control people getting pissed off and demotivated that they're in Y and someone else is in J.

Tommys888

Newbie here - does Y here mean fully flexible full price economy, or cheapest economy?

TTmex

That's a fair point and you seem to have looked at it from both sides. Here in Mexico just sending one person in J to Europe on a monthly basis would be an extra 24-28k USD per year on the price of going by accomodation. Doesn't sound like much, but that's enough to pay 4-5 people in some instances as salaries are so low here. Can see why they'd send a junior in many cases. Just depends on the size of the business I guess. Big corporates I know send their top execs in business, but the people I know in consulting have to slum it and I'm talking people at Deloitte, Bain, BCG etc.

scubadu

In this context, most here are simply using "Y" as a synonymy for standard economy. Most in this discussion are focused on the desire to travel in a premium cabin vs. standard economy for work.

Regards

flatlander

The main force acting here is everyone being hell-bent on cheapness. If they weren't focused on being as cheap as possible with their employees then there wouldn't be a question and longer travel would under humane conditions.

No employee likes being treated cheaply, so if they see someone else being treated humanely their existing resentment is only further increased.

TTmex

I understand your point and see where you are coming from. But, I think you also considering that all companies are rich in this scenario. Many projects today (thanks to competition coming from all angles) run on very tight margins. Adding 25-50k USD to a contract price to cover flights in J for a few people will be enough to lose contracts to the competition. I worked a contract in Poland where the big corporate we contracted for applied deliberate pressure, i.e. if you hike your travel costs too high then we'll hire local. Thus, the Y policy wasn't down to my company being cheap, it was down to a large corporate flexing their muscles to drive costs down and ensure that if we wanted to fly J that we'd be taking it out of our consulting fees, not out of a travel budget they'd have to create. Sure, we could have walked away, but then we'd have been walking away from a 500k USD account, something that is a considerable amount of money in Mexico and pays a lot of salaries. Not everyone is in a strong position to negotiate terms. Thus, yep, some companies will use their power to keep you in Y. If you're that good, they'll be flexible. If they don't think you're valuable enough, then I guess people can go get a job elsewhere. But, it's not always about you being good enough or not. You may be the best person for the job, but they just don't have the budget to stretch to sending you on 3-4k tickets.

T8191

A dinosaur perspective from the 80s/90s, working for that well-known bounteous employer called the Ministry of Defence.

At a certain rank (lt col/wg cdr/cdr) you got J travel on duty if it was over 6 hours (IIRC). All Duty Travel was done through the Services Booking Centre, so there was no room for manoeuvre! So, very deeply status based within the Armed Forces.

As a tale, I had to do a Duty trip to Australia in the 80s. All my CivAir flights were J ... but I had to position to HKG via the twice-weekly Trooping flight (VC-10). Thanks to the schedules, I wasted a day in HKG on the way out, and 3 days on the way home! It was a nice couple of weeks, though.

I understand that such inefficiencies have long since been processed out, and that direct flights are now the norm, although I bet the criteria are tighter!

tuonopepper

Yes, I've turned down a global role that involved a couple of long hauls a month due to the travel policy, however it wasn't the Y on its own, it was the fact there was no way I could book Business and have the company pay me the expense for economy as it was all via Corp TA. If I could have found a way round that it would have been different.

That said if they'd have been offering the pay uplift OP is being offered in lieu of Business I'd have probably taken it and worked upgrades out somehow or emoyed a decent chiropractor....

wilsnunn

I have never had a proper full time job *gasp* as I have been a university student for the past 7+ years and before that was at school.

Now that I am soon to be leaving the ivory towers and entering the real world, finding a job who are willing to pay for me to travel is the first step, the second step is hoping that they will be willing to send me in a cabin that is better than Y. Clearly for me an all Y travel policy would not be a deciding factor at all but if there are two equal-ish jobs, but one has a better travel policy than the other then of course I would go with the one that is more comfortable!

tuonopepper

Our company has all Y excepting VP or above with 4 or more hours duration. The policy used to state an economy class ticket so. People just booked WT+ for example, it now specifically excludes premium economy!!

The exception is a 'frequent traveller' tag that is attached to you if you do than more than 100k flight miles in a year, you are then allowed to travel business for the following year on flights that are greater in duration (cumulative if more than one to get from A to B), except for when travelling to any corporate events

It's not bad but is very geared to the US where they fly everywhere, really for EMEA 75k would work better and then 8 hours as the time reqd for business.

A previous company had a standard business class if it was over 8 hours A to B policy that worked, Premium eco for 4 to 8.

tuonopepper

I've used our travel policy as a reason, along with ecological impact, to review my travel and essentially do a lot less, I'm home much more and generally I'm told I'm much more relaxed. Like another poster I no longer do red eyes and rarely do crack of dawn flights, I'll travel day before or find a substitute from my team.

tuonopepper

In the grand scheme of things yes, it's a massively first world problem. However in the context of the OPs situation. He is asking for some perspective from the many on here likely in similar roles, I don't see what's wrong with that tbh.

It's a fact that different jobs, levels, Industrys come with different pay and conditions, are we saying someone shouldn't now ask a question that people on here could offer an experienced based view on just becuase they are fortunate to be in a field of employment that is at the upper end renumeration packages?

tuonopepper

This is what I wish our lot would do, makes a lot of sense.

The Man in Seat 62K

I would suggest what matters more is not what the policy states, but fundamentally what seat you end up in, and how much money ends up in your bank account each month.

I disagree with those above that say a Y-only policy is a sign of worse-treatment elsewhere.

We have a Y-only policy. I feel valued as an employee, paid above market rate (£200k), and upgrade with miles/AUPs/POUs/exEUs as required. If I fly to headquarters (SFO), I will typically book an exEU, and expense a 5* hotel for the weekend.

My friend at McKinsey has a J policy. Their work/life balance is brutal, and are expected to work straight after a long-haul flight.

I know which I'd prefer.