Crappy way to treat top execs.

Are they better than everyone else?

Treat others the way one expects to be treated. :) If I were an exec, I'd fly the same as everyone who reported to me.

It's not about treatment, IMO. The top execs are getting paid to make important decisions and I would want them well rested and thinking clearly before making such decisions, not jet lagged with an aching body from being shoved in the back like cattle.

So of course they're not better than anyone else but the decisions they make are far more important than the ones (if any) that some low level grunt makes.

Which is one of the very reasons that employers offer travel perks which may not make superficial economic sense, e.g. F/J, car service, club memberships better hotels and all sorts of other stuff.

Keeping your most productive people happy is important to the bottom line. People don't jump ship over UberX vs. Uber Black, but paid F/J does mollify the guy who is being asked to take that one extra TATL/month.

Interesting perspective. But if you think about it, high level execs would not be there without the "low level grunts", as the low level grunts are usually the ones bringing in profit.

Nonetheless, the top dogs are making very important decisions.

Example: Harrison Ford recently went to China to hype up the new Star Wars movie. I'm pretty sure Disney flew him out there to market the movie and I'm almost positive he was flown F because Disney doesn't want a grumpy Ford marketing their products. They want him well rested, energetic, and happy.

Yes, but Ford isn't an employee, slight distinction to be had. Plus, Ford is a celebrity.

But at what level then do you distinguish a top dog? Manager? Director? Area VP? Last year I brought 1.5 million $ worth of revenue to the company. Why should my manager fly J if I'm flying Y? His salary is literally coming from the "cost center" bucket, while mine isn't.

I know at Ernst and Young they had a designated title for frequent fliers who then had relaxed travel policies, however, director/manager/CEO did not have a distinction when it came to travel policies.

I would hope you guys move on. Your last jab though was unnecessary.

I think you're completely missing the point: nobody is treating Bill Gates crappy when Bill Gates flies Y. It's not like the Microsoft board is (or was) delving into the minutiae of travel policies. Bill Gates makes that decision himself, and in doing so it sends a message to the entire company about his values in that particular area. We can disagree about whether it's a worthwhile message to send, but it purposely sends a message to the entire firm. (And, since we're all talking about it here, the entire customer and shareholder base as well.)

I've even worked directly with medium-sized company managing directors who were hesitant to book a limo, simply because of the optics. I remember talking to one over drinks one night about it, saying "You know, all of these airport limo outfits are basically competing with the cabs and rental cars. The cost is often the same." His rationale: we were often selling to clients who didn't travel a lot and might not know that. We'd purposely show up at sales pitches or client visits in a Hertz Taurus. This was right when Hertz Prestige Collection was being rolled out and they were throwing around Jaguar upgrades like candy. If we got one, we'd go back to the Gold booth and get a Taurus...can't roll up on a potential (or actual) client site in a Jag...it's a bad look to anyone who didn't know what Hertz was doing.

And I'm pretty close to 100% certain that Microsoft never made a bad decision that was attributed to Bill Gates jetlag. @:-) I'm sure their bad decisions were made with entire committees deliberating for months on end. It's not like Bill got off a rough flight home from China and said "Yeah, Zune sounds like a great idea...go ahead and do it. I'm going to bed."

If all of that is true, I'm sure that was in Harrison Ford's contract. He has the leverage to negotiate that. It wasn't like Ford's contract called for Y and Disney said "No, you're going F because we want you to be happy."

Kind of surprised he flew commercial, although I guess a very public airport arrival itself could be part of the buzz...

Indeed its contract-driven.

Flying commercially-scheduled carriers in premium cabins is rather common practice for most major screen actor celebrities, with scheduled common carrier use way more common than private/charter jets (at least when it comes to intercontinental air travel).

Pretty much any oil operator will allow J for long hauls for all staff, regardless of seniority

You are less valuable / more replaceable than your manager. That's why he's assigned as your superior. The revenue you generated is enabled by the works of those above, below, and especially, before you. Which probably includes your managers' contribution....in establishing the name recognition of the firm, development the product, history of the accounts, etc...

Employees are expected to bring in multiples of their salary as revenue. It's a free employment market, if you don't get the remuneration of perks you think you deserve, you are free to seek employment elsewhere. As to Where the line is drawn at Who gets to fly J/F...once again, you are free to seek alternate employment if your current employer sets the threshold above your level.

If you expect executives to be subject the same travel policies perks and benefits as line staff...does that apply also to offices? administrative support? compensation?

Not in Canada. Many of my customers are oil companies and this has long changed given the tanking of the price of oil and the layoffs.

Yeah, with a lead time to hire someone in my role at 1 year long with over half leaving within 3 months.........yeah, I'm that replaceable.

Anyways, yes, I do believe that executives should have the same travel policies for all. Administrative support folks are not employees, so no, they don't travel and they do not report to us (contract staff). Compensation folks and HR folks (full timers) are in fact subject to the same travel policy as all of us.

Regarding employees vs revenue (or revenue per employee), that is factually untrue. Marketing is a cost center, but the sales folks who are empowered by marketing generate revenue. Ergo, your blanket statement is erroneous, but I do get what you are trying to say.

I'm not sure where your belief is that I dislike my travel policy, it's reasonable, and i'm fine with it.