Business class is cheaper than economy: whole-of-journey travel risk management

Just what have you cut?

The majority of travel departments/managers are only empowered, authorized or capable of looking at travel management from a cost perspective exclusively. However, to truly ensure that the process of travel is efficient, profitable and safe; a much wider focus is required-predominantly in the areas of cost, productivity and safety.  When such a wider and more comprehensive perspective is engaged, most organizations will discover that business class flights are in reality much cheaper than economy class for the majority of their executives and traveling talent.

Consider a short-haul flight of under four hours. For an executive this will typically translate to an eight-hour working day. If traveling in economy class they will typically need to be at the airport nearly 2 hours before departure. Even with privileged frequent-flier status they will need to be checked in much earlier than their business class counterparts. Without such privileges, the time required maybe even longer as check-in queues and airline efficiency lengthen and decline respectively. The immigration processing will potentially be lengthened also as many airlines now have preferential immigration processing of business travelers. The traveller in economy will now be left to fend for themselves in the public seating/WiFi/meals environment of economy class travel. Boarding time will be  lengthened and carry-on luggage will be reduced which again will have added to the overall pre-departure time.  Regardless of the physical size of the traveller, their work laptop, the airline or the seating space; very few people get anything close to productive work conducted whilst in economy.  Not to mention, when corners have been cut,  everyone within proximity of a business laptop user can often see the entire content and context of business presentations, e-mails, discussions and intellectual property. The arrival stage will also entail longer immigration processing times, time lost awaiting baggage and jostling within the bulk of the flights travelers. If after all this, on a short-haul flight you expect the traveller to bring their A game or deliver pivotal business results, you should prepare yourself for disappointment now.

Conversely, a journey that has been considered in a whole of risk  manner will play out significantly different. First, the traveller will have the time and flight best suited to the work productivity objectives and reduced commute, check-in and processing times. Utilization of the business lounge will ensure productivity and access to information and systems prior before departure. Overall fatigue and affect on the individual will also be reduced. Whilst not entirely risk free, the threat to personal belongings, company information  or other valuables will also be reduced.  Productivity (best calculated by adding the per hour cost to the company for the executive and the per hour revenue potential of the trip or executive) will also be enhanced by a compact yet usable mobile workspace. Even if the individual is not conducting work on a computer platform, the demands to the individual  are also diminished.  It is also almost ensured that the executive will hit the ground running and clear the aircraft, immigrations and baggage claim much faster, leaving only the commute from the airport to the place of business. This streamlining and efficiency is also replicable for multiple travelers or trips.

When analyzing all of these factors (even in a developed country) the hundreds or even thousands of dollars between economy class and business class travel is often much cheaper than the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars  of business productivity, time and dollars at risk. However, the functional heads responsible for cost, productivity and safety are all typically measured and evaluated on cost containment rather than profitability or maximized earnings of their senior executives. All of these elements are significantly amplified in developed or developing countries. When the entire journey is constructed along whole-of-journey travel risk management lines thousands or even millions of dollars in opportune business can be preserved while appropriate expenditure managed. Reduction or elimination of disruption and wastage can be easily achieved. When it comes to whole-of-journey travel risk management most companies are penny wise and pound foolish. There is nothing more comical and economically tragic than a senior executive or CEO traveling on a budget airline. While sitting in cheap seats being nonproductive and paying five dollars for peanuts or drinks they are losing thousands of dollars or even millions in productivity or earnings for the sake of a few bucks. In the wake of the financial crisis, some very savvy financial institutions openly conveyed that they dare not reduce the privilege, risk or status of their major wealth generation executives for fear of losing them to more competitive or sophisticated banks or financial institutions. Why should this be any different in the face of many other threats to talent and revenue?

The empirical data and evidence of enhanced productivity and efficient travel risk management exists at present in every company. The only limitation is that few are rewarded or supported in harvesting, processing and analysis of such data. If companies and their respective leadership took the time to stop and analyze such processes or even historical culture within the organization, they would find that simple and efficient adaptation of such processes like the use of business class travel versus economy class travel could potentially unlock thousands of hours of productivity and greater business competitiveness. This is certainly the case in developed markets and significantly more acute in developing markets where there is an accumulation of much greater threat, costs, threat disruptions and safety issues.

The question then  is not “Is business class is cheaper than economy?” but more a case of  “Can you accurately prove that it’s not?”

Product contamination-Did I hear someone say “Tiger Woods”

Crisis leadership or crisis management?

“We estimate that in the days beginning with Tiger Woods’ recent car accident and ending with

his announced “indefinite leave” from golf, shareholders of companies that Mr. Woods endorses

lost $5-12 billion in wealth.”

http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/knittel/papers/Tiger_latest.pdf

The perpetual requirement for any company, especially those with a strong commercial brand association or derived income from public opinion, is the identification and management of stakeholders. The priority of communication can be readily identified with a simple x and y chart that apportions values for the level of interest and influence any group or individual may hold with your brand/company. For example, a stakeholder (media, investor, regulator, consumer, etc) with a very high level of interest in your brand, product, processes or return on their interest and is likely to know most things that occur relative to your success of failures. If that same entity has a high level of influence in your operations or the communications specific to your company, they will invariably be one of your highest needs when developing holding statements, pre-emptive advisories or response to publicly circulated content. Communicate with this group, quickly, sincerely and frequently and as a matter of priority. For those with less interest and influence, they will still get your message but at a time more appropriate to their weightage. Do not however underestimate the cumulative or cohort potential of this group should they surge to become a much more credible element should an issue of high emotional (mothers on issues affecting their children, unions), financial (investors or sponsors) or consumption (consumer groups; inclusive of the media) value rapidly circulate among one or all of your associated stakeholder elements.

Information time to market is (in contemporary terms) all but instantaneous, even if you are not! It is therefore imperative that a degree of preparation be conducted for all companies, big or small. It is a folly for any company to operate with this knowledge and not have a process or service to continuously monitor the myriad of available networks that introduce or perpetuate content that could adversely affect your value proposition. This is only part of the preparation required, as any time spent on planning or preparations established before demand presents, will pay dividends well beyond their establishment value. For this you need a number of holding statements, media release, stakeholder communications and the like. This is further supported with a detailed, rehearsed and timely escalation protocol that allows you to identify, analyse, adapt and respond to applicable situations that invariably require customization as you can’t always predict the nature and theme of every issue in advance. You could of course ignore this totally and rely on your response only capacity but as they say “prevention is always better than the cure”, cheaper too!

Where Tiger, and many individuals and companies before him went wrong; despite the sizable investment and earnings capacity associated with his personable brand (especially since it appears to have been substantiated on a pious and family friendly ethos) was apparently to invest only in a response, albeit weak, without preparation and substance. You get what you pay for essentially. I personally could not care less about what he or any other athlete, actor; media personality does outside of their chosen expertise/profession. However, there are plenty that do and it sells.

The net result of the information storm that has ensued has the “Tiger” brand has been impacted. Pre-event equity will protect the brand to a degree but much like natural disasters whereby the government or companies are not “blamed” for the event, they will be evaluated on their subsequent response to the issue. Just ask the Prime Minister of Taiwan who lost his job as result. The impact in this case be measured in dollars and cents, both now and any future earnings.

A number of studies have been conducted on the investment loss attributed to crisis leadership failures and the results are consistent. Your investment pre-incident will pay dividends for daily and extreme disruption events, whereby a failure to plan all but guarantees a plan to fail. If only Tiger and his paid executives bothered to read the instructions first, we may have seen a much different outcome than is currently a slow moving train wreck.

Qui bono (Who benefits?)- Is your corporate resilience more about personalities than real threats?

The sky is falling!

The vast majority of companies, regardless of what they themselves believe, are significantly influenced in their resilience planning by the personalities that represent the process. Whether it is a sole champion or a department that is charged with the enterprise resilience strategy and execution of planning, it is most likely that their personal passions, skills, experience or even comprehension will dominate the overall corporate preparedness and response to actual threats. This phenomena is further compounded by the degree of humility or hubris of these executors and their ability to assimilate, even in the wake of such shortfalls, to rapidly and effectively respond to such oversights. Regrettably, it is often all too late to change at the 11th hour and many of the failing are dismissed/justified by environment, market forces, mother nature or just bad luck. Not the root cause. Sizeable amounts of money is lost, unrealized or expended on unnecessary opportune cost daily or annually as a result.

The scope and demands of modern and dynamic corporates, especially multinational or geographically dispersed entities, is by no means an easy task. A vast amount of knowledge and planning may be required and then resources/strategies applied to areas that warrant countermeasures/treatment solutions that then must be simplified or distilled for consumption and action by numerous stakeholders or line managers. Limited scope, ego, protectionism, arrogance, incompetence, budget constraints and many other issues act in unison to prevent a less than optimum result for all involved. The most resilient companies and the most efficient departments acknowledge all these issues and build such human failings and influences into the methodology to achieve superior results. Paradoxically, these companies are often the most competitive companies also thanks to this vision and forethought.

If this were not challenging enough, the character, charisma, communications skills or business acumen of the lead/executive representative of such functions could signal the final success or failure of all the accumulated work conducted that comes to then convincing the CEO/COO/CFO that a particular threat is credible or a specific investment is necessitated on the strength of the threat and the potential impact if left unchecked. Should they be found wanting, the threat remains unchecked. The squeaky wheel gets the oil!

Financial management has moved past this similar challenge (for the most part) by means of audits, internal checks, disclosure, review or external validation of findings. Risk management, of a non-financial nature, has a long way to go before such approaches become mainstream.

Resilience is based on a comprehensive understanding of all the assets/investments/capital at risk. Qualifying and quantifying the threats and the residual risk present; once current and proposed mitigation/treatment/corrective measures are implemented. A subsequent project plan based on budgets, tolerances, practicalities, strategies and threats is then initiated. None of this is possible or conducted until executive or leadership elements are consulted, convinced and contribute to the outcome, not retrospectively. The sheer diversity and complications of modern and fast paced business operations mandates that this process be a team sport and a collaborative approach.

If you have never met your risk manager, or contributed to the demand or have no budget for such measures, you are part of the problem and less a part of the solution and remain symptomatic of this chronic disease.

Like all addictions or dependency behavior, the first step in breaking the cycle begins with asking yourself some fairly honest and confronting questions. If you can’t affect change then you need help, not time, but actionable collaboration. If not, are you merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing, only to be discovered when most needed?

Chicken or the pig, what came first?-The growing menace from Swine flu and other health crisis

The evolving threat from any health crisis should be a major concern to all those charged with ensuring their company’s resilience. When Swine Flu first surfaced, the public interest was akin to the gold medal tally board during the Olympics, if my country isn’t represented in the top five, who really cares? Sadly, with planners and medical advocates focusing on an inconsistent and flawed measurement tools such as the WHO’s running tally, most will not recognize the threat until it is literally upon them and rife within their communities. Much like the stock exchange, if the S&P 500 is surging, it is no guarantee that you are inclusive of the rally, alternately if it is plunging you could very well be unaffected. Why should the WHO’s numbers be any different?

When it is widely acknowledged that most governments, certainly within developing countries, are not the most dynamic of organizations and the list of failings by numerous administrations remains long and varied; why have so many placed such absolute trust in their ability to manage this particular crisis? Are so few people aware of the already over extended healthcare system in even the most developed of countries? When people are already waiting lengthy periods for non-life threatening surgeries and general practitioners are dwindling in number do they really believe that thousands of people even mildly ill simultaneously will be serviced in a timely manner? Not to mention the issues over any drug or vaccination that is rushed to market exclusive of any standardized clinical trials. I agree that the current trial periods may be too long but look at the countries that are mandating or implementing widespread vaccination programs of the first round of vaccinations. Concerning? Volunteers?

Even the most progressive multinationals have turned a blind eye to the inequalities of everything outside their home country when addressing planning and prevention for a major health crisis like swine flu. Their “home ground” view seems to be the same assumptions and standards for addressing the issue abroad. Since when has India had the same labor laws as the US? Since when has Indonesia enjoyed the same level of broadband connectivity to enable for employees to telecommute? And who in their right mind would assume that employees in China will stay at home and monitor their own health to ensure they do not contaminate the rest of the office/factory? Contractors and consultants in the UK recently declared that they were unlikely to stay away from the office if sick as they are on an hourly/daily rate which would be reduced should they not turn up for work. So much for that assumption! How many people do you think fill in the health declaration forms accurately when entering a country with such screening? Even Hong Kong’s current attempts are nothing more than superficial and mere inconvenience rather than anything of substance or consistency.

Malaysia has acknowledged their citizens are oblivious to Swine Flu and its affects. India is in a growing state of fear over the sudden realization they could be affected too, and they are helpless to do very much at all. Many employees in companies within India simply walk off the job to care for family if they think or confirm an ailment. How much of the world’s back office is situated in India? What do you think the impact will be from thousands who don’t turn up for work or significant diminished service capacities within India? South Korea, Taiwan and China all have major problems. They thought it was a European and Americas problem. Their population is ill informed, suspicious of the government, dependent on them to do something, have very underdeveloped risk management strategies and little to no budgets for such countermeasures, not to mention the care of extended family responsibilities well beyond that of the European and American cultures. Forget what the conflicting medical opinion is, do you really believe this will not be a problem?

Swine Flu (I don’t refer to water as H20 either) is not a human health issue. It is not limited to public health and safety. Like never before, company resilience to this issue will be determined by their actions and implementation, not industry standards or piecemeal government efforts. More concerning is that while these companies will be well prepared, their vendors, suppliers, consumers, affiliates, distributors, advocates and just about everyone else will not enjoy the benefits of their planning and be at the mercy of dynamically shifting environmental influences. You don’t need an economist to confirm the impacts of the economic downturn, equally any similar announcements by the medical fraternity will come well after the obvious, and at present, inevitable impact. On the scale of victim to survivor, where do you fall?