wrp96

So when I traveled last month to do volunteer work and it was cheaper to book business class than economy, I shouldn't have gone at all because there's never a reason to book business class, right?

Loren Pechtel

The last time I rented a car I specifically skipped the bottom option because I knew I would be taking it over some mountains. Normally I would agree with you.

beachmouse

But sub-compacts frequently fare very poorly in crash testing. I can't really justify a Suburban or equivalent (and the big SUVs have safety problems of their own) but I'd far rather be in an accident in a nice VW Jetta than something like a Fiesta.

chgoeditor

Where does one draw the line? You seem to be using a computer and internet connection to post this message. I'm sure that's self-indulgent, too, by some standards.

oldsmoboi

We are never ever allowed to pre-pay hotel rooms even if it is a lower rate. The rational being they want us to be flexible and cancel when needed.

Indelaware

Don't be a fool. It was an easy justification, but certainly not one that one would want to be in a position to have to make. BTW, it was US$401 for the F seat last year.

Gee, It must be all those F/J seats on WN that makes them so profitable despite the people in Y. Oh, wait, they don't have F/J.

In a great number of cities, one shouldn't rent a car at all. Many cities have good public transit. But where they don't, the common sense thing to do is to rent the best (e.g. small) car available. Sometimes, of course, this takes some effort. When for example, Hertz didn't have a subcomact for me, I walked accross the yard to Avis and said to them, "Here's my confirmation from Hertz, can you meet their price and give me a subcompact, I don't like the way they are doing business today: bingo in a car that fits needs, Hertz out the revenue."

It is a rare exception that J is less than an economy seat. I can't help but to wonder if you failed to look on other airlines or other routings to find a better fare.

pinniped

Not good enough. Trains use electricity. You might as well be strip-mining the coal yourself. @:-)

Running and consuming all-natural vegan energy bars is definitely the way to go.

Barefoot running, actually. (It's a growing trend.) You should see the stuff they use to make running shoes...

oldsmoboi

We are encouraged to take every possible upgrade once we get status, as long as we are booked into the allowed car class or less. We are allowed a mid-size by default but I've had a Chrysler 300C (V8 and loaded) for the price of a compact on more than one occasion. Since I know the people at Pittsburgh airport National counter, I've figured out that I can almost always book the cheapest rate and end up in a Fusion or higher. If I am staying local, I just book a compact and end up in a mid-size. If I have a drive, I'll book a mid-size and end up in a Luxury car.

Another contribution to the thread though - The travel department going to red alert because my O/D aren't the same airport. I do a lot of open jaw itineraries because I don't always know where my next stop will be till I get closer to the trip time.

gooselee

Fully agree. Sadly the bean counters don't. Price doesn't matter - only the class of vehicle printed on the receipt does. The funniest part is that on National receipts, it prints "Class Paid" right next to "Class Driven", so it's very clear what the $ is aligned with. But still no dice.

Why does it always seem like the most "progressive" or "open-minded" people add the most sweeping, closed-minded statements to a conversation?

Justifying F/J, a large/luxury vehicle, or anything else is a subjective matter. There are value propositions there in terms of employee satisfaction/retention, work performance, scheduling and big-picture cost advantage, and any number of other things. Even in leisure travel, there's subjective value in terms of comfort, feelings of safety, and general personal enjoyment. Who are you (or anyone else) to say what weight those things carry for me or my business, and whether or not they are justified? I'm sorry, when I'm on vacation with my 6 month old, I'm not strapping her car seat in the back of an Aveo or whatever, and I have serious issues with anyone considering her "cargo" to justify the extra space.

If we all went to the format of only obtaining and doing things that we truly need, nobody would fly, drive, travel, use computers, or anything else. We'd just live in the woods and eat berries. Yes, that's the extreme, but as someone else said - where does the line get drawn? I'd contend that each of us draws our own line. I respect your choices, as you apply them to your own decisions. Please respect my choices as I apply them to my decisions.

Shall we continue in OMNI?

pinniped

These profound statements about "never" justifying certain forms of travel remind me of something I was reading last week about Indian trains.

Apparently, there are up to 9 potential classes of service you can buy on an Indian train. While most trains only have a few of the 9 classes, the style and quality of the travel seems to range widely from un-air-conditioned wooden benches to modern, first-class sleeper cars. I was researching a trip from Delhi to Jaipur and saw that I could do the lowest possible class for pretty much free (under $5) to $100-150 for a good seat.

By the logic in this thread, should I always book the wooden bench and donate the $100 to some sort of environmental charity? If I bump it up a class or two to something in the middle...say, a $20 ticket...is that an extravagance that I should be embarrassed about?

I think we've strayed a bit from the topic, but it's definitely been worth it.

Ocn Vw 1K

As the last two posts observe, the thread has begun to detour into discussions of environmentally-justified travel decisions. Let's keep this thread focused on the topic of ridiculous travel policies adopted by employers to reduce expenses. Thanks, Ocn Vw 1K, Moderator.

gooselee

This is just another reason why I need to visit India.

To get us somewhat back on topic, though, I wonder if these policies tend to differ from country to country or region to region. It occurs to me that the culture of travel and service for some places, particularly with regard to international travel, is very different from the bare-budget philosophy that dominates other cultures.

Obviously, there are many shades of this and it can vary even from company to company within the same place, but it'd be an interesting thing to explore.

roberino

That's absurd. I travel the world in Y for business (20-30 long haul trips of >10 hours and up to 40 hours) and when I arrived I am normally good for absolutely nothing. I feel like an 80 year old man from the cramped conditons (I'm 33 and I run half marathons most weekends, just for context). The lack of sleep on the plane means that I do not stand a hope of getting in synch with the local time zone for days. My boss sympathises and allows me to book a day or so on the front of my trip to recover, which I don't want to do because I spend enough time away from home already, and which usually ends up making up the fare difference anyway. Add to that the unpleasant effects on your digestive system resulting from eating Y food for a whole day and you've suddenly turned into a bloated zombie.

The times I have fluked a trip in J I've got off the plane in a totally different state and have been effective at my job within hours. True, J travel is not a cure for jet lag but it really really helps.

Regular long haul in Y is hideous and more or less amounts to corporate abuse. J is there for a reason...

dartagnan

This fits my bill exactly, except I'm 31. All the same issues! I deal with it, since our travel policy is pretty great otherwise.

MSPeconomist

Small light cars are bad for the safety of their own occupants but better for the survivability of occupants of other cars, bike riders, and pedestrians involved in collisions with the given car. So when a company policy is to rent the small car, it must be less concerned about the possible loss of its own employees and the liability arising from this than it is by potential lawsuits brought by others whom the vehicle has hit.