dranz

> Hertz. That means no Exec Select cars...just the midsize

Midsize? That's luxury for me. I'm required to use Hertz economy cars. Just picked up
my Aveo for a 260 mile drive (one-way). No, I'm not allowed to pay the $1/day my own
self, that it costs to upgrade to a compact. I can drive my own car, but that is non-
reimbursable.

pragakhan

What is your daily max? Ours is a set dollar amount and with National (contract with employer) the price from smallest to full size is the same price as an Exec Elite.

So it doesn't matter what we rent, since it all costs the same.

*A Flyer

What a ridiculous policy but it seems there are just far too many of these. All they have to do is reimburse what they would have paid and everyone should be happy.

rbwpi

After reading all these posts, I think this thread could be retitled "Penny Wise, Pound Foolish".

gooselee

It shouldn't matter what we rent, since it all costs the same.

We also have contracted rates with National, but, my company reimburses by receipt and our allowed size is compact, or midsize if it's shared (which sometimes actually does make sense for our work/locations).

So even though as an Exec I can get full for the same price, and if I'm traveling with someone I can book a mid and drive a full for the same rate, I'm forced to schlep down the ES or ER aisles for a compact/mid because they won't reimburse if my receipt shows that I drove off with a full, despite the rate being the same.

The only good part is that I'm usually in cities where I can forego the rental for taxis and subways, the combination of which sometimes ends up costing more anyway.

pragakhan

- See, pointless policies that don't do a thing...... Did you try explaining it is the same price? With screenshots as evidence?

Sorry mang

MSPeconomist

I was requested to speak at a conference where reimbursement of my travel expenses by the organization was part of the deal, but it would be according to their rules. They set out amounts in a contract and I immediately noticed that the airfare amount seemed unrealistic: $220 when the cheapest fare I saw was $280, with the rule being that they would not reimburse the $220 if my ticket cost $221 for example. I questioned their estimate and was told that there was a $208 ticket available on travelocity or expedia. Hours later I saw the ticket that was proposed: 5 segments and 14+ hours when NW offered the $280 three hour nonstop six times per day. The cheap ticket would require me to depart before 6 am and nevertheless miss the first day's events (no extra hotel night could be reimbursed either for travel one day earlier). More significantly, each segment was on a different carrier and some didn't interline, so that travelocity/expedia could not issue the ticket, which would have unrealistic connection times such as thirty minutes from one budget carrier to another at ORD. I refused to participate in the meeting under these conditions.

roberino

I had this once when I was an invited speaker at a conference. I was expected to get from the UK to Toronto for GBP350 and they wouldn't pay any of it if it was a penny over. I pointed out that the cheapest ticket from MAN was GBP700 and they directed me to some budget carrier's website where it said I could get tickets from GBP329 from LHR. For the dates I needed to travel the fare was GBP800 anyway. They also wouldn't pay the costs for me to get to LHR via train or from Toronto airport to the hotel by taxi. I sent them the search list from two travel websites and the budget carrier and they still kicked up about the cost. I pointed out that that was what the flight would costs, however upset they were about it. I too ended up not going.

Indelaware

So true, almost. I onced justified, with appologies, the purchase of an F ticket out of a war zone where the fight was advancing toward the airport and the only seat left on any flight was in F. The flight went the wrong direction, but rest assured that it connected just fine to a Y seat headed the desired direction. Other than bullets flying, there is no reasonable justification to purchase F/J.

And I would add that it is not justified for personal travel either. A person who has sufficent cash to spend on F/J should simply give the money to charity rather than spending on self-indulgence.

One should always rent a sub-compact, unless extra space is required for cargo which would justify a compact. It is not simply the cost of the car rental, it is the cost on the enviornment. Larger cars burn more fuel and create more pollution.

angatol

.....

emma69

One could argue that if paid J/F was never justified, warzones aside, then most of us wouldn't be able to afford to fly - as the F/J fares subsidize the Y fares - meaning that the cost for everyone flying economy would increase.

I work with a chap who is 6'7'' and physically does not fit in many economy seats - his shoulders and hips are wider than the seat, and his hip - knee length is greater than the seat pitch. Any person next to him would be severely uncomfortable, nevermind his own discomfort, so he flys J or F instead. I'd say that was justified.

pinniped

But really, in most cities you shouldn't rent a car at all. You should arrive at the airport with a well-fitted backpack, running shoes, Gatorade, and enough energy bars to get yourself into the city without a car.

In some locations, it may be acceptable to use a donkey or camel, but those things emit greenhouse gases too so be sure to buy some carbon offsets.

YuropFlyer

Gatorade? Energy Bars? You know those things will make the airplane heavier, burning more fuel! He should just drink water from a public fountain, and maybe hunt some small animals if he starts to feel hungry.

angatol

.....

rbwpi

@:-)