I know this is FlyerTalk, but I'm still surprised that one of the most effective options to reduce travel costs hasn't been touched on much yet: reduce the amount of travel.

First, the OP should do an analysis of the travel patterns or projections for this new division. Are the assumptions about the amount of travel required accurate? Could several trips be lumped into one, longer trip? Could some trips be eliminated entirely? Of course, there are some trips that are completely, totally essential--initial sales calls, emergency trips when something goes horribly wrong that require an upper-management presence. But simply continuing to do all these trips because "that's the way it's always been done" may mean overlooking a good opportunity to exhibit some of the management savvy your company is probably looking for.

Second, I'd be asking if some of the remaining contacts couldn't be handled by video conferencing. There are some trips where hands-on contact may be required or where the personal touch outweighs the inconvenience of getting there, but video conferencing is clearly an effective method of getting the job done with the least investment of time and money.

The equation should involve some balancing between simple cost cutting (which may brand you as someone with little vision) and increasing productivity (which seems to be key with many companies). If you are able to cut your travel in half and spend your saved time in figuring out other innovations for making your division profitable, I think you're better off than just saying, "I'll fly in Y every time."

No, people understand you, your point's just not a very well thought out one, and here's why.

1. You think that you can find thousands of people to fill any hypothetical position at a moment's notice. False... High unemployment does NOT mean a big pool of qualified applicants for senior level positions. Even today, in 2012, many companies are struggling to recruit.

2. I'm quite smart and capable after a flight in Y too. Not the 30th time in as many weeks and as many time zone changes though. Nobody is. I won't -- and neither would you -- do this for a living for years. Thus, you would have expensive turnover and poorly trained staff.

3. Airlines are not going to abolish J. That's a stupid thing to suggest.

4. Your comments about cisco are irrelevant. Their staff is largely local, and has very few travelers. In their travel-heavy positions, I imagine people do not spend very long.

Um... I have done this for years. As have most of my colleagues. Many have stayed on for decades, some well past retirement age.

That's why I wasn't suggesting that they would actually do it. It's called a "hypothetical statement."

Really? A company dealing mostly in expensive, specialized, enterprise-level equipment doesn't have a large pool of traveling sales and service reps? Huh, you learn something new every day.

Well, someone's being willfully obtuse here � I think a there's a general consensus on that.

But, more seriously, are there flights in J that could be taken in Y without diminishing the flyer's effectiveness? Sure.

But you've been arguing from the beginning that J is never (or, at best, almost never) justifiable from a business standpoint. I disagree.

More to the point, most businesses disagree.

Now, you may think that this means the people who set and approve the travel policies allowing for J on long-haul flight are mouth-breathing morons who are breaching their fiduciary duty to the company.

Which may be the case.

Then again, it may not.

People may be beating down your door to apply for jobs with your company, but I'd argue it's in spite of, not because of, your travel policy.

TB-ES

Not so much willfully as carelessly -- my online prose doesn't go through the same gamut of revisions and clarifications as the stuff meant for professional consumption

But from what I've read in this thread, the underlying justification for J tickets is primarily "the other guys do it." Company A offers it as a perk, because it's standard industry practice and if they didn't then Company B would have an additional enticement by which to poach A's best people. Fine, companies compete for top employees, I'll give you that. However, the "well-rested"/"can't do my job without J/F" arguments are in my opinion poorly-justified. Motivated people tend to pull through in difficult situations, and if all companies hypothetically decided to stop booking premium cabins, I doubt we'd see much difference in productivity.

To play devil's advocate, I wouldn't have a problem with Y flights (assuming trans-atlantic and no longer) if it meant another night in a hotel, with said hotel being the best hotel in the given city.

I'd much prefer to fly NYC-LON in Y and stay at the Four Seasons, Berkeley, or the like, and have time to relax, then do it in J, rush to a meeting, then spend the night in a Marriott.

justification of these threads?

OK, this is my last post on this; we're obviously talking past one another, and if you want the last word after this, I'll give it to you.

I gave you an expample from my own experience as to why I felt J was justified in certain situations - and was mocked and dismissed.

And the YYC-FRA-TXL trip isn't even the worst flight I may be asked to take for business in the upcoming year: YYC-FRA-RUH-MCT or YYC-YVR-NRT-SIN-CGK are currently in the planning stages, depending on the success of our bids.

Now, you're perfectly at liberty to say "Suck it up, princess, you ought to fly in Y and save your clients a few thousand bucks", but as I said earlier, I'm glad you're not setting policy for my company.

TB-ES

I work for a company that for the most part[1] does not pay for business class travel at the moment.

My position has me traveling 200-300K miles a year. I, like all of my colleagues, try to minimize and avoid the travel that we do. Many of my colleagues outright refuse. This makes them less productive. One of the big reasons people avoid travel is the lack of J class at the moment - this means either arriving totally stuffed (and worse, for those with families, returning totally stuffed) or spending less time with families. Going out early/taking time off on your return is permitted and even encouraged, but it rarely makes up the difference in my experience.

I manage it with SWUs, creative bookings, mileage upgrades, etc but it is tough. I've flown across the Pacific multiple times in a month, often continuing straight on to Europe after that. I can tell you I am not in peak form and it can be a struggle. I pick the travel I take based on what I enjoy most, as well as what is most beneficial to my role and the company.

To add some interesting datapoints: I pay for personal travel in J (or at least, premium economy) - my personal time is too short to spend it in Y. My employer tends to pay above average for the role we do. We struggle to fill vacancies - there's simply a shortage of talent in my area. Like others on this thread I get calls weekly, if not daily, from recruiters trying to get me to other employers.

[1] We do permit business requests for travel over 9 hours, but only a percentage are approved - typically for medical issues, traveling with a customer, or for very senior executives. The policy has been acknowledged internally as a problem, but right now it isn't going to change.

I have to side with ScienceGoy on this one.

I have many people with whom I interact on business (not working for or with me specifically), whom I see on international trips. The majority of them got to Europe or Asia (from the USA) in economy. They're just happy to be there, do their business, then go home. The class of travel is not even an issue for them unless you specifically bring it up.

I have not seen a single one quit because of economy class international travel.

The bottom line is that most of us live in a free society. I am free to insist on business class, and the companies I work for are free to accept or refuse. Thank goodness neither of us are forced to go against our will.

Another bottom line is that the worlds major airlines derive most of their revenue from business class, and business class cabins are mostly full. Thank goodness for that too.

I have.

I also wonder if your acquaintances are flying the type of mileage described by the OP or others in this thread.

Agree with Science Guy.

I spent 8 months flying to S. America every 2 weeks followed by 10 months going to Germany/Italy ( from the west coast) every 3 weeks. All in Y ( with occasio al upgrades with miles/status). Not once did I think of quitting because I wasn't in J. And this was in the mid 2000s when unemployment was 4%.

Some of you lead very pampered lives if NOT flying J is cause for quitting a job.

Every two weeks / every three weeks isn't that bad. There are many of us who have to do two or three trips back-to-back every week. That's where it becomes difficult doing it in Y.

2-3 TPAC / TATL back to back every week? I don't care if I had my own jet, I'd quit that job.