Travel Expenses: Dumb Things your Company has Done
Feb 7, 2017, 11:32 am
#151
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SEA (the REAL Washington); occasionally in the other Washington (DCA area)
Programs: DL PM 1.57MM; AS MVPG 100K
Posts: 21,375
The issue here is, how much of your productivity and work effort was detracted from the actual purpose of your job, to optimizing your use of the travel budget. Most companies have staff (or contract it out to a vendor) that is ostensibly expert in doing just that, whereas presumably, your core competency and reason for employment was something else.
Some aspects of travel cost savings can be trivially easy, such as staying over on a Saturday night when it knocks the airfare down by $1000 and only adds $300 in ancillary expenses, but others require more actual expertise in the field.
Some aspects of travel cost savings can be trivially easy, such as staying over on a Saturday night when it knocks the airfare down by $1000 and only adds $300 in ancillary expenses, but others require more actual expertise in the field.
again, prima facie evidence that "one-size-fits-all" policies are seldom universally effective
Feb 7, 2017, 8:07 pm
#152
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: BRU, SIN, PEK
Programs: SQ TPP, LH SEN
Posts: 3,235
2) Many people in business are reluctant to approve these kinds of arrangements not because they misunderstand win-win but because they're suspicious of abuse. Your two examples seem entirely fair. Not everyone else who asks for an extended trip is so scrupulous about allocating the costs fairly, though. Reasonable suspicion quickly gets written into policy requiring documentation and higher level approval. Bosses may regard that as too much of a burden to pursue in all but truly exceptional cases.
The following year he held his annual management meeting at a really nice resort location but which required multi-stop travel for everyone, and it took place less than a week before the major lunar holidays in Asia-Pac. And again, he had extended his stay for a personal vacation. Suffice to say most of the team was annoyed because of the inconvenient travel and timing, no matter how nice of a location it might have been.
The guy lost his job not too long after.
Feb 7, 2017, 9:39 pm
#153
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,354
It's not just the issue of allocating costs fairly, but that the business portion of the trip still has to be the reason for the trip to begin with. We once had a dodgy senior VP who insisted on making a country visit to Australia at a time that coincided with the local school/summer holidays (so many folks were not around). We found out that he had also planned a 2 week holiday in the country after the meeting. So despite local feedback that the timing was not ideal, he still insisted on the visit, which made it appear that he was just getting the company to pay for his holiday flight (he didn't expense the holiday portion of course).
The following year he held his annual management meeting at a really nice resort location but which required multi-stop travel for everyone, and it took place less than a week before the major lunar holidays in Asia-Pac. And again, he had extended his stay for a personal vacation. Suffice to say most of the team was annoyed because of the inconvenient travel and timing, no matter how nice of a location it might have been.
The guy lost his job not too long after.
The following year he held his annual management meeting at a really nice resort location but which required multi-stop travel for everyone, and it took place less than a week before the major lunar holidays in Asia-Pac. And again, he had extended his stay for a personal vacation. Suffice to say most of the team was annoyed because of the inconvenient travel and timing, no matter how nice of a location it might have been.
The guy lost his job not too long after.
There's a reason I've stayed with this firm for such a long time.
Feb 8, 2017, 12:08 am
#154
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: BRU, SIN, PEK
Programs: SQ TPP, LH SEN
Posts: 3,235
It's perfectly fine, and I have always approved it for my direct reports (and my bossed have extended the same courtesy to me), as long as you don't have people abusing it. Because sadly, it does happen, and ruins it for everybody else. Most of my peers have also enjoyed this from their bosses.
After this sr VP left, his PA (whom I've known for many years), told me of all the questionable expenses he tries to put on the company expense report! I really need not go into the ins and outs of this person, but it was pretty clear to many that he was often picking his holidays first, then arranging a business purpose after.
After this sr VP left, his PA (whom I've known for many years), told me of all the questionable expenses he tries to put on the company expense report! I really need not go into the ins and outs of this person, but it was pretty clear to many that he was often picking his holidays first, then arranging a business purpose after.
Feb 8, 2017, 7:45 am
#155
Join Date: Jul 2011
Programs: AA Plat, UA 1K>Plat>moving to Silver
Posts: 2,090
The issue here is, how much of your productivity and work effort was detracted from the actual purpose of your job, to optimizing your use of the travel budget. Most companies have staff (or contract it out to a vendor) that is ostensibly expert in doing just that,...
Feb 8, 2017, 9:29 am
#156
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,808
The only optimization they cared about was staying within budget. Within that, they couldn't have cared less if I ate at McDonalds or a pricey steakhouse. So long as I came in under budget. If anything, productivity improved as I was generally well rested, fed and comfortable.
Feb 8, 2017, 9:49 am
#157
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,354
The issue here is, how much of your productivity and work effort was detracted from the actual purpose of your job, to optimizing your use of the travel budget. Most companies have staff (or contract it out to a vendor) that is ostensibly expert in doing just that, whereas presumably, your core competency and reason for employment was something else.
Some aspects of travel cost savings can be trivially easy, such as staying over on a Saturday night when it knocks the airfare down by $1000 and only adds $300 in ancillary expenses, but others require more actual expertise in the field.
Some aspects of travel cost savings can be trivially easy, such as staying over on a Saturday night when it knocks the airfare down by $1000 and only adds $300 in ancillary expenses, but others require more actual expertise in the field.
Feb 8, 2017, 12:12 pm
#158
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,638
i don't think i saw it mentioned, but some places will willingly spend more to avoid any perception that they are paying for people to go on vacation. i see this especially with my insurance company clients. it does not matter if the flights are cheaper, they will not pay for an overstay.
rate minimums may have been put in place to prevent low-level managers (or clients) from forcing employees to stay/eat at places that were unsafe or unhealthy.
Friend of mine was sent from US to work at customer's location at Kuala Lumpur. The thing is - travel policy outlines min and max expenses per day for hotel, breakfast, lunch and dinner.
For first couple of days he got a room close to the customer's office so he could basically work from hotel to there. The thing was - hotel was like USD $50/night which was less than policy outlined - it should be within $100-$300/night range and he had trouble explaining why it was so low. He got the the same problem when he tried to expense $5 dinner at local hawker center.
For first couple of days he got a room close to the customer's office so he could basically work from hotel to there. The thing was - hotel was like USD $50/night which was less than policy outlined - it should be within $100-$300/night range and he had trouble explaining why it was so low. He got the the same problem when he tried to expense $5 dinner at local hawker center.
Feb 9, 2017, 1:46 am
#159
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,189
i don't think i saw it mentioned, but some places will willingly spend more to avoid any perception that they are paying for people to go on vacation. i see this especially with my insurance company clients. it does not matter if the flights are cheaper, they will not pay for an overstay.
Feb 9, 2017, 11:24 pm
#160
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: LAX
Programs: AAdvantage EXPLAT, Hilton Diamond, SPG/Marriott Gold, IHG Platinum, Citi Exec MC, Amex Plat
Posts: 1,443
I think my company's HR department is pretty militant on requiring employees be offered their own rooms on business trips now, even if two employees are a married couple (from different teams on same trip), HR policy is to still offer them each their own room. Now of course, HR isn't going to stop anyone from willingly sharing rooms, but also no payout is given to employees for "saving" the company money.
Though generally, our executives are very big on the Trust concept, and hold honesty and integrity very highly. They generally don't care to over-police the expenses, but those who abuse the system just won't get invited to future trips.
Though generally, our executives are very big on the Trust concept, and hold honesty and integrity very highly. They generally don't care to over-police the expenses, but those who abuse the system just won't get invited to future trips.
Feb 10, 2017, 7:32 am
#161
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cockeysville, MD
Programs: Marriott Rewards Lifetime Titanium, Amex Plat, Hertz Gold 5*, National Exec, AA Plat
Posts: 9,468
We book travel with Concur. (Not uncommon) The system has limits on hotels and car rentals built in to comply with our travel policies. Sometimes, a hotel will be more expensive than policy allows-but would eliminate the need for a car rental. However, its such a PITA to go through that approval process, I often take the cheaper hotel and rent a car. (I want both sets of points anyway) System likes it. Company pays more.
Feb 10, 2017, 1:59 pm
#162
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sydney Australia
Programs: No programs & No Points!!!
Posts: 14,222
It's not just the issue of allocating costs fairly, but that the business portion of the trip still has to be the reason for the trip to begin with. We once had a dodgy senior VP who insisted on making a country visit to Australia at a time that coincided with the local school/summer holidays (so many folks were not around). We found out that he had also planned a 2 week holiday in the country after the meeting. So despite local feedback that the timing was not ideal, he still insisted on the visit, which made it appear that he was just getting the company to pay for his holiday flight (he didn't expense the holiday portion of course).
The following year he held his annual management meeting at a really nice resort location but which required multi-stop travel for everyone, and it took place less than a week before the major lunar holidays in Asia-Pac. And again, he had extended his stay for a personal vacation. Suffice to say most of the team was annoyed because of the inconvenient travel and timing, no matter how nice of a location it might have been.
The guy lost his job not too long after.
The following year he held his annual management meeting at a really nice resort location but which required multi-stop travel for everyone, and it took place less than a week before the major lunar holidays in Asia-Pac. And again, he had extended his stay for a personal vacation. Suffice to say most of the team was annoyed because of the inconvenient travel and timing, no matter how nice of a location it might have been.
The guy lost his job not too long after.
Feb 11, 2017, 11:48 pm
#163
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/UA
Posts: 10,778
Feb 12, 2017, 9:09 am
#164
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
The perception can be a lot worse than the reality and documenting these things can be hard.
On the flip side of the coin, keeping top people happy means keeping them happy. Telling a top producer that he must fly next to the lav in steerage lest someone complain may not keep him at the company. If he jumps ship and 9 jobs are lost as a result, what do those 9 say?
Feb 12, 2017, 9:25 am
#165
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SEA (the REAL Washington); occasionally in the other Washington (DCA area)
Programs: DL PM 1.57MM; AS MVPG 100K
Posts: 21,375
On the flip side of the coin, keeping top people happy means keeping them happy. Telling a top producer that he must fly next to the lav in steerage lest someone complain may not keep him at the company. If he jumps ship and 9 jobs are lost as a result, what do those 9 say?