Originally Posted by
RadioGirl
eternaltransit and
Suiteflight, thank you both for your thoughtful posts. I really do appreciate it and I'm not arguing with you (really!). Some more thoughts, though.
TBH, in the experiences I described, it's difficult to distinguish (at the time) whether what I'm asking for is reasonable or not. For example:
I understand that reasoning completely. But Qantas had been operating for
years with the opposite approach - that it was better business to move a passenger, regardless of fare class, onto the earliest possible flight and open up a later seat which might be sold. Then, obviously, some bean-counter had worked out that leaving me with the Shiraz for three hours in the Qantas Club
whilst hoping my boss would pay $70 more for the flexible ticket in future
was a more effective financial strategy. Perhaps (over all customers) it was. As you say, QF makes a profit.
But after years of "would you like the earlier flight?" when I'm told "we can't move you", I don't know whether (a) the policy has changed, (b) whether the previous staff were wrong, or (c) whether this agent is wrong. The fact that FT has the acronym HUACA is testimony to this uncertainty!
When the EK J lounge attendant wouldn't let me in with the QC membership, I was sure I was right. She was sure she was right. She wasn't.
With the QF lounge/EK Gold issue, I
still don't know who's right. And the part of the airline that says "yes" refuses to talk to the part that says "no." So I keep trying.
But in every case, the airline employee - right or wrong - has the power. They can refuse to change the flight or refuse entry to the lounge.
This is where I think a Dept of Common Sense might help customers.
Actually that's pretty much what she said: "If we allowed changes on the cheap (!!) tickets, no one would buy the expensive ones."
Well, with QF you get that part for free.
Now that is news to me and no, I don't think most airline staff would know or be willing to explain it.
But in the most recent example I had already flown the first segment (that morning) and was trying to change the return flight with the QF staff at the airport so I'm not sure whether this applies. And most of the years when they were eager to move me to earlier flights were after e-tickets were introduced.
I'm grateful for your insights and I don't want to prolong this if you feel we've covered all the ground we can. But in summary I wish airlines had someone I could call who could (a) explain in more detail and (b) resolve these conflicts when the rules have become too convoluted.
Nothing wrong with arguing at all, as long as we are all civil! I mean you and I both know the threads that descend into mudslinging
Was the policy changed perhaps around the time Alan Joyce completed his initial review of QF operations?
You do raise a point that many travellers think doesn't make sense at all - that by not allowing the change you will just consume x amount of F&B in the lounge which will not make it worth it, but this is all fully factored in to their calculations (and of course, F&B costs are split across all users of the lounge, not directly into the costs of tickets). The argument is that the revenue gained by revenue protection minus any additional F&B costs is worth the hassling of customers. It seems that the the bean-counting strategy is vindicated through annual results, so I suspect it may continue!
As you say though, the whole reasoning behind the change is irrelevant to the point, which is what happens when you get an agent sticking to the script when he/she might be wrong. But I think that is much more a service thing, which is, "how to politely decline requests" and furthermore: "how to not waste airline time explaining the arcane intricacies of policy". However, some staff are much better at face-saving white lies than others!
You're right in that airline employees, or at least, one or two direct reports up the chain, have pretty much the power to do anything: they can put someone on a plane (with or without a ticket!), take someone off (for any or no reason), let someone into a lounge (flyer or not), give people unlimited baggage, etc. etc. etc.
The problem I think is that airlines know this, and so have strict controls over that power. They need to formulate a policy to protect themselves, but it's got to be quite complex (or naked self-interest) to cover the myriad of scenarios out there. Too much discretion and you're going to lose lots of money (or at least see significant cost creep), not enough and you're a bunch of robots (but not quite robots enough to replace staff with automated systems), which isn't so good for customer satisfaction.
So when someone falls through the cracks, I can see the reasoning for fobbing off a customer with a computer says no response, because it saves everyone the time and hassle of explaining technical issues that take time, or might descend into, "you aren't that important to us, the airline" (guaranteed to stop future business!), but the critical thing is to get staff who can do that tactfully enough. Some airlines and cultural backgrounds are certainly better at this than others.