Does a ‘Never Say No’ Approach to Airline Customer Service Work?

Don’t be misled: “Never say no” is not a skill I claim to possess.

It’s not a customer service policy my airline ever pushed upon us in training either, which is why I was fascinated when a flight attendant friend at Qantas mentioned she’d been through a particular training on “never say no.” Hers was a course in a branded philosophy called the Gober Method. The more I read about it, the more I can’t help reflect upon airline culture differences, and whether “never say no” is really a good fit for the airline industry.

I have long suspected that certain airlines’ employees are compelled by such a policy (not necessarily via the Gober Method) – something I’ve now had confirmed by a few contacts. You can probably guess some of those companies, but I was surprised to hear that Qantas goes for this approach. I just didn’t peg the Australian service culture to be an obvious match for an obsequious-sounding service style. British Airways was also a client (but I am not sure if that’s still true).

Before we run away with comments about how it shows that U.S. carriers don’t pursue that policy (we are all aware of the general reputation when compared to international airlines), it’s not that we don’t have customer service stressed to us in our initial training. Of course we do, but if you had to sum it up in a sound bite philosophy, I’d say ours is, “Do the best you can.” Sure, it sounds less impressive, but it also just feels realistic.

A lot of what the Gober method preaches doesn’t sound any different from ours. I’m all for breaking bad news gently, for sandwiching it in good news if there is some to be had and for offering solutions when I can, but all that’s just basic good Customer Service 101 — aka handling people well — isn’t it?

We part ways, however, when it comes to other specifics. The Gober Method is known for things like banning the words “can’t” and “unfortunately” (I don’t know how I’d manage without “unfortunately”). This article says you have to “deliver bad news by making it sound better than it is.” Does that really make passengers happier?

Possibly, but it sounds like teaching us to talk to you like politicians. I think being less-than-direct about what’s happening is already one thing that really annoys customers about airlines. I know it annoys me — I’d rather just hear it straight — but then I’m back to wondering if it’s a cultural thing.

Saying things politely is important, absolutely, but beyond that, do these specifics really accomplish anything for the flyer? I was talking with one friend whose company teaches the method. In short, she agrees with me that it’s of limited use to a crew member. We talked about different examples we might encounter at work and how, when there’s no action you can take (which is often), toying with the words is as likely to frustrate the customer as it is to placate them.

One scenario that was discussed in her training regarded when there are no blankets to provide. “I’m sorry but they just don’t load enough blankets for every passenger on this aircraft,” was given as an unacceptably worded answer. My friend wondered what the correct response would be. “There are no more blankets but maybe you can snuggle with the person seated beside you and that will make you warmer?” She concluded, “Sometimes you just have to say, ‘There’s no more chicken.’” I agree.

Take one of the philosophy catchphrases, “Glad, Sure, Sorry”: you are glad the customer brought the complaint to you, sure you can help, and sorry it happened. The problem is: How does a flight attendant meaningfully apply that to, e.g. missing catering, weather delays, a crew that timed out due to tight scheduling, mechanicals or a flight that closed before your travel mates made their connection? These are common complaints, and as crew, there is little we can actually do. Will our avoidance of the words “can’t” or “unfortunately” make the customer feel more satisfied?

When faced with such complaints, the Gober instructions to “take personal responsibility” and “not pass the buck” feel empty. Correction: they feel like great advice aimed at the wrong people. Most complaints relate to structural issues the crew struggles with, too. They’re the reason we have to say no. This is already one of crew members’ most common complaints – the people in the offices don’t listen those on the ground reporting what’s actually going wrong and how. One online commenter who has done the training said, “We hated it because it felt like a bloody lecture from people who have never served in a shop in their lives,” and that’s why. Teaching us to change our wording about the problems (rather than engaging us about and finding strategies to resolve them) feels like an all-too-typical off-target approach.

There’s also my concern that the necessity to manage customer behavior is different for an airline than it is for other businesses. Some flight attendants pushed to “never say no” said the policy just “reinforces bad behavior.” Some of the outrageous incidents we hear about from Asian airlines (like this, this, and this) come to mind. There are always people who hope we’ll throw anything at them to shut them up. In that case, situations can escalate. This sounds exactly like what we don’t want in the air. Saying no can be essential to keeping order.

Beyond my concern for manipulative behavior in-flight, I’m fascinated to learn that this is the strategy of some other airlines – ones with outstanding reputations I cannot deny – though I’m not convinced their success comes down to the words that crews use. Words are only effective if you can back them up with action, I should think, which we very often cannot. To be effective, it seems the method must start way higher up the food chain. I may not be a fan of the Gober Method, but I could get on board with a strategy that makes it so we don’t have to say no. I’d like to try that instead.

[Photo: Getty]