No hostility, just an unpopular view (and I knew it when I posted). There is such an enitlement attitude floating around these boards that a reality check is necessary once in awhile. My post was tame... you wanna see hostile, go start an "employee class" thread over on the UA board.

Effrem,

I have one question for you... isn't it fiscally responsible for a company to require you to use award miles on company travel that were gained by flying on company paid travel? Why or why not? Presuming that you fly enough to care about airline related marketing tools, doesn't elite status in and of itself achieve the same goal about encouraging future behavior? At the level of flying I do, the base miles are inconsequential. It's the elite perks that actually get my feet and butt on an airplane.

You're right in that it sucks to have the rules of the ball game changed at the 7th inning stretch, but, as is anything with life, the only constant in life is change.

Effrem may have gone to bed.

It may or may not be fiscally responsible. Kinda depends on the company. The article says that with the lower airfares (I'm thinking since the Saturday night stays were eliminated) it costs more to administer than Walmart saved, so it would be fiscally irresponsible to continue it. That's why Walmart dropped it, not because of some revolt in the ranks. And if it doesn't make cost sense for Walmart, with the way fares to Bentonville are, then I can't see it making sense for anybody, although I'll bet there are a few companies out there who haven't figured this out yet.

Companies set the terms and conditions of employment. As long as you know going in what they are, and agree to it, it's OK. And things do change, and if you really don't like the change, your only option is often to move.

And I agree that if you fly enough, the last thing you want to do on vacation is spend another night in another bed in another hotel in another city. For very high mileage flyers, the status is everything, and the miles don't mean that much. For intermediate flyers, they don't spend that much time on the road, they don't get as much status benefits, and the miles really are meaningful.

I couldn't care less if it's "fiscally responsible" or not.

It might be "fiscally responsible" for a company to use milk crates for office furniture, limit bathroom breaks to 5 minutes every 8 hours and make me pay for my own staples. Guess what? I'm not going to work there! Same goes for my FF miles. If a company tries to pull that nonsense, I am gone and I'm pretty darn good at what I do.

As to airline employees in premium cabins... You want to pay like we do, great you're welcome to the product too. Otherwise, after all paying passengers have been accommodated, either in paid fares or upgraded with the appropriate currency (miles, points, etc), then airline employees are also welcome in the premium cabin. No arguments there. Employees in premium cabins over paying passengers (not complimentary upgrades)? I will avoid any airline that has this policy. Delta, Northwest and Continental all have BS rules that favor non-rev travel in international business over paying passengers willing to pay miles or certificates to upgrade. Consequently, the Sk***am Alliance gets about 20% or less of my annual travel.

I had, but I woke up again. (Just one "f" in the handle, BTW.)

There's a fine line between "fiscally responsible" and "penny-pinching." The first is good. The second is not. Personally, I think trying to grab employees' FF miles crosses the line, but anyone should feel free to disagree - and to run their company accordingly, if they have one. (I've put my money where my mouth is in that regard, as CEO and half-owner of a consulting firm with a fairly large international travel budget a few years back.) For that matter, I also think that trying to force employees to use their miles for business travel gets into "penny wise and pound foolish" territory.

Only if I'm only required to travel during normal business hours, 8am-6pm Mon-Fri, and my workload is reduced accordingly.

85% of my work travel occurs with departure times after 6pm. I don't get paid a higher salary than similarly skilled who work on projects which do not require as much travel. Allowing me to keep my miles is a benefit that costs my employer nothing. In fact, in the long run it saves my employer money.

And I have offered to use miles before without reimbursement - on a ticket that was going to cost $1800 but was wide open in F award space, and was told that it was a nice gesture but that they could afford the expense.

And just when I thought I'd never have anything in common with your views. You do have a redeeming quality.

It's "fiscally responsible" to cut costs where the dollars saved aren't offset by consequences such as lost productivity, increased employee turnover or difficulty in attracting good employees in the first place. Unfortunately, the dollars saved are much easier to measure than these consequences, and performance management incentives are usually skewed towards easily measurable (and generally short-term) cost savings even in cases where they are counter-productive.

Frequent flyer or not, I have no desire to shop or work their. Thank goodness for Target.

on that note... did you know that Target employees don't get to keep their miles? a sore matter for some here in MSP...

I've switched to K-Mart anyway.