Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

Would you turn down a really good job if the travel policy was all Y?

Would you turn down a really good job if the travel policy was all Y?

Reply

Old Mar 3, 18, 5:50 am
  #121  
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold, Mucci
Posts: 8,238
Originally Posted by PETER01 View Post
You don't look too bad for your age really but as for the 36 inch waist sounds like you have a faulty tape measure
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave View Post
Well, it could also be the tape measure of either Mr. Marks or Mr. Spencer?

[Though apparently they have been increasing the sizes of their clothes on the sly, to prevent upsetting their customers, kind of the opposite to BA I suppose]
You could be onto something there corporate-wage-slave as mysteriously I am now a size 32 which I don't believe!
Originally Posted by PETER01 Give me a shout if you are needing any more assistants. I can start right away.
Originally Posted by Raffles View Post
There will be a job in September, £40k (with all J / 4 Star travel policy) if you’re interested. Details on HFP nearer the time.

I’ll look out for that

Back on topic, I never realised it was so different between companies, it's really opened my eyes up should I ever have a job in the future travelling and been quite educational to read with so many different scenarios/the many travel policies and of course members views etc.

Pete

Last edited by PETER01; Mar 3, 18 at 6:01 am
PETER01 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 6:02 am
  #122  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK.
Programs: SQ LPPS, A3 *G, BA Silver, aiming for Blue!
Posts: 1,067
Although I'm now retired I always refused anything to do with any travel that was not in business or greater.

Twice I was told that the company policy was Y and no exceptions and twice I turned down the job only to have them come back and suggest I manage my own travel through expenses and not the company agent. That effectively meant I could book what I liked with who I liked and I did. Expenses were paid promptly.

The corporate world is more greedy today so I doubt it would happen but it was good while it lasted.

I am offered consultancy work these days and I only take it on the basis of fee plus expenses - and I determine the latter.
lhrpete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 6:04 am
  #123  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Four Seasons Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Programs: BA, EK, IHG, SPG
Posts: 25,437
Originally Posted by LondonAndy View Post
About 10 years ago I was an employee of a global financial services firm, but worked with a subsidiary that had employees literally all over the world on a weekly basis, and they used a small, local, responsive travel agent who seemed to be able to help with all the IRROPs that would happen. I asked when I started flying to their office on a fortnightly basis if I could pay the differnence between Y (travel policy) and J, and they were happy with that. That was the first year that I got Gold, and haven't looked back since - they have a lot to answer for ;-).

In terms of the original post, if the job was that good, and the travel was to (say) JFK rather than (say) SYD, then I'd take it - the path not taken and all that.

Currently as the Head of HR if a candidate started asking me about the T&E policy during the interview process it would start the alarm bells ringing for me...
surely if the candidate has a line they will not cross re travel it is best addressed ASAP?
Raffles is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 6:26 am
  #124  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold, BMI Blue, Hilton Gold
Posts: 3,398
Originally Posted by Raffles View Post
surely if the candidate has a line they will not cross re travel it is best addressed ASAP?
Perhaps, but in the roles I'm recruiting for there are a number of people who could do the job, so I'm less likely to hire someone who is seen as "needy". It also, from my personal point of view rather than professional, shows a lack of faith in the company doing the right thing for employees if you have to start questioning the T&E policies in the interview. We don't travel by plane so much but for train travel employees can travel by whatever class/route they want so long as it is less than the case of an anytime standard ticket - this means that many people travel on advance first tickets, and that's fine. When greater flexibility is required then sometimes people (including me) have to travel standard rather than first, and most people seem fine with that.
LondonAndy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 6:37 am
  #125  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 150
Thanks for all the feedback, well most of it, I had to look the word ‘ingrate’ up in the dictionary 😊

I’ve pushed it as far as I’m willing to with the company, I really don’t want to start asking about booking classes and that sort of thing at this stage.

The travel will be global, sounds like CWS option “2) Medium company outsources medium travel spend to CWT, Amex etc, with direct GDS access, payment by corporate credit card typically. Maybe has some deals with BA and different deals with other oneworld airlines” is most applicable.

I need to decide over the weekend and it really boils down to work/life balance. If I take the job I need to resign myself to a lot more travel than I’m currently doing and be prepared to travel a day earlier and come back a day later which would often mean eating into weekends / family time.

Thanks again for all the comments, it's interesting to get other people's perspectives.
woodey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 6:46 am
  #126  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by DesertNomad View Post
I am the owner of my company and we only ever book in Y. Even when booking DXB-SFO or similar long hauls. My wife and I just returned from MIA-JFK-ZRH on business in Y... 6+ hours in JFK both ways too. At least we could get lounge access but I feel it is not at all worth vastly more cash to pay for J. If you don't like it, don't work for my company.... there are plenty of companies that throw money away.
And for me as a small business owner with 10 employees, we line item our travel budget to include J on trips over 4 hours, globally. Y anything within the US being based in Chicago. I was just in London for 1.5 day meeting and there would be no way I would have done Y and still be in the right mind set. From a company's perspective there's two areas I do no scrimp on; health benefits and travel. There's always a cost, either in time, health, money or opportunity and they're all interrelated.

To me there's no right or wrong to this answer. It's all about risk/rewards and it's going to be different with each person or company.
ords is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 6:47 am
  #127  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SIN 5 days out of 7
Programs: BD*G, A3*G, BAG/OWE, Accor Gold
Posts: 5,459
Unhappy

Originally Posted by orbitmic View Post
That said, I must say that I find the question a bit unreal to answer: in practice, in my experience, job choice has never been about the specific pros and cons in a table or something, I always get a pretty clear sense of whether I want it or not beyond rational arguments and I trust my summative judgement. So trust your instincts which are typically far more than instinct.
I agree with this point, but I suppose its a bit like having decided its a job you want and can do (based on instincts or facts), asking oneself whether the practicalities would work, e.g. great job but if it had a 3 hr commute to work and 3hr commute back from work everyday, would you still have the energy to sustain.
Calchas likes this.
jbfield is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 6:49 am
  #128  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave View Post
The way company travel is booked makes a big difference, there must be 2 dozen ways of doing it. Here are just a few examples to highlight the issues:
1) Large company has inhouse travel, a multi-million dollar spend on BA, including access to BT/IT (bulk/inclusive Tours) ticketing. It pay via immediate direct debit or invoicing
2) Medium company outsources medium travel spend to CWT, Amex etc, with direct GDS access, payment by corporate credit card typically. Maybe has some deals with BA and different deals with other oneworld airlines.
3) Small company books travel on corporate credit card but it's in the name of the traveller, and is booked via BA.com
4) Very small company gets traveller to book themselves and claim back.

You won't get POUGs on 1 or 2, perhaps 3 too. You can't have an AUP on 1. You may be able to UUA 2, 3, 4. Now 4 and perhaps 3 is effectively the best option in this area since (e.g. you can call within 24 hours of booking and upgrade to WTP for just the fare difference and no change fee).

Essentially it's all about ticket ownership, Know Your Customer, and whether the fares are public/published or not. Option 4 is the only one guaranteed to have ticket ownership with BA, known BAEC customer and published fares. A BT/IT ticket is at the other extreme - perhaps ticketed on AA, perhaps a BT/IT fare, not published, payment detached from the traveller.

And as I say there are dozens of variants in between.
Slightly intrigued by this... I work for a company inside the top 20 on the FTSE by market cap. I book all my flights through the corporate TA website and yet myself and colleagues are regularly offered POUGs in MMB (and often take advantage of them). We can also use Avios to upgrade by calling BA - just means they say that BA is taking control of the booking from the TA. Has never been an issue...
Starship73 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 7:07 am
  #129  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 41,097
Originally Posted by JamesBigglesworth View Post
Speaking from an HR perspective, if I had an applicant start asking those sorts of detail questions about how a company vendor operates internally I'd move on to the next candidate. There are always more people out there that can do the job well. Everyone thinks they're a special snowflake in terms of skillset and experience, but that's seldom really the case. The times that you genuinely can't find someone else to do X or Y job usually means you know the 2-3 people globally who *can* do it on a first name basis already.




You expect Carlson-Wagonlit et al to be able to manage that?! Ahahahahahaha.......

And as an aside, splitting the payment creates tax problems given a single charge in the books. They're a PITA to reconcile.




No, they may not be able to alter it. Depends entirely on the company.
It all depends on the industry and the seniority. OP is someone who is being offered 24K after taxes (let us presume roughly 30K) merely for the asking. This is likely a more senior position than one where someone in HR has much say beyond processing paperwork and the like.

While the junior candidate who seems too needy may well be a problem employee, that is not the case when hiring senior people who have a wealth of experience. If the company is prepared to toss 30K on one issue, either the company is naive or the OP is a sought-after candidate.

You are entirely wrong about corporate TA's and their ability to do split billing. While I cannot speak for every branch of every corporate TA, in the US/EU, it is becoming entirely common for employers to require TA's to offer this. From the TA perspective, it is an additional 30-seconds work when ticketing because the corporate and employee credit cards are both on file and it is simply a matter of attributing how much of a ticket goes to which card and that split is established by the employer's policy.

If one is hiring clerk-typists who can be found for the asking, there is no reason to go out of the way for them. But, when it comes to senior professionals who may offer services which go directly to one's bottom line, acommodating differences is exactly what successful companies can do and routinely do. (Not to suggest that one can't be successful without doing this).
Often1 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 7:11 am
  #130  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Somewhere in Russia
Programs: DL, KL
Posts: 906
A friend of mine founded an IT firm in Seattle that ended up having around 400 employees, all of whom were required to travel a lot. Back in around 2002 he announced a new policy that all travel was now to be in Y (even long-haul), which was obviously unpopular.

To mitigate the anger, he announced that in future, every time someone travelled, 1/3 of the theoretical increase to J would be put aside in a fund. For example, if J was $2000 and Y $500, 1/3 of the $1500 difference ($500) would be added to the pot.

At the end of the year, the pot was shared equally between all staff, and each received a Christmas bonus of around $30k (equal to 2-3 months salary). Everybody loved it and nobody complained about travelling in Y again. The company saved $24 million per year and everybody was happy.
seattle29 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 7:16 am
  #131  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Bronze
Posts: 5,116
Originally Posted by LondonAndy View Post
Perhaps, but in the roles I'm recruiting for there are a number of people who could do the job, so I'm less likely to hire someone who is seen as "needy". It also, from my personal point of view rather than professional, shows a lack of faith in the company doing the right thing for employees if you have to start questioning the T&E policies in the interview. We don't travel by plane so much but for train travel employees can travel by whatever class/route they want so long as it is less than the case of an anytime standard ticket - this means that many people travel on advance first tickets, and that's fine. When greater flexibility is required then sometimes people (including me) have to travel standard rather than first, and most people seem fine with that.
But why would you see someone as 'needy' if they wished to ask about the company travel policy at interview? Likewise, the salary, hours, leave or any aspect of the work. I don't see the difference.
frank_poulankh likes this.
Flexible preferences is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 7:30 am
  #132  
Jed
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold, AA 1MM lifetime gold, Starwood gold, Marriott Gold Elite
Posts: 428
I would certainly not reject a good job just because of a Y only travel policy, as long as it was a job that required no/minimal work travel.
It also depends if I were allowed to pay the difference to upgrade.
Jed is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 7:37 am
  #133  
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: 38,548
Originally Posted by Flexible preferences View Post
But why would you see someone as 'needy' if they wished to ask about the company travel policy at interview? Likewise, the salary, hours, leave or any aspect of the work. I don't see the difference.
Well a clever interviewee would frame it all carefully without causing distress:
"I understand the job involves a certain amount of travel, what policies cover this area? And is there an expectation to travel at weekends for example?"

Mind you, many companies and government bodies are working on the basis of Structured Interview Protocols to keep HR and Legal on side, so you get through that in a fairly clinical fashion, make a decision about whether to offer a job, and then there is a separate dialogue about pay and conditions before acceptance of the job offer.
corporate-wage-slave is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 7:43 am
  #134  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Bronze
Posts: 5,116
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave View Post
Well a clever interviewee would frame it all carefully without causing distress:
"I understand the job involves a certain amount of travel, what policies cover this area? And is there an expectation to travel at weekends for example?"

Mind you, many companies and government bodies are working on the basis of Structured Interview Protocols to keep HR and Legal on side, so you get through that in a fairly clinical fashion, make a decision about whether to offer a job, and then there is a separate dialogue about pay and conditions before acceptance of the job offer.
Yes, I can see what you're saying and would agree. I still don't get why it would be seen as needy to ask about the travel policy (assuming of course that was within a wider dialogue about many aspects of the role). To me it seems perfectly reasonable to ask.
Flexible preferences is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 18, 7:51 am
  #135  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,957
Originally Posted by LondonAndy View Post
Perhaps, but in the roles I'm recruiting for there are a number of people who could do the job, so I'm less likely to hire someone who is seen as "needy". It also, from my personal point of view rather than professional, shows a lack of faith in the company doing the right thing for employees if you have to start questioning the T&E policies in the interview.
If my questions in an interview defined me as "needy" rather than exploring all of the information I require to decide to accept a job offer, then I certainly would not want to be working for your organisation. Interviews are not all one-way streets.
lukew and mjh0 like this.
rossmacd is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread