jbb

Here is SQ's briefer and more banal mission statement:

"Singapore Airlines is a global company dedicated to providing air transportation services of the highest quality and to maximising returns for the benefit of its shareholders and employees."

And NH's more quixotic mission statement:

“Security and Trust” is ANA Group's unwavering promise to our customers. It defines the core of our entire operation and is our solemn responsibility. “The wings within ourselves” are our desire to continually rise to new challenges, contribute to the strong rebirth of our organization and always be there for our customers. As a key player in the global airline industry, the ANA Group pledges to transcend generations in support of developing our global community and fulfilling the hopes and dreams of current and future generations.

Though NH has a more straight forward "management vision": "It is our goal to be the world's leading airline group in customer satisfaction and value creation"

NH also has a similar list to CX under "ANA's Way"
1) Safety: We always hold safety as our utmost priority, because it is the foundation of our business
2) Customer Orientation: We create the highest possible value for our customers by viewing our actions from their perspective
3) Social Responsibility: We are committed to contributing to a better, more sustainable society with honesty and integrity
4) Team spirit: We respect diversity of our colleagues worldwide and come together as one team by engaging in direct, sincere and honest dialogue
5) Endeavor: We endeavor to take on any challenge in the global market through bold initiative and innovative spirit

-Of course, having worked for a company once that talked ceaselessly of its 'values' and 'mission statements' while also treating its employees and external vendors like utter garbage, all of these nice words are fairly meaningless unless acted upon in practice. So, while I think these sorts of vision statements can set the right tone for a company's culture, they really aren't the be all and end all. Great companies can do without them, while horrible company's can have amazing vision statements.

AC too does have a Mission, Vision and Values page: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/ca...t_mission.html

24left

I already posted the image of this on the previous page
See post 147

Justwondering1

As someone that just browses this site...I recently applied for the concierge position...won't go into detail, however from the way it was conducted, from talking to interviewers over the phone from Montreal (being tested in my English skills from someone who could barely speak English), to the actual interview here in Toronto, it was a absolute joke. Having someone who only had 5 months experience with Air Canada( none in the customer service field) under her belt, conducting a interview with potential employees, who will interact with the companies premium customers...was a complete farce.

PLeblond

Apologies to all for interjecting in the thread once again, but since this post has taken a tangent, I will allow myself a comment:

To Justwondering1, I will ignore the idea that maybe your previous work has shown promise and some of your immediate supervisors see potential in you, I do have one question:

Please read this post: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-c...failed-se.html

Afterwards; please ask yourself is you really want to be working for persons with the attitudes found in this thread. Personally, if I were an AC concierge reading that, I'd consider changing department.

superangrypenguin

Not defending anyone, but that was 1 person. I know of many SE's, MM's etc who do not share his opinion of his superiority. (if he was being serious). I'd say the majority of super elites on here still have their heads screwed on straight.

PLeblond

Not wanting to paint everyone with the same brush here, but wanted to point out an underlying attitude shared among a small percentage of SEs.

superangrypenguin

Agreed! ^

nerdbirdsjc

Y'all are funny in mentioning SQ as something AC should aspire to -- on multiple occasions, Singapore Airlines has FAILED in the Canadian market, and runs no flights to Canada today.

Air Canada does an admirable job given what it has to work with -- namely, a high-cost, thinner volume home base whose longhaul travel needs are driven overwhelmingly by VFR/leisure traffic, and a domestic/regional market that has completely commoditized.

Justwondering1

By no means was I going into the position blind...or with rose coloured glasses. I have an extreme amount of experience in interacting with premium customers from a previous airline. Like I had mentioned, the person that was doing the interview, because I asked her at the conclusion of the interview, how long had she been a concierge with Air Canada? She replied.."I haven't been a concierge." So I asked.."How long have you been with Air Canada?" She replied.."5 months." So in a split second it ran thru my mind, here I was being interviewed for a position with a large airline, that position would be interacting with their most premium customers, and the person doing the interview had no experience what so ever in the position being interviewed for. Some of the questions asked, just made me raise my eyebrows just a tad.....I was used to working in a environment, that if a premium customer had a issue, I took control of the situation, found a solution that was amicable to the customer, and proceeded. I NEVER had to ask a supervisor for the go ahead. I had enough customer service skills under the belt per se, they trusted I would not give away the store, but keep the customer satisfied, and retain the business the customer brings to the corporation. The feeling I received from doing the interview was that everything of the "abnormal" aspect, had to go thru a higher up.

PLeblond

Thanks for the clarification. I misread your post to read that you have very little experience working in Customer Service and had only 5 months at the airline. You were referring to the person in HR conducting the interview.

You post makes much more sense to me now. My apologies for the misinterpretation.

I'd still read the post before taking the job, should it be offered to you, though. But then again, with your experience working with customers, you probably already know the 85%-great / 10%-awesome / 5%-energy-draining-impossible-to-satisfy-can-ruin-your-day ratio when working in the public.

Goodluck with the job. As mentioned all around here a vast majority of the SEs here appreciate the concierge.

jsfrSE

The fact that Singapore Airlines doesn't fly to Canada is by no means a failure, as you state.

If one were to follow your logic, Air Canada doesn't fly to Russia, nor to India and this is not indicative of failure on their part.

As for benchmarking against Singapore Airlines, I suggest you read the various awards Singapore received and try comparing this to North American Airlines...

http://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/ab...ry/sia-awards/

mkjr

Wow…and at the time of booking for a trip to SIN in J, I chose BR over AC to save my company over 2500 and boy does that sound like a kick asss decision.

FlyerTalker683455

AC management doesn't trust their concierges any more than to do seat assignments and IROP routings nowadays. The system has gotten so locked down that I have on several occasions seen agents (and concierges) "give up" and leave files half finished for me to sort out later.

Concierges are nice as they provide a "home base" feel at various stations. But they lack substance to actually get much done.

LockheedElectra

Actually, that is currently the best thread here, and I doubt very much whether the OP was serious, but if he was then he certainly got what was coming to him (couldn't have been a her )

Transpacificflyer

I wish to return to the original item in this thread, that of the joys of flying on EVA and the discernible difference when compared to AC. Over the past few years, I have flown frequently on BR in Premium Laurel/Royal. Everything stated previously in respect to the airline's virtues is so very true, but what hooked me in the early days, even before they set up in YYZ, were 1) the slippers, 2) the IFE which featured the same Hollywood fare as every other major airline, but also some wonderful Chinese/Korean/Indian films all subtitled in English, 3) the special black bean and chili condiment to which I have developed an addiction and 4) the ability to pre-order my meal. It's little things like this that sets BR apart from other airlines that fly that route and especially AC. These are all somewhat minor features, in comparison to the pristine lavs, and high quality service aboard, to which AC can't come close, for the simple reason that the AC philosophy is to ignore such aspects of the flight.

The usual argument that one will have is but wait, those Asians pay their people less, and their safety is questionable blah, blah, blah. Well, BR has an even better safety record than AC and those employees are all paid wages that are not that divergent from AC's client facing personnel. Look at the staffing at the EVA desk. All of those people are have to be paid a wage competitive with every other service provider at the airport, otherwise they wouldn't be working for EVA, they'd be working for another airline, especially since the EVA shift is a late one. Although I usually breeze through checkin, I have seen the economy line, and people are being served quickly and courteously. In large part, that is because the process is sufficiently staffed. I understand why sometimes the AC agents are grumpy - they are almost always short staffed. The proper staffing also is seen at the gate where the gate agents circulate checking carry on bags and making sure people follow the rules. Appreciably, the pax demographic is ideal: Typically, elderly Taiwanese, or well behaved students returning home for a visit, and then the contingent of quality non Taiwan nationals using BR to get to SIN/HKG/BKK. BR has set itself up, whether it was intentional or not, as the classy airline.

I've seen how the chief FA greets and treat the Diamond status pax and if the self important super dooper AC elites ever saw this, they would have kittens. I've also seen BR management on the prowl in TPE both at the gates and in the well provisioned TPE lounge. They walk the shop floor, which is something that AC management needs to do. I've also experienced 1st hand IROPS and the great care that was given to me when it happened. More importantly, I will never forget how I fell asleep in the lounge in TPE and the airline staff were both efficient and kind enough to get me on to the next connecting flight. I could fault them for not making announcements in the lounge, but it was my responsibility to get to the gate on time. No rude remarks, no arrogance came from the BR people. Instead they escorted me to the gate smiling and saying no worries, as it happens at least once a day. I have never received such polite and thoughtful service in the decades I have flown on AC. This is why I love BR. I expect many other people love BR too, and it is an emotion that it probably not common with AC. I would fly more frequently on BR if the connections out of YYZ were better and the AC connector fare wasn't so ridiculously expensive. I am now at the point of willingness to overnight at the Sheraton and grabbing an early flight out the following day, I so miss flying on EVA.
My point here, is that for those of us who have had the BR experience, we repay the airline by trying to fly it whenever possible, even when the fares are slightly more expensive than the competition. This is something AC squandered long ago. So to Calin and company, run with your Rouge. Those of us who pay our own way will do business with those airlines that treat us as more than bums in a seat.