thedoorchick

This was my reaction as well. I'm pretty frugal, and would be inclined to take a train while on business travel, assuming it wasn't incredibly more inconvenient and time-consuming than an alternative. But what the OP pointed out as seeming odd, and I don't disagree, seemed to be that this person was frugal with ground transportation but not with air travel, which is a much bigger cost difference.

That being said, some people just have particular "things" that they are frugal about. My supervising partner always flies in F, but he gets very worked up about how much people spend on parking at the airport. Trust me, what one person spends on airport parking is a drop in the bucket compared to his airfares. I generally have my DH take pickup/dropoff duty, but on the days I have to leave a car at the airport, I have no problem parking in the terminal, which is more expensive than the remote parking, but more convenient and frankly safer for a woman traveling alone.

cbn42

People don't use public transportation just for economic reasons. There are many other benefits. Some people might feel it is more environmentally friendly, enjoy observing the local people, be more comfortable with it because they are used to it and don't want to wait for a taxi, and so on. And if it is rush hour on the freeway, it might even be faster. Money is not the only consideration for making decisions.

Science Goy

True, but in both the OP and thedoorchick's examples, money was the reason cited for taking public transit and avoiding airport parking lots, respectively.

crabbing

For those ragging on the OP's friend about paying for J but not for cabs/limos, the answer was there from the beginning:I don't fly intl twice a month, but I do make semi-regular transcons and I find it very difficult to get work done in coach, and it's even more difficult if I have to go somewhere as soon as I land. When I've been in SF i have even ridden and done work on my laptop on the Bart, as i have on trains in LA and DC. In contrast I have never been able to work in a cab/car (other than to make phone calls, which isn't all the time).

gardener

Hah. When I would go to Cambridge I would take the Heathrow Express to the tube station, then tube to Kings Cross, then train to Cambridge (or Huntingdon) then cab. Could not justify spending 100 quid like all my colleagues on a car service when 40 quid would do.

Of course, I made it to the executive ranks and retired last year at age 55 - because I don't waste my money nor did I waste the company's money. After all I am a shareholder now and was then - so I acted like a part owner of the company.

Science Goy

I always find these rationalizations for J/F business travel ("I can't get work done in coach / I need to be well-rested / I have to start work immediately upon arrival") a bit silly. Lots of us fly exclusively in coach for our jobs (including overseas flights), are expected to begin work upon arrival, and succeed in doing so. If I had an employee who said "I won't be able to do my job well if you book me in coach," it'd be very easy to replace him with an employee who could.

SceneStealer7

+1 to this. I've learned to sleep on coach flights just like in my own bed, barring truly extenuating circumstances. Most things can be planned for: e.g., on an overnight flight, I always book window seats (so I won't be disturbed), and I always bring a blackout sleep mask and earplugs. Really, no reason not to be able to sleep (unless you're a prima donna).

nkedel

Key words, "easy to replace" -- some job roles are, some aren't. The harder you are to replace, the easier it is to be insistent about your working conditions.

Overseas coach AND having to go to work immediately is going to be an impractical combination for many people (mod jetlag, energy, and ability to sleep on planes.) That said, coach plus a day off (or a day at minimal duties) is often cheaper (accounting for all of salary + hotel + per diem) than J.

As someone with a lot of sleep trouble, I have to disagree with you. It's not about being a "prima donnas," and for many people it's entirely unconscious... psychology or biology, I couldn't say.

Now, as it happens, I sleep OK in (most) coach seats with some prescription assistance. Actually do worse in hotels, if the bed is over-hard, but I am never going to tell anyone else "oh, you should just be able to learn how to sleep on a plane." Works for me, doesn't for everyone. Also helps that I'm 5'7 1/2" -- some taller folks aren't going to fit comfortably in coach, even awake.

travelmad478

+1 to pretty much everything nkedel said. I am 5'2" and I still will never, ever be able to sleep more than a fitful hour or so in a coach seat, no matter how tired I am or how long the flight is. I am just a bad sleeper and need to be able to lie down flat--and even then it's a crapshoot. If I had to take a red-eye in coach I would absolutely not be able to work the next day. Chemical assistance just makes things worse, since then I am hopelessly groggy as well as cranky and exhausted.

If I were forced into coach I'd have to insist on flying a day early. That doesn't do anyone any good. Even with hotel, it's cheaper than flying in J, sure, but it means a whole wasted day of my time, which is not cheap.

Science Goy

I understand. All I'm saying is those of us who can pull this off would in many cases be more than happy to take the jobs of those who can't.

nkedel

Sure, and all other things being equal, you're at an advantage for some jobs.

On the other hand, all other things are rarely equal, or even close.