I TURNED 48 on New Year’s Day but, though the body ages apace, my sense of humour remains disappointingly puerile. So it was, while hunting the internet recently for the International Monetary Fund’s 2012 global economic forecast, that my eye was distracted by the irresistible headline: ‘Urine “found in judges’ lunches”’.
According to The Sun, which broke the story, staff working in the private dining room for judges and barristers at Snaresbrook Crown Court were suspended following food safety officer investigations after complaints that the meals “smelled a bit off”. My favourite line was a quote from an “unnamed source” (and in no way, I am sure, dreamed up by The Sun’s subbing desk after a particularly good lunch of their own), who said: “It has left a nasty taste in the mouth.”
Funnily enough, this phrase struck a chord because of another piece of research I was conducting at the same time. I have been looking into the unanticipated extras corporate clients need to watch out for when receiving their bill from their travel management company (TMC). What shocked me was how many different ways my interviewees discovered TMCs attempting to make a few extra quid.
Among the examples quoted to me were: charging two separate transaction fees for two one-way tickets on the same itinerary; marking up published fares; charging a mark-up on a fare and then a transaction fee on top; and voiding a ticket issued by the TMC in error but still charging a transaction fee for it anyway. There were many more.
Now, just to be clear about a couple of things: first, not all TMCs engage in these practices; and second, most of the examples quoted above are legal and may well also be permissible under the contract agreed between TMC and client. However, that does not mean to say they are all ethical. In fact, wherever these revenue-raising methods come as a surprise to the customer, I would say there is a good case for labelling them unethical.
So yes, there is a nasty taste in the mouth at the moment, and the impression I have is that it’s getting nastier. Experts I speak to say these practices are becoming more prevalent, and TMC bills more opaque, making it increasingly hard for buyers to figure out what they are paying for.
What can be done about it? On the client side, the clear message is “buyer beware” – especially if you are from a procurement rather than a travel background. No doubt general purchasers will have learned some pitfalls to avoid when dealing with other procurement categories, but there are unquestionably some charges they won’t know about without specific travel expertise. If you lack that expertise in your organisation, I suggest you hire a consultant.
As for the TMCs, there is a danger of them all being tarred with the same brush. Each and every one should review the transparency of their charging and perhaps they should consider acting collectively to determine which practices are acceptable and which are unacceptable. Has the time come for a code of practice on TMC charges?
ON THE SUBJECT of acceptable and unacceptable practices, I am having a run-in as a consumer at the moment with a certain well-known airline. It failed to pay compensation for cancelling a flight I bought for my daughter, Flora. The episode has made me wonder how many travel managers are also experiencing frustrations with airlines not coughing up as required under the European Parliament and Council’s notorious Regulation 261/2004.
The carrier pulled Flora’s flight 20 minutes before she was due to board. The reason given was mechanical failure. To be fair, the airline did fulfil its assistance obligations – it provided food and overnight accommodation before flying her to her destination the next morning – but airlines are also obliged to pay €250 for cancelling short-haul flights unless there are “exceptional circumstances” beyond their control, such as poor weather.
Since then, I have encountered little but evasion. First, although the carrier advised my daughter to claim compensation through its website, there was no designated section on the site through which to claim. I therefore went via its complaints page, only to receive a reply claiming the cancellation was an exceptional circumstance. This is hogwash: the European Court of Justice ruling on Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia of 2008 establishes very firmly that routine technical faults are not exceptional, and fixing them is an inherent part of the airline’s business.
I wrote back to the airline to point this out, and it said this would need more consideration... and three weeks later it was still considering. This behaviour only makes me want to boycott the airline in future. I know carriers don’t like Regulation 261: it was conceived primarily to tackle airlines which arbitrarily pull flights owing to inadequate sales, so they consider paying compensation for any other reason unfairly punitive. However, airlines can’t be selective about which laws they comply with. They should stop messing passengers about and fight to change Regulation 261 instead.
THE RECENT Business Travel Awards also doubled as a much more important occasion: the launch party for my newly grown beard. It got off to a good start, with one woman telling me I looked like George Clooney, but I should have gone home at that point because the next comparison volunteered to me was Sir Ben Kingsley. After that, the principle of in vino veritas really kicked in, bringing with it suggestions of the illegitimate offspring of a prominent corporate travel executive and, finally, “Jimmy Hill with a bald wig on”. The editor of this publication, meanwhile, refuses to give my column a new photo replete with facial hair adornment. I get the message, but I’m not budging, and neither is the beard. n
I TURNED 48 on New Year’s Day but, though the body ages apace, my sense of humour remains disappointingly puerile. So it was, while hunting the internet recently for the International Monetary Fund’s 2012 global economic forecast, that my eye was distracted by the irresistible headline: ‘Urine “found in judges’ lunches”’.
According to The Sun, which broke the story, staff working in the private dining room for judges and barristers at Snaresbrook Crown Court were suspended following food safety officer investigations after complaints that the meals “smelled a bit off”. My favourite line was a quote from an “unnamed source” (and in no way, I am sure, dreamed up by The Sun’s subbing desk after a particularly good lunch of their own), who said: “It has left a nasty taste in the mouth.”
Funnily enough, this phrase struck a chord because of another piece of research I was conducting at the same time. I have been looking into the unanticipated extras corporate clients need to watch out for when receiving their bill from their travel management company (TMC). What shocked me was how many different ways my interviewees discovered TMCs attempting to make a few extra quid.
Among the examples quoted to me were: charging two separate transaction fees for two one-way tickets on the same itinerary; marking up published fares; charging a mark-up on a fare and then a transaction fee on top; and voiding a ticket issued by the TMC in error but still charging a transaction fee for it anyway. There were many more.
Now, just to be clear about a couple of things: first, not all TMCs engage in these practices; and second, most of the examples quoted above are legal and may well also be permissible under the contract agreed between TMC and client. However, that does not mean to say they are all ethical. In fact, wherever these revenue-raising methods come as a surprise to the customer, I would say there is a good case for labelling them unethical.
So yes, there is a nasty taste in the mouth at the moment, and the impression I have is that it’s getting nastier. Experts I speak to say these practices are becoming more prevalent, and TMC bills more opaque, making it increasingly hard for buyers to figure out what they are paying for.
What can be done about it? On the client side, the clear message is “buyer beware” – especially if you are from a procurement rather than a travel background. No doubt general purchasers will have learned some pitfalls to avoid when dealing with other procurement categories, but there are unquestionably some charges they won’t know about without specific travel expertise. If you lack that expertise in your organisation, I suggest you hire a consultant.
As for the TMCs, there is a danger of them all being tarred with the same brush. Each and every one should review the transparency of their charging and perhaps they should consider acting collectively to determine which practices are acceptable and which are unacceptable. Has the time come for a code of practice on TMC charges?
ON THE SUBJECT of acceptable and unacceptable practices, I am having a run-in as a consumer at the moment with a certain well-known airline. It failed to pay compensation for cancelling a flight I bought for my daughter, Flora. The episode has made me wonder how many travel managers are also experiencing frustrations with airlines not coughing up as required under the European Parliament and Council’s notorious Regulation 261/2004.
The carrier pulled Flora’s flight 20 minutes before she was due to board. The reason given was mechanical failure. To be fair, the airline did fulfil its assistance obligations – it provided food and overnight accommodation before flying her to her destination the next morning – but airlines are also obliged to pay €250 for cancelling short-haul flights unless there are “exceptional circumstances” beyond their control, such as poor weather.
Since then, I have encountered little but evasion. First, although the carrier advised my daughter to claim compensation through its website, there was no designated section on the site through which to claim. I therefore went via its complaints page, only to receive a reply claiming the cancellation was an exceptional circumstance. This is hogwash: the European Court of Justice ruling on Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia of 2008 establishes very firmly that routine technical faults are not exceptional, and fixing them is an inherent part of the airline’s business.
I wrote back to the airline to point this out, and it said this would need more consideration... and three weeks later it was still considering. This behaviour only makes me want to boycott the airline in future. I know carriers don’t like Regulation 261: it was conceived primarily to tackle airlines which arbitrarily pull flights owing to inadequate sales, so they consider paying compensation for any other reason unfairly punitive. However, airlines can’t be selective about which laws they comply with. They should stop messing passengers about and fight to change Regulation 261 instead.
THE RECENT Business Travel Awards also doubled as a much more important occasion: the launch party for my newly grown beard. It got off to a good start, with one woman telling me I looked like George Clooney, but I should have gone home at that point because the next comparison volunteered to me was Sir Ben Kingsley. After that, the principle of in vino veritas really kicked in, bringing with it suggestions of the illegitimate offspring of a prominent corporate travel executive and, finally, “Jimmy Hill with a bald wig on”. The editor of this publication, meanwhile, refuses to give my column a new photo replete with facial hair adornment. I get the message, but I’m not budging, and neither is the beard.