Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > TravelBuzz
Reload this Page >

Travel policy conundrum

Travel policy conundrum

Old Feb 1, 2012, 11:28 am
  #31  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,565
Originally Posted by 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.
To me, it comes down to this:

As the person who has the say so, if an employee came to you with that same itinerary (22hours travel, 1 day doing work, 22 hours travel - plus whatever the prior and subsequent trips are), not with shareholders / chairman, what would your answer be? Personally, I think it is unreasonable to expect anyone to do that, but I know sometimes we all have to suck it up - long term tho, if that happens a lot, you are going to end up with high turnover / sick employees.

I used to work somewhere with a pretty tight travel policy, and there were times when the trip was worthy of an exception to the policy (such as one of our managers, who lived in Asia, travelling to NA headquarters). Our mandated 'cheapest fare' had him dancing all around the houses, in shorter segments (which meant under the threshold for business class). I would always approve a non-stop flight in business for him.

If you are fair to others, and reasonable when they come to you with similar exceptions, I don't see that rules have to be unmovable.
emma69 is offline  
Old Feb 1, 2012, 12:36 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 107
"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."

What sort of message are you giving to your workers if you are expecting them to go over 24 hours without the opportunity for proper sleep, but then expecting them to go straight from the airport to work all day, and then fly back without the chance to have any sleep, or even to have a shower and change of clothing?

I think very few people would be in a fit state to work after that schedule, and definitely not be fully productive.
PDPhoto is offline  
Old Feb 1, 2012, 1:14 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: PHL
Programs: Marriott Lifetime PLT
Posts: 1,229
Originally Posted by PDPhoto
"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."

What sort of message are you giving to your workers if you are expecting them to go over 24 hours without the opportunity for proper sleep, but then expecting them to go straight from the airport to work all day, and then fly back without the chance to have any sleep, or even to have a shower and change of clothing?

I think very few people would be in a fit state to work after that schedule, and definitely not be fully productive.
+1
I agree if you are expecting your employees to do it in Y, you should also do Y.. but 48 hours of flying in ~60ish hours is absurd even in F or J and unfathomable in Y. I think if you are expecting everyone to do this, you should reconsider the travel policy.
doctor15 is offline  
Old Feb 1, 2012, 1:44 pm
  #34  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Programs: PC Plat RA, SPG Gold, AS MVPG
Posts: 811
Revise the travel policy.

Make it X hours or more, flying in Business is permitted

or like our lovely company. Intercontinental flights are permitted for VP or above, OR with VP permission.
no one flys business except VP and C-level. Employees LOVE it. not.
vmsea is offline  
Old Feb 1, 2012, 1:48 pm
  #35  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Exile
Posts: 15,638
Ok, resolution has been reached. I will fly out in Business Class with the team per the Chairman's request, but our company will only bear the Economy Class cost per our policy. I'll spare the exact details of the compromise but it seems to be acceptable to everyone.

More interesting though has been the reaction from various people both here as well as within the organisation when I raised this question with them.

Every single one of my immediate reports that I raised this with (who are good enough friends with me that they don't need to be yes-men/women) said that I was being an idiot for even discussing the issue. They said that its the thought that counts and if I voiced my objection and was overruled by the Chairman, that was enough to convince them that I was not abusing the policy. Indeed, most said that they wouldn't even have considered it abuse if I had just quietly gone along with it without raising the issue as they see me very obviously following the policy under "normal" circumstances.

Our Head of HR made some good points here. Our travel policy is guided by the philosophy that "an employee should neither unduly benefit nor unduly suffer as a result of business travel". Therefore, the standard of lifestyle that the company provides when traveling should be approximately equivalent to that we have when at home. Our Chairman flies in First because he drives around in a Rolls Royce and lives in a mansion. Our C-level staff, including myself, normally fly Business Class on personal travel (I usually use miles!), therefore it would not be particularly inconsiderate for me to even demand Business Class travel on company business. Certainly, I am encouraged to set an example within the organisation, but sometimes a better example can be set by demonstrating that common sense exceptions can exist.

With regards our actual travel policy, as a rule of thumb we always give folks a rest day at destination on arrival (8 hour time difference). We don't have that luxury on this trip due to my previous trip that almost overlaps. Indeed, of the dozen other people who are due to travel this same route this month, I am the only one who will not have a clear rest day upon arrival. Setting an example doesn't necessarily mean that I should hold myself to a higher or different standard despite my personal discomfort or detriment. I guess I will be more open to future requests from other staff who have a similar schedule with no rest day on arrival. The cost differential is only $650 for one-way in Business, so its more affordable than most think.

This has been a bit of an eye-opener to me with regards the divergent viewpoints that exist on the issue. It just goes to prove that you can never please everyone. I'm happy that the resolution satisfies my own conscience and at the end of the day, that's pretty much the best that any manager can do for himself and his team.

Thanks to all who contributed here for their input and comments. I'll toast you guys with a glass of champagne from my flat bed seat.
B747-437B is offline  
Old Feb 1, 2012, 3:04 pm
  #36  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia (IAD)
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 228
Congratulations on reaching your conclusion amicably. I too find the discussion fascinating.

Brings back memories from a capital starved start-up I was working in 7 or 8 years ago, in an admittedly more junior position than COO. I had opportunity to schedule a day trip from a regional east coast outstation to NYC (LGA) for a 2 hour client meeting. On a Friday. In the summertime. You can all see where this is headed.

Long story short, the meeting ended early and we arrived back at LGA maybe an hour (tops) before we planned. I think we were booked to fly home at approximately 5PM. There was an opportunity to get home on a 4PM flight, but it involved travel on a different airline then ticketed. The 2 very senior executives I was traveling with, on the spot forked over $400 each for full Y tickets for the approximately 1 hour 1 way RJ return. The justification was they would now be home in time for dinner with their families. The value of the original tickets would effectively be wiped out by change / cnxl fees, and IIRC were probably booked last minute anyway so fairly expensive. Of course, as we were traveling together they bought me a seat as well, I suppose as a professional courtesy.

As luck would have it, typical Friday LGA delays in the summertime meant that no one made it home in time for dinner that night as anticipated after all. And the lack of fiscal discipline as displayed by these very senior founding executives foreshadowed the organization running out of cash less than one year later. The conclusions are academic, and as I look back and reflect on this memorable lesson, it was pretty clear from that moment forward we weren't going to make it.

The fact that your team is in a different place, and you've created a culture where a pace setting executive can pause to think through the implications of any decision before carefully and deliberately proceeding reflect positively on your organizations prospects for future success. Enjoy your trip in C it sounds like you've earned it.
ric_wx is offline  
Old Feb 3, 2012, 5:33 am
  #37  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Exile
Posts: 15,638
As a final ironic twist to the tale, the dates have now changed for this trip so I will no longer be flying back-to-back trips. In addition, I will be staying on an extra day at destination for other meetings so I will not be flying with the Chairman, and the date of my new return is full in Business Class so I have no choice but to fly Economy!

Sometimes, things have a way of sorting themselves out!
B747-437B is offline  
Old Feb 3, 2012, 5:30 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: 1 AU
Programs: Support the Tyrants Travel Club
Posts: 2,707
Originally Posted by tjl
Perhaps he is worried that if you fly economy but he does not, he will look bad.
Yes, it is possible!

Originally Posted by dartagnan
If the staffers complain after the fact, politely ask them which side of the paycheck they sign...
Well this is pretty much the best way to guarantee that you will soon have no staffers at all!
Mr. Bean is offline  
Old Feb 3, 2012, 6:15 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,604
I don't see a conundrum at all. You can't fly C while having a travel policy saying you should fly Y. If the Chairman believes that it sends the wrong message to have C level executives flying in Y then he's saying the policy is wrong and should let C level executives fly in C. Either he made his case or he didn't and it's a decision that has to be made like any other.
zkzkz is offline  
Old Feb 3, 2012, 9:46 pm
  #40  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: in the vicinity of SFO
Programs: AA 2MM (LT-PLT, PPro for this year)
Posts: 19,781
Originally Posted by Mr. Bean
Well this is pretty much the best way to guarantee that you will soon have no staffers at all!
Certainly, if you have highly-skilled and in-demand employees.
nkedel is offline  
Old Feb 4, 2012, 2:23 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Programs: Delta, USAir, Marriott, SPG, AmEx
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by B747-437B

Our Head of HR made some good points here. Our travel policy is guided by the philosophy that "an employee should neither unduly benefit nor unduly suffer as a result of business travel". Therefore, the standard of lifestyle that the company provides when traveling should be approximately equivalent to that we have when at home. Our Chairman flies in First because he drives around in a Rolls Royce and lives in a mansion. Our C-level staff, including myself, normally fly Business Class on personal travel (I usually use miles!), therefore it would not be particularly inconsiderate for me to even demand Business Class travel on company business. Certainly, I am encouraged to set an example within the organisation, but sometimes a better example can be set by demonstrating that common sense exceptions can exist.
I would call 17 hours each way in coach unduly suffering. Does the company purchase "Y" fares so the employees with status at least have a chance at an upgrade? Or is the policy to purchase the cheapest economy fare possible?
BigMoneyGrip is offline  
Old Feb 4, 2012, 2:32 pm
  #42  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Menlo Park, CA, USA
Programs: UA: 1K, HH: Diamond
Posts: 1,330
Originally Posted by 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.
I fly in Y 95% of the time. There is no way I would do that trip in Y, and if I worked for a place that enforced that kind of madness, I'd start circulating my resume soonest.
deirdre is offline  
Old Feb 4, 2012, 2:33 pm
  #43  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: in the vicinity of SFO
Programs: AA 2MM (LT-PLT, PPro for this year)
Posts: 19,781
Originally Posted by BigMoneyGrip
I would call 17 hours each way in coach unduly suffering. Does the company purchase "Y" fares so the employees with status at least have a chance at an upgrade? Or is the policy to purchase the cheapest economy fare possible?
"Chance at an upgrade" and which coach fares qualify for it, depend greatly on the airline(s)/alliance involved, and in some cases on the routes involved. In some cases a full-fare, unrestricted Y can be as pricy as a most-restricted business class (or domestic first or business).

My employer back in the very beginning of the 2000s would fly everyone full-Y unless you intentionally booked something cheaper; in those (limited) cases where there was a discount/restricted domestic first rate which was cheaper, it was allowed (at least for those of us who had relatively predictable travel schedules; I'd imagine there might have been some annoyance if someone had taken a restricted ticket, had to change schedules, and run up a big fare change plus change fee -- I assume avoiding that was the justification for flying everyone unrestricted in the first place.) I never flew international for them to see if the same would apply where discount J was cheaper than full Y.
nkedel is offline  
Old Feb 5, 2012, 1:22 am
  #44  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Exile
Posts: 15,638
Originally Posted by BigMoneyGrip
Does the company purchase "Y" fares so the employees with status at least have a chance at an upgrade? Or is the policy to purchase the cheapest economy fare possible?
Our preferred corporate carrier is Emirates, so all fares are upgradeable with miles anyway.

17 hours and 2 consecutive redeyes in Economy is really not that bad. I draw the line personally when it comes to more than 4 consecutive redeyes (that is when it starts to affect my productivity), but YMMV.
B747-437B is offline  
Old Feb 5, 2012, 1:39 am
  #45  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FLL -> Where The Boyars Are
Programs: AA EXP 1.7 M, Hilton Gold, Hertz 5*, AARP Sophomore, 14-time Croix de Candlestick
Posts: 18,669
I think that these kind of policies need to have a certain amount of "bend" to meet unique business-related situations.

One approach would be to require deviations to the published policy documented in permanent records, to be approved by a member of senior management, and (this is most important) for the business necessity of the request to then be "affirmed" by a second member of senior management (maybe the head of HR).

The idea here is to reinforce the concept that exceptions must be few and far between, and mot to be requested in a light manner. Knowing that even the Chairperson cannot bypass the process would let the general staff members that travel that the standard (non-emergencuy) policy has credibility.
Non-NonRev is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.