Originally Posted by
spin88
I gotta defend the "senior" employees here. Before 2012 there was a dedicated system of routing to senior agents for GS and 1K. Most of the time you got a HNL or DTW agent, and they were great. As a GS in hundreads of calls over a number of years I never had a HUCA issue. in 2012 they combined the senior sCO agents and went to shares. I found the sCO agents were trained to say no, and I would HUCA trying to get someone in DTW or HNL, but then they were not as proficient with SHARES. Lots of hanging on the phone while they tried to do something. Also losts of "I know this is what fixes the problem, but we have been told expresssly not to do this, and I'll get written up".
That UA does not have great CS for GS (and 1Ks) is simply a management decision to save money. I'm sure in the spreadsheet world set up by the Smith Street Gang having GS and 1K go to regular agents (1) better used resources and (2) reduced the "expenses" that were being incurred by having agents who know how to fix issues fix them.
The problem at UA is not the employees, its the management.
And this is the end result of penny pinching management, loss of the pounds....
Not sure I follow the logic - are you saying it is okay to dump poorly performing employees on general members and lower level elites? An airline should aim to have good customer service for all passengers, and expedited or concierge-type service for the most valued customers. I don't think the examples of poor service we have seen here are acceptable for anyone flying the airline. Many of us work in corporations that do not favor or discriminate amongst clients based on how much they spend - the aim is to treat everyone well and to minimize such gross variations in service. It should really not matter how much you spend to get the correct response to a question or problem. It is wrong that anyone needs to call 3 times to get something done - doesn't matter if one is GS or GM. I suppose it is still down to the management for poor training or not firing poor performers, but I don't think the solution to this problem is allocating the best agents to 1K and GS.