B747-437B

2 flights, 17 hours total each way, plus 5 hours at connecting point. Back-to-back redeye flights. 1 day at destination and then redeye flights back.

In addition, I am returning about 8 hours earlier from another trip, so it would be 3 consecutive nights on planes for me and 5 out of 7 nights by the time we return.

I've had a chance to discuss further with some of my colleagues and am leaning towards a course of action, but am keen to see any more feedback. I'm meeting the Chairman later this evening so I will put the matter to rest one way or the other before tomorrow.

TRAVELSIG

Alternative 1:
Fly Economy
Alternative 2:
Upgrade with some type of voucher/miles/etc
Alternative 3:
Pay personally for the upgrade and do not expense the company
Alternative 4:
Change the travel policy of the company

Toolmaker96

As the owner of a small business, I have had one rule that I always try & live by. That is, I will never ask an employee to do anything that I am not willing to do myself.
Now if you "Chairman" is not bothered by flying 1st while his subordinates are stuck in the back of the bus, that is up to him.
However, if I were an employee who noticed that the personnel tasked with enforcing travel policies, were not themselves living by those policies, that would create great resentment with me.

rmbl

Don't treat is as a one-off. You don't need the discontent among the ranks in a start-up. Either get the chairman to buy into your flying Y or change the policy. If you change the policy, change it in some meaningful way -- not just "only when flying with the chairman".

If the chairman and shareholder (=investor) reps are willing to spend this kind of money on you, maybe they're willing to spend it on anyone who's traveling long-haul. So change the policy.

dartagnan

If the staffers complain after the fact, politely ask them which side of the paycheck they sign...

kipper

This is what I would do! Should staffers notice that the person who is tasked with enforcing the travel policy isn't following it, it will create hate and discontent. As a leader, you should follow policies, even wehn they aren't convenient for you.

If the chairman doesn't understand, shame on him. Either convince him that for the good of the company, you need to follow the travel policy, or the travel policy needs to be revised. However, it should not be revised that C-suite employees can fly business or first, while everyone else flys economy.

Perhaps the travel policy should be revised that on flights of 6 or 7 hours in length or more, employees will fly in business class.

Alternatively, something to consider is allowing employees who are expected to do long-haul flights to opt to have a recovery day once they arrive at their destination, rather than flying business class or first class if they'd like.

This gives employees the option of not being expected to be at maximum productivity the day they arrive or the day after they arrive, but does mean that they trade comfort during the flight and an extra day at home for a day to recover.
If I was told that, I'd reply that I don't sign any, as it's done via direct deposit, but would seriously consider if I wanted to work for or with someone who thought that little about employees but that much about themselves. It's a great way to chase away good employees, both with an attitude like that, and C-suite employees thinking they are the exception to the rule.

manneca

As a former nonprofit employee and as a nonprofit president (board position not employment), I think you should follow company policy. If it's economy, then it's economy. When you return you might ask the board to change the policy.

A nonprofit raises and spends other people's money. I believe that those in the nonprofit sector should be good stewards of others' money.

Now, it might make really good sense to fly in business and the policy probably needs to be changed, but the policy should be changed, not violated.

powerplantop

My reply would be the last one or the next one? I can always get checks from a new location.

Just to be clear what I am saying is I do not work for people with attitudes like that. If my boss asked me that question within the next week or so I would be working for some one else.

dchristiva

Couldn't disagree more. I've done 8-9 hours in coach, and, while it's not as optimal as business or first, I've always arrived "up to snuff". That's part of being a professional.

And, frankly, I'd have a lot more respect for a COO who adheres to his own policy than one who made an exception just to "send a message" that "things are just fine".

brendog

Having worked for several start-ups, and now being a minion of a multi-billion dollar global conglomerate, our travel policies have always had a distinction between C-level and the riff-raff. If you've made your way towards the top of the foodchain, you get to make the call on class of service, so long as it's reasonable. In this case, it's very reasonable.

Now, if you were chartering a G5 consistently and forcing everyone else to fly serf-class, that would likely cause some heartburn, but int'l C? Not a big deal.

User Name

This is probably the most succinct case for the OP to travel in economy that's been made yet.

brendog

How so? There are perks to being at the top of the foodchain, a higher class of travel being one of them. In my company of 5,000+ employees, there are approximately 20 people who could theoretically exercise this right, although very few of them do. Personally, I can't justify the additional expense, but YMMV.

mecabq

I agree with both of these points. I am in a similar situation, a person of authority in a start-up company. I argued with the CEO that everyone in the company should fly the same class of service, whatever it is (in our case, biz for 8+ hours), though I lost the argument -- VP level in our company is allowed business for all flights except intra-GCC, while lower-level fly economy for <8 hours.

The scenario you are talking about now seems like as reasonable a case to fly business class as any, but your focus on setting a good example (both upward and downward) and controlling costs would trump that consideration in my opinion. If I were in your postion, I would probably have the company pay for Y and upgrade myself if it were practical.

Good discussion here.

GRALISTAIR

+1 Exactly right. My boss put it to me this way. If you are taking important people out - do you take them to dinner at Olive Garden and keep within the usual per diem - or do you take them to a really nice restaurant? We know the answer. It is the same with travel and your Chairman made the decision. Kepp up appearances, keep your chairman happy and your travelling companions too. NO ISSUE IMHO

BRWOOSTER

There are rules and then there is common sense. If your peers are in C, you should be as well. In this irrational world informal contacts and status are valuable and sometimes a lifesaver. And besides this I personally would have that feeling, like back in school when I was the last pick for the school team.