nkedel

The definition of individuals in that sense is up to the airlines, not the legal definition used in electoral-speech laws (it's far from clear whether that even extends to running for office, for example.) The airlines will do it if and when it's in their interest, and would have probably done so anyway had they seen an interest in doing so.

No amount cheaper where an American could still EAT (for one, forget support a family) is going to be able to compete with below-minimum-wage unskilled manufacturing jobs overseas. It's a bunk comparison; the move of some lower-skilled white collar jobs like call centers or some SW development and tech support jobs to places like India is a better one, although even there we've seen mixed results and announcements of the death of the American IT industry seems premature (indeed, most of the layoffs Isaw blamed on "we're being outsourced" complaints in the dot-com failure days seem in retrospect to mainly be a sign of the general collapse of the bubble.)

How many of those are qualified, and young enough? Companies are going to continue to avoid hiring older workers as far as they can evade the relevant laws, and companies are going to be reluctant to train people, especially non-college grads and to a lesser extent new grads. From what I can see, given the very narrow corporate definition of "qualified" in many fields there is a shortage of qualified people.

If it was that good of a deal, why don't companies already negotiate for it? Meanwhile, what's in it for the airline?

If they're willing to book it far enough to get saver fares, they'd also be able to schedule it such that they could use discount Y at around a single thousand per person.

Meanwhile, the airline loses the loyalty-value of the individual miles earning, and if the company either is willing to send a guaranteed amount of its business (or all of it) to AA, it can get already better fares by agreement with AA while if it isn't, AA doesn't see any advantage of the companies getting the miles.

So I don't see what's in it for AA in your scenario - remember, these programs aren't an entitlement, they're a marketing tool.

Auto Enthusiast

Let's also not forget that not everyone is or wants to be in a company or industry that requires constant travel. Plenty of people go to the office from 9-5 and never see the inside of an airplane. If one job requires heavy travel with no personal rewards accrual, it might be time to evaluate other career options.

Also, think about the voluntary denied boarding compensation issues that would arise. Today, that flight voucher could be used to make the expensive impossible possible for leisure travel. So if you can, it could be worth the inconvenience to volunteer. However, if the company controls the FF credits, you'd be volunteering to spend the night in another city...to feed the company. Fewer people would think it worthwhile to bother volunteering, leaving the airline to forcibly bump people and pay more.

Another point: What about those business rewards credit cards being advertised? Ex Chase Ink, with an introductory 40,000 points, good for a $400 travel voucher, intended for a business trip? Theoretically, as a sort of compromise, if the company pays the employees' airfare with that card, the company can still earn business travel rewards, while the employee could still get their personal miles. But the company could still decide to go after those as well. And the business award trip would earn the employee no miles.

DHAST

There's a lot of truth to what you say. Several years ago, I was an airline ramp rat, and had the opportunity to do some temporary work at another base. Truth be told, after a couple of weeks, living out of a hotel really started to suck. Unfortunately, I didn't accrue any miles or hotel points. There really was nothing "extra" in it for me for helping the company out.

Two years ago, I talked to US Airways about two different employment opportunities. The pay was lousy, and neither position was at a European gateway. (Mandatory connections on standby travel don't make for good trips.)

I ended up with a job that pays pretty well, doesn't require travel, and gives me 4 weeks vacation + federal holidays (I get 5 weeks vacation after three years of service.)

I like traveling when I want to and the ability to afford the really nice vacation every once in awhile. Does it suck to be the average joe when I travel? Yeah, but my situation also means I can outright pay for the nicer things when I want to.

janetdoe

It is a long-standing point of corporate law that corporations have the rights and responsibilities of an individual person. I don't think the recent court decisions are as sweeping or meaningful as you posit.

If you imagine that this single court decision suddenly gives corporate travel departments a huge power over airlines that they were previously lacking, I think you are mistaken.

Yeah, why don't they just whip that up - I'm sure they could do it in HTML in a few minutes - and push out the changes? I think you are seriously underestimating the difficulty of adding a database field to an enterprise mainframe system that was probably written in COBOL more than thirty years ago. As an example, AA can't even set up the accounting to separate BIS miles from credit card miles for the purposes of lifetime status - and the data necessary to enable that logic already exist in their systems.

Further, if they do make that change, then I'm going to start an internet corporation that pays you a salary of $.005 per mile when you let me make the reservation "on behalf of JanetDoe LLC". Sort of a reverse travel agency for the millions of people who will never have enough miles to do anything themselves, but would love to save a couple of bucks on their flight to visit Aunt Millie. @:-)

dave-b

I see that the main reason this doesn't happen more often is that it is bad business for the airlines:

First, it eliminates the whole point of FF programs -- encourage customer loyalty. I'm more willing to take an extra stop to fly with my preferred airline or drive an extra mile to stay at my preferred hotel chain because of the points and status.

Second, since many travelers don't ever redeem their points, this likely would substantially increase the % of miles that get redeemed.

Third, since businesses would presumably have sophisticated software and experienced staff to control the use of the miles, the redemptions would be likely be used for better value than most people would use them.

TravelerMSY

The high-mileage employees also tend to be high-value and are going to scream bloody murder.

The low-mileage employees won't care, but also won't have enough miles in a single account to claim a meaningful award. Remember, no pooling under current rules.

I could see this working at a small company informally but not at a large one. The small companies aren't going to be getting rock-bottom contract rates anyway.

libuser

I work for a large gov contractor company - 80 000 employees plus in the US, and 6 months ago we moved to the cheapest carrier, and cheapest hotel(based on rank within the company), and of course no miles/points for either. That was a big hit, a lot complained, some left, but no changes. It looks like it will be adopted everywhere pretty soon.

kebosabi

Great seeing good and valid points from both sides in this matter. But overall, we can all see that one thing that benefits the individual does not necessarily mean it benefits the company. Some have noted that they are willing to add an extra leg or drive a bit more to get miles/points, but from the company perspective these are all unnecessary costs that just add up to wasted time and money; costs which companies would like to be dampened in these tough times.

Now it seems some have mentioned that they know of companies or have even worked for a company that already made the switch. Judging by this, it seems like this is the way things are going these days, yet another reality that corporate cost cutting is hurting more and more people for what they took for granted in the past decades or so. Seems like one person even mentioned working for a huge government contractor, hinting signs that these are what corporate America is seriously looking at, and might entice the travel industry to see what synergies can be developed; I mean face it, the travel industry of today is more heavily dependent upon business travelers these days over the common travelling individual.


I think this is diverging from the topic, but c’mon, get realistic. There’s only as far as much as companies can go to be selective in their hiring process. The “experience” factor is, let’s face it, utter BS as you and I both know it; we’re just lucky to be hired when the process of today wasn’t the norm back then, when companies actually took the time to train people. In fact, I think it’s akin to underestimating the intelligence and the can-do will power of most Americans.

The truth is, there is no shortage of qualified applicants, it’s just that the hiring process of America of today is stuck in this vicious cycle of “need experience to get a job, but you can’t get a job because you have no experience, and no company is willing to train you to help you gain that experience.” And even though you said to a lesser extend newly grads, but for the past few years, many new grads fresh out of college are still stuck at being baristas at Starbucks.

And is this helping America at all? How on earth are we supposed to start becoming productive again by making Made in USA TV and electronics here when companies won’t hire Americans because they have no prior experience in making consumer electronics? Gee, maybe because the people who know how to make consumer electronics in the US are already in retirement age and there haven’t been any younger generations having the know-how how to make them ever since we became dependent on Sonys, Sharps, Toshibas and Panasonics?

Of course there’s going to be shortage of qualified people; because even people who are perfectly qualified if they get a chance to prove themselves that they can do it are shunned off without giving them a try. One company that I know of has begun to re-think their hiring strategy by implementing a two month “minimum wage policy” for prospective applicants. People are willing to take that two month white collar job at minimum wage, and surprisingly the applicants who took that job were able to grasp the job quickly within those two months even without prior experience in the field.

Auto Enthusiast

Why don't I see many customers in business suits when I stop at a Motel 6 on a roadtrip? Cheapest area rate most of the time, and no rewards. Out of all the 6s I stayed at, I think I saw one guy in a suit with a rollaboard, in San Diego.

kebosabi

Be glad companies haven't heard of youth hostels yet!

jfhscott

Not so fast. Virtually all programs award perks to the people whose butts are in the seat or on the mattress. The payer never has the perks, so they cannot "keep" them.

As for government employees, I counsel a more practical approach. (1) you don't know that non-wage inducments are significant enough for government employees. But more importantly, the government would have to create a Department of Frequent Flyer Miles with a bloated bureaucratic staff to regulate whether employees are using miles for federal travel. Someone would have to monitor everyone's accounts, search or awards seats, get clearance from the account holder for miles deductions, all for the benefit of avoiding government fares, which the GSA has done an effective job negotiating. I promise you, the cure is far worse than the problem.

kebosabi

Great point, and to be fair, it's not just frequent flyer miles or hotel points, but pretty much the majority of all point-based rewards programs are individual based whether it be earning miles on [any airline] to recycling inks and toners and getting cash back at Staples, or earning BestBuy RewardZone points for purchases on BestBuy.com and BestBuy retail stores.

However, corporate America is always on the look out to save a buck or two whenever they can. I mean, what's stopping from say, United Airlines at LAX from buying five large 40" LCD screens from the local BestBuy for their gate information displays, and earning enough BestBuy RewardZone points from that purchase to buy a new beer fridge for the Red Carpet lounge? Or say, Fedex Kinkos to recycle all their used toner cartridges to a local Staples or buy inks and toners in bulk from them to earn cash back rebates?

Not to be sarcastic, but with more and more cash-back/miles/points/etc. rewards these days targeted towards consumers (and corporations are consumers too), you may not be far off that someday we'll actually see "Rewards Departments" in corporations all across America

Auto Enthusiast

Theoretically companies could require employees to pay for their own company-related travel. I hear some companies already make their employees pay for home office Internet connections, some colleges make their faculty pay for research-related travel, and I think long-haul truckers have to pay for their own lodging, meals, showers, etc.

What's best for the company is frequently not what's best for the individual. And it's not just the above example. The company can fire 1,000 people, for instance. Some of these people may have been within 2 years of retirement, and may have been a loyal employee for 35 years. So, many people increasingly argue that employee loyalty has limited merit, and employees should base decisions primarily on their own interests.

Auto Enthusiast

I mean, what's stopping from say, United Airlines at LAX from buying five large 40" LCD screens from the local BestBuy for their gate information displays, and earning enough BestBuy RewardZone points from that purchase to buy a new beer fridge for the Red Carpet lounge? Or say, Fedex Kinkos to recycle all their used toner cartridges to a local Staples or buy inks and toners in bulk from them to earn cash back rebates?

I'm pretty sure this is already being done, especially things like ink and toner. But recycling or purchasing things like that on a company charge account involve a few computerized order forms and/or telephone calls. It does not require someone to personally sacrifice days and weeks at home with family, often for a salary competitive with easier, non-travel positions.

mahasamatman

I work at home three days a week, and I have to pay for my connection, but it's a good deal considering the money I save on commuting.