Membership
Benefits

AIIC
Worldwide

Members
Only :-)

TRAVEL ALLOWANCES

A letter from D. Shearer (AIIC)

A colleague, who never misses a flight, recently missed one. This non-event (he reached the meeting on time) was to cause embarrassment and nastiness because the ticket, very cheap, could not be used for another flight. The customer had, of course, asked the interpreter to agree to use the ticket before actually sending it to him, and, on receiving a bill for an additional one-way full fare, was unamused.

May I be allowed to set out the reasons why cut-rate fares should only be accepted after certain assurances have been given by the customer? They sound self-evident, and we are all able to work them out for ourselves after the event, but the point is that, used preventively, they avoid wrangling and recrimination.

A customer who asks you to accept an APEX-type ticket is in fact asking if you will put up with certain constraints and annoyances, without anything in exchange, in order that he may be enabled to make a saving. Understandable - I would do the same if the roles were reversed. The objection is not to the legitimacy of helping a customer save money, it is to the impediments and limitations inherent in a non-transferable ticket. The resulting situation is unfairly one-sided. The saving is all for him, the worrying about the consequences of missing the flight is all mine.

If I book a non-transferable ticket for a private trip, the profit is mine and I accept the constraints accordingly. I may leave home several hours earlier than I would otherwise think fit, so as to be sure of being at the terminal on time, regardless of acts of God or anybody else, such as striking train or Métro personnel. I cannot be expected to do so if the beneficiary is the customer. Surely I should not even be allowed to do so if there is a risk of having to leave another customer's meeting early (perhaps also lumbering my hapless colleagues with the consequences of my "cooperativeness")?

If I am to work away from home the day before or after the meeting concerned, therefore making a single triangular trip instead of two returns, the question of an APEX simply does not arise.

Conversely, accepting an APEX well in advance of a meeting, before knowing what is to follow or precede, may mean having to refuse work.

The only honest answer, therefore, to the customer who asks you to travel cut-rate, is to agree only on the understanding that he will be invoiced for the additional cost involved if for whatever reason you miss the intended flight. In doubtful cases, it may be simpler and healthier to start by saying that you cannot accept an APEX because of a fictitious prior or subsequent engagement away from home. They take it off tax anyway.

Do not harbour too many illusions about ingratiating yourself with customers by your readiness to agree to such accommodations. The incident which prompted this letter was concluded satisfactorily; that is, the customer paid. However, although he still made a fairly large saving on the cost of a regular full-fare return ticket, he paid begrudgingly and belatedly. As if, by granting the favour sought by the customer, the interpreter had placed himself on a footing with the latter's subordinate personnel, who were not asked for their opinion or assent, but were given a ticket and told which flight to take.

D. Shearer

© AIIC, 1998-2000 - All Rights Reserved

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONFERENCE INTERPRETERS 10 avenue de Sécheron - CH - 1202 Geneva - Switzerland E-mail: info@aiic.net