I think the US airlines have this sorted out. When my flight is canceled, I usually get an automated phone call saying that I'm booked on the next flight. (This is on AA, but I imagine it's the same for everyone else.)
When this doesn't happen, and I'm at the airport, I find it's easier to call Reservations from my cell phone and have them rebook me than to wait in line to speak with the gate agent. This is faster, saves waiting in line, saves listening to the people in front of you whine about how it's critical that they were there yesterday (yeah, they're going to uncancel the flight if you really need to see your mom...), etc.
I respectfully disagree that Tiger Airways, and others of their ilk (same stripes?) around the world, need to care about your problem.
(The respectfully is because I would like these companies to do so. The disagree is because I don't think they should have to or that customers are entitled to act indignantly when it doesn't happen.)
Tiger are clearly positioned in the marketplace around lowest cost. That's almost certainly why wakeless and everyone else on this flight booked with them, as opposed to Qantas, Virgin etc - Tiger was cheaper. Qantas (I believe) would have paid for accommodation due to a cancellation (and possibly avoided the cancellation to prevent the expense of that policy) - but when you chose to pay $100 less for a flight, you waived that entitlement.
Why are Tiger cheaper? Because they have stricter policies and fewer, perhaps less-trained or experienced staff, and they build a business model on those factors, not around caring for you. If you want somebody to care, be prepared to pay for it.
Obvious exceptions to this rule apply when a business engages in misleading conduct. And I reiterate that I would like to see more companies caring.
But if I buy the cheapest shoes, drive the cheapest second-hand car, and fly the cheapest airline, I'm not in a position to complain about cheap customer service.
Edit: None of this means wakeless shouldn't have complained in the way he did, or even cried blue murder at the airport. By all means push for change, just don't expect it.
>Why are Tiger cheaper? Because they have stricter policies and fewer, perhaps less-trained or experienced staff, and they build a business model on those factors, not around caring for you. If you want somebody to care, be prepared to pay for it.
Exactly. That's Tiger's position in the australian budget airline market. Absolutely minimum cost - less staff, less service but they get you from point A to point B for cheap when it's economically sensible for them (they have a minimal number of services depending on seasonal demand). They have been getting a very high level of complaints this year (and apparently only allowed communication via post until recently!!!) [1].
Jetstar and Virgin can afford a couple more amenities/services and Virgin at least has tiered pricing that might allow them to offset some of those costs (including flexibility in cancellations/flight changes etc.).
That's not my point. My point is that once the flight was cancelled they handled it from that point badly. I just booked my flight with Jetstar, waited in line for ages to apply for the refund and then went on my merry way. The problem was that they could have saved the 100 or so people a lot of time by being far more upfront about what they were going to provide and how to get that.
Agreed - they could have been clearer and it wouldn't have been as painful an experience for all involved.
I'm not trying to disagree with that point ("they handled it badly"), I'm trying to make the case for the fact that their business model makes those snafus more likely, and we should expect that.
If they trained or paid their staff better, it may have been handled better. But if that adds real dollars to the price of seats, then people start choosing another carrier.
@ brucini, please understand I wasn't saying cheap cost = lack of basic customer service, just that it likely equates to cheap customer service. In an airline example, it probably also equates to cheap planes, cheap maintenance workers and pilots, and lower standards of maintenance quality. I would hope there were never any crashes - that would be an absence of basic maintenance - but equipment faults, delays, and cancellations due to cheap maintenance? Well, it's a risk you take (and, frankly, which I'm willing to take in some situations) when you decide to buy the cheap option.
It's not logical to suggest, as JacobAldridge does, that the cost of a flight = a lack of basic customer service. Sure you might have to pay for your meals on flights now, but an airline should still ensure its customer service standards to deal with these cancellations.
If anything budget airlines should be trying harder to maintain customer loyalty.
As Wakeless says, he's not too bothered by the flight was cancelled (it happens to everyone) it's how it was dealt with.
You shouldn't expect more cancellations of flights just because the average flight cost is generally cheaper than full-service airlines.
Otherwise the argument would run that you should expect more crashes, and not complain, because you bought a cheaper flight ticket.
7 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 35.5 ms ] threadWhen this doesn't happen, and I'm at the airport, I find it's easier to call Reservations from my cell phone and have them rebook me than to wait in line to speak with the gate agent. This is faster, saves waiting in line, saves listening to the people in front of you whine about how it's critical that they were there yesterday (yeah, they're going to uncancel the flight if you really need to see your mom...), etc.
(The respectfully is because I would like these companies to do so. The disagree is because I don't think they should have to or that customers are entitled to act indignantly when it doesn't happen.)
Tiger are clearly positioned in the marketplace around lowest cost. That's almost certainly why wakeless and everyone else on this flight booked with them, as opposed to Qantas, Virgin etc - Tiger was cheaper. Qantas (I believe) would have paid for accommodation due to a cancellation (and possibly avoided the cancellation to prevent the expense of that policy) - but when you chose to pay $100 less for a flight, you waived that entitlement.
Why are Tiger cheaper? Because they have stricter policies and fewer, perhaps less-trained or experienced staff, and they build a business model on those factors, not around caring for you. If you want somebody to care, be prepared to pay for it.
Obvious exceptions to this rule apply when a business engages in misleading conduct. And I reiterate that I would like to see more companies caring.
But if I buy the cheapest shoes, drive the cheapest second-hand car, and fly the cheapest airline, I'm not in a position to complain about cheap customer service.
Edit: None of this means wakeless shouldn't have complained in the way he did, or even cried blue murder at the airport. By all means push for change, just don't expect it.
Exactly. That's Tiger's position in the australian budget airline market. Absolutely minimum cost - less staff, less service but they get you from point A to point B for cheap when it's economically sensible for them (they have a minimal number of services depending on seasonal demand). They have been getting a very high level of complaints this year (and apparently only allowed communication via post until recently!!!) [1].
Jetstar and Virgin can afford a couple more amenities/services and Virgin at least has tiered pricing that might allow them to offset some of those costs (including flexibility in cancellations/flight changes etc.).
1: http://www.watoday.com.au/travel/travel-news/airline-complai...
I'm not trying to disagree with that point ("they handled it badly"), I'm trying to make the case for the fact that their business model makes those snafus more likely, and we should expect that.
If they trained or paid their staff better, it may have been handled better. But if that adds real dollars to the price of seats, then people start choosing another carrier.
@ brucini, please understand I wasn't saying cheap cost = lack of basic customer service, just that it likely equates to cheap customer service. In an airline example, it probably also equates to cheap planes, cheap maintenance workers and pilots, and lower standards of maintenance quality. I would hope there were never any crashes - that would be an absence of basic maintenance - but equipment faults, delays, and cancellations due to cheap maintenance? Well, it's a risk you take (and, frankly, which I'm willing to take in some situations) when you decide to buy the cheap option.