B747-437B

I disagree on this issue. At some point in time, you reach a stage where a human body is simply incapable of dealing with lack of proper sleep, etc... and that is when it starts to affect performance. This has nothing to do with "inflated opinion of importance" but rather physical limitations of the human body!!!

As an example, earlier this month I had a brutal schedule where I wound up flying 5 redeyes in 7 nights, including 3 consecutive redeyes with full days of work in between the flights. To be perfectly honest, if it wasn't for the fact that I was flying Business Class and could get maybe 4-5 hours sleep and a decent meal on board, plus a shower in the lounge, I would have probably collapsed half way through the week.

Economy Class is about transportation from point A to point B.

Business Class is about facilitating business logistics - partly from the transportation but also due to the business facilities provided in terms of lounges, power ports, etc...

Sometimes you need access to the tools of business facilitation and that is when flying Business Class becomes important.

Swanhunter

Interesting point. I'd certainly agree that London is a long way removed from the rest of the UK - but many of the companies I'm thinking of apply those travel policies globally or consistently within Europe.

I'd agree with this. There is a culture of presenteeism in business travel which people find difficult to shake. Much of what I do does need to be done in-country (you can't audit a facility or negotiate a Łmulti million contract by email) but equally I can think of a number of trips where someone has 'wanted me there' rather than to do something specifically... There is also personal preference. Some of my colleagues are very uncomfortable with VC technology whereas I have taught myself to get on with it.

One other point. I don't get paid any extra for a job that swallows considerable amounts of my personal time (evenings and weekends) - sometimes to considerable impact (i.e being in the air when my father passed away) - than a comparable job in our UK division. The miles I get from the travel compensate for that - and also compensate those close to me. Having to use them to fill in for my employers meanness seems rather cheap. So much so that I wouldn't consider working for someone with a Y only policy.

Swanhunter

Perhaps those 'howling' so loudly in favour of all Y policies are just jealous of those with better working conditions. @:-)

FWIW, I do pay to upgrade some of my travel out of my pocket. HKG-SIN after a long day is much more pleasant in J with a decent meal rather than trapped in a nasty, tight CX Y seat.

PresRDC

As an in-house lawyer, I always push back at first when asked to travel. Is it really necessary? What are we going to accomplish? Will the other side be bringing an attorney?

Case in point, two weeks ago, we sent a team down to Reunion Island to meet with a customer who has had a bad experience operating one of our products and had been making noise about a lawsuit (it's a long sotry, but we actually had significant expsoure in this matter, which is unusual). I was intially asked to go, but decided not to because the customer was not bringing a lawyer and having one come from our side could negatively affect the tone of the meeting and make it less productive. In the end, the team we sent settled the issue. If I was there, I don't know if it would have happened.

But, when it comes to deal negotiations, especially in Asia, I feel strongly that, if there are significant legal issues (as there are in most of our deals -- liability caps, indemnification, choice of law/forum and arbitration v. litigation), that face-to-face is the only way to be successful.

pragakhan

What a strange thread, people keep using the word 'entitlement' what gives? Is this just jealously that the option exists to other people?

When you look for a job, are you happy with just a base salary and no thrills?

I don't know, but when I looked at the offer for my current employment I looked at salary, time off, health benefits and travel policies. I was happy with what I saw and took the offer. Had I seen something I didn't like, I would have requested to change it, or would had not taken the offer.

To me employment is more then just a company throwing money at you, it's about dedicating your self and (especially when you travel) a large part of your life to them. The relationship has to work both ways and both parties need to receive benefits from it. I receive my obvious benefits and my employer receives someone who is dedicated, wants them to succeed and will do what is necessary to get the job done. If it doesn't work out, either party says so and we split ways.

"Entitlement" is just the wrong word to use in this situation. Try, some people just aren't comfortable in a coach seat for 8 hours and want something the airline offers. If your employement offers it, great, if not, ask for it, if they still don't budge, then don't take the offer if it's that important to you. It's just part of the bigger picture!

BLG

This is a fascinating thread. I want to inject another issue into the conversation: PERCEIVED STATUS as an important business issue -- based on where on the plane you're sitting. I work in the entertainment industry where perceived status can be critical to making deals and/or the success of a negotiation. Especially on routes such as JFK/LAX, where there's always a decent chance of seeing someone you're doing business with on the plane. If you are seen in the back of the plane, that could cost you a lot in a negotiation because you will be perceived as "hungry."

I can tell you that virtually all the studios, law firms, and agencies are keenly aware of this. They will pay for junior members to ride up front. And they will counsel young writers, producers, and directors to spend the money to ride up front. I suspect this goes on in other industries as well. I'm curious if others are concerned about being seen riding in the back -- not out of ego -- but out of genuine concern that the perception will be detrimental to their business?

keisari

I would hate to invest in a company that does not follow your company's policies. I don't think that I, the shareholder, should be paying for you, the manager, to sit up front and spend my money.
I love to sit up front, but you know what, I pay for it with my money.
Good for your company.......

PresRDC

Then you have a very short sighted view of the value employees provide to a company.

What this thread makes clear, to me, is that the right answer as to business or economy for company travel is very much dependant on factors such as size of the company, type of work the people traveling are doing, value of the deals, number of places they are needed and when they need to be there, availability of contracted fares, etc.

I am convinced that our policy is the right one for our company. Based upon the results we deliver to our shareholders year after year, I think we're doing many things right.

12172003

Agree 100%. The one thing that really irks me is seeing people complain about not flying business yet they run up their frequent flier miles with no business justification. If they realized if they didn't milk the system dry going on unneeded trips, we might be able to fly in business. Saw this at my old company, at a friend's company and I'm sure it is the same everywhere. It ruins it for the honest folk.

Unimatrix One

Yes, there's nothing worse than investing in a company that treats its employees well.

Can someone point me to a listing of companies that use sweat shop labor so I can invest in them? The last place I want to invest my money is a company that maintains decent working conditions for its spoiled, entitled employees.

Unimatrix One

Thank you for adding some much-needed perspective to this thread.

KMHT FF

Just. Wow.

No, what's right for a company's travel policy, especially a publicly-held one at that, is the COMPANY'S TRAVEL POLICY.

Not what a given employee thinks it ought to be, not what a given employee gets away with, not what a given employee rationalizes as his "providing shareholder value."

You're an EMPLOYEE of a publicly-traded company, whether your title has the term "officer" in it, or whether you're in a position that doesn't even get business cards.

Either way and everywhere in between, you have a FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY to uphold that company's policies. Don't like the policies? Don't agree with them? Then be in a position to fix the policies, or don't work there. But don't break the rules to your liking because you think you can justify doing so.

Dennis Kozlowski, of Tyco fame, believes right from his jail cell that he was improving shareholder value by ensuring his well-being and state of mind to perform as chief exec. What you all are rationalizing is effectively the same.

RichMSN

So if the company's policy is J travel, then that's hunky-dory with you? I'm afraid I don't see what you're saying here.

vasantn

I think you are both in agreement with each other as well with me.

What I find hilarious is people making sweeping generalizations such as "coach travel for more than x hours is inhumane." It demonstrates a complete lack of maturity and real-world perspective, especially when there are thousands of people every day who travel for business, cross time zones, and do it in coach.

redbeard911

Our policy is business class for anybody that's one pay grade lower than me and up. A previous company was paid upgradeable fares and they gave out SWU's. I commuted to Asia for six months. Three weeks on, two weeks off. It was definitely different recovery and performance when I was in Y vs. C.

I may be taking a position where I will oversee staff in SYD, DBX and SIN. I would probably only do RTW to minimize cost.