Other peoples' money, your back, everybody's carbon

[fivemack]

[Poll #1398090]

Comments

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

I couldn't answer the first poll, so the statistics ignore me ... I don't think it's ever reasonable for me to fly again :-)

[seawasp]

I couldn't clicky in the second poll because the answer would be "Mine, if I was so broke that I couldn't squeeze the money for comfort; otherwise economy never trumps comfort. If you're forcing me to travel away from my home, you're damn well making it comfortable for me."

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

I have just turned down on environmental grounds a work trip to New York City including a weekend at leisure /-:

[emperor]

Is the timing of this poll less than conincidental with my most recent LJ post??

[fivemack.livejournal.com]

You made me think and so I put up the poll. It wasn't aimed to offend, and I hope it hasn't.

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

Heh. The people have spoken, and they are not fond of Ryanair.

[emperor]

It hasn't, FTAOD. Well, unless no-one agrees I'm being reasonable ;-)

[fanf]

+1

[fivemack.livejournal.com]

Though they seem to like Toronto even more than they dislike Ryanair.

I wonder if Katowice is insufficiently famously dreadful to pick for the November stopover; I thought thoroughly Stalined industrial Silesia would have put more people off ...

[ptc24.livejournal.com]

Padding conferences: the general rule is that a) I do it if the flights are the same price, or cheaper, b) I pay for the extra nights if the flights are similar prices, c) they pay if the flights are so much cheaper that the discount pays for the extra hotel nights.

In general, trade-offs for comfort and convenience apply no matter who's paying - there's some stuff that's reasonable whoever's paying, and some stuff that isn't. I would have scruples about being excessive on expenses, even if those expenses were being paid by someone I was considering suing/campaigning against/etc.. That said, comfort may be recognised as a perk of the job, and factored into how much you get paid, what you get sent on, etc. so it's not a bad thing to see what the norm is in your organisation and follow that.

[redbird]

The problem with all those tickyboxes is that after about three, I realized I was checking only the ones I was sure my answer was yes on: there are a whole bunch where I don't really have an opinion (for example, never having flown Easyjet or Ryanair, I don't know how much less comfortable they would be _for me_ than a national carrier). And I don't have a generic "reasonable person" here to check that against. [I have not yet answered the poll.]

I suspect other people may react similarly, skewing things to looking more like "no" when some are "no opinion."

[ptc24.livejournal.com]

Also: Fly instead of taking a cheaper train, because it's quicker: depends how much you're saving. To Prague, yes. To Scotland, no. (That said, if it were just about the money, yes).

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I *might* allow economy to override comfort in any of those cases (last set), depending on the difference in price and the difference in comfort. Both extremes, skin-flint and extravagant, are in theory more likely with my own money.

When I was at DEC in the 1980s, and did some international travel for them, corporate policy was that for flights over 5 hours employees were entitled to business-class seats (or first-class if there was no business class). Having made a number of slightly-over-5-hour trips to the UK on my own money in tourist class, and a business trip from Massachusetts to Australia and New Zealand in business class for DEC, I think it's a very reasonable policy. Some people with various joint and back issues really couldn't tolerate those long flights in tiny seats at all, and even for the rest of us we arrive a lot more ready to accomplish something.

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Climate change aside - if only - other people's money goes further on a business trip if you're not bleary-eyed and bruised from failing to sleep on a sleeper train.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

This is one of the reasons that "reasonable corporate policy" is so hard. Some people really don't want to be away, but will if necessary but feel they're already giving up a lot. You sound a bit in that camp. I've mostly enjoyed business travel, and try to take advantage of it to see places or people I don't get to see otherwise, and a business can IMHO reasonably take account of the fact that people like me exist, too. In fact, if they can reasonably send me instead of you, it sounds like it might be a win for everybody. And to get *me* to go they don't have to offer as much :-). But trying to sort people out that way and expecting them to be consistent is hard, too, and leaves lots of room for gaming the system.

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

I have just priced a RyanAir trip to Germany, and decided I am willing to pay DOUBLE (or more) to fly on a reputable carrier (or anyone except RyanAir!)

Part of this is that I am going for a music weekend, and the cost of my one checked bag and a guitar is MORE than my flights (including taxes), but included in the cost of the other carriers, who also are a lot more accomodating if you are late for your flight etc. etc.

I will only travel RyanAir if it is with someone else who must fly on them, to an airport that only RyanAir serves, when I can take all my luggage in a small carry on bag, and hell has frozen over, twice.

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

I flew to Scotland for some conventions, because it meant I could complete a day of work and then head up there whereas the slower train would mean taking additional half or full days off work ... put a value on my vacation time and it's *much* cheaper to fly in those situations!

[lnr]

I think most of those are reasonable, provided whoever paid for it agrees it's OK (in the expensive but convenient cases) or you agree that it's worth the savings (in the inconvenient but cheap cases). And that kinda answers the second half.

NB: work are very unlikely to ever have any reason to send me anywhere far enough away to be worth flying, and not very likely to send me anywhere I can't cycle to (West Cambridge is as far as I've got on work business in the last 7 years).

It's interesting you don't include *driving* to places. When my dad has a business trip within the UK he either gets the train or drives, depending on which works out more sensible.

[monkeyhands.livejournal.com]

I think my attitude is: if you're flying, why would you feel guilty about money?

So if your trip to Toronto really is important enough to justify flying, make the most of it and spend as long as you can there because you've just used up several years' worth of what your carbon allowance would be if we lived in a fair world.

As for the questions about convenience, e.g. the expensive fast train over the cheap slow one, time is money! If you're important enough to be sent places, you're probably paid enough for your workplace to see your time as a significant resource. Or you're an academic.

[ckd]

"It depends."

I've flown in domestic First from Boston to Orlando, and I've flown in coach from LAX to Tokyo. My general rule of thumb is that for business travel I will travel as if it were my own money, but with a bit more lean toward the "time" side of "time/money" tradeoffs since they're paying for my time. ("Money/comfort" tradeoffs are different, and IME usually addressed by organizational policy like the 5 hour rule dd_b mentions.)

This means that I'll take the T to the airport instead of a cab or car service unless the flight is a really early departure or a really late arrival (or it's a long enough trip that I'm dealing with more baggage than usual), and it means that I'll see if there's a cheaper breakfast option near enough to the hotel that I can get a similar meal for about 2/3 the price by walking for 3 minutes. It doesn't mean that I'll stay in a hotel other than the conference HQ, or share a room with three other people.

I'm flying to Worldcon (on my money), because the (time+comfort)/money tradeoff between that and taking the bus is worth it to me. If there were reasonable rail options (there aren't), I'd certainly have considered them.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

It's a balance, isn't it? If the combination of travel requirements and expenses policy is too onerous, you get a different job.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

Almost exactly what I would have said.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

It depends on your company's policy too. I'm won't go to Scotland by train for meetings in general, because it means that a two hour meeting is a 15 hour day and I'm not normally prepared to do 15 hour days. But if it was an overnight trip for some other reason, I'd happily go by train; I like trains and I don't much like planes.

[seawasp]

Well, there are times I enjoy travel, but I would be enjoying the travel vastly more if I was going with my family, or going to do stuff for me, specifically. You want to get me out of my comfortable shell, you pay for it.

(The REAL cost to you will be the hotel, because I won't stay in low-rent hotels; allergens, discomfort, etc., and after a night in them I'll want to kill all of the so-called clients I'm supposed to meet with. Been there, done that once too often.)

I also answered the transportation ones in a "general" sense as opposed to a "me specifically" sense, since to get me on a transit train you'd need to put a gun to my head. Other kinds of trains, I dunno, never been on one.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

We went to Interaction by sleeper and it was fantastic and not significantly more expensive than flying would have been. It was more expensive than the train but it felt like two extra days of holiday.