A trick question -- which of the three panelists was me?

The answer: All of them.

I dare say I've said most of the things they've said at one time or another over the past 5 years. Sometimes I still say them. More importantly, if the author had simply skimmed FlyerTalk, he would have heard all of that and more from a wide variety of people on FlyerTalk, and from all walks of life. Seems everybody knows the answers. Except Air Canada.

So let's go over them again, in the hope that maybe someone at AC reads them. Maybe they'll think now there's a gem of an idea. And maybe they'll even act on one or more of them.

Here's my take on the various points raised. But this is gonna be a long one, so get a cup of coffee first, or a mug of beer. And find a comfortable seat. 'Cause here we go again...

Indeed. But has history has shown, AC management has a long history of wearing rose coloured glasses on one hand, and on the other claiming every problem they encounter is someone elses fault. Whether it was the unpredictability of SARS, or the fact that the wrongly blamed Transport Canada for an Air Canada policy of disallowing people with medical conditions to bring their own oxygen, the answer is always the same -- it's someone else's fault.

That leads to two things, both of which have the same result. The first is that there's nothing wrong, so there's no need to do anything about it. Secondly, if it's someone else's fault, there's nothing they can do about it. So in the end, nothing get's done. Until it's too late. And it always looks like it's too late.

So much as stepping up to the plate, or microphone, and saying "This is the problem we got ourselves into,...", based on past experiences I don't see it happening. That's a shame, because admitting a mistake is cathartic, and immediately disarms your opponents. All they can do is say "He's such a... Oh! Well, at least he knows."

Secondly, it gives you a chance to make a testable commitment that you are going to do something about it. That's very important, because just making vague unmearsurable or untestable promises just makes you look wishy-washy, and causes people to think "nothing new here."

And not just getting feedback, but inviting it, and acting upon it, is the absolute best way to bring a disatisfied customer back to the fold. This could be the start of their recovery campaign -- build a process where anyone can quickly and easily make a complaint or compliment, and make sure that every single one of them is read and acted upon, and where appropriate, responded to. The first step in this process would be not to dismantle, but to utterly destroy, even in a symbolic way, the so-called "Customer Solutions" department. (They may have already done this, but if they've just appointed a "new boss, same as the old boss" and given it a new name -- "The Customer Experience" then nothing has changed, except the feeling that maybe you're only a Disney amusement ride, going 'round and 'round and 'round.)

Responding doesn't necessarily mean taking direct action on every complaint. Perhaps you only need to categorize the complaints to determine which are the biggest problems, and deal with them first. But you need to put that knowledge of what is bugging customers the most to use, because often as not it will tell you exactly what you have to do.

And when a complaint does require a response, not only "should they," they must "act on that feedback on a real-time basis." But here again is a historical problem -- AC doesn't seem to be able to respond to any problem in less than a couple of months, let alone in real-time.

A couple of years ago then Air Travel Complaints Commissioner (or whatever he was called) Bruce Hood noted that he had asked all airlines flying into or within Canada to respond immediately to customer complaints. With the exception of Air Canada, as reported some six months later, all airlines took this to mean that they should empower employees to take immediate remedial action, on the spot. Air Canada however took a different approach. They decided this meant that any complaint received by their "customer solutions" department should be acknowledged within 7 days. Not acted on. Not responded to. But acknowledged!

Now this may be getting better. Recently when my luggage did not arrive in Paris with me, I was handed 330 Euros cash, to cover my incidental costs. While I would have preferred that my bags simply showed up, I thought that was a completely reasonable and acceptable temporary (and real-time) response. Problem is I've been so conditioned that my first two thoughts were "there only doing this because I'm SE" and "only I would be that lucky." (And trust me, if it wasn't for good luck, I'd have no luck at all.)

There seem to have been a few reports on FT of late where immediate responses have occured. And I recall that recently AC implemented a program to empower their employees, at least in some cases, to make those "immediate" responses. But still, often as not, FT suggests that sometimes the response is not forthcoming, or if it is, is wholly inadequate. They need to make this effective, system wide, and a cultural imperative. And they need to advertise it, perhaps as one of the first steps to recovery.

This too would be a good first step, and something that the public could immediately see. Start advertising fares "all in" -- that is, with every imaginable surcharge already included. (It's long been custom in North America to advertise prices without tax included. It would probably be reasonable to continue this practice. But if they wanted the best of both worlds, they could advertise both the pre-tax and post-tax prices.)

Doing so, presuming they actually followed through on it, would have the immediate effect of establishing credibility. It would also make them look good in the eyes of most customers. And they could rightly use words and phrases like "honest pricing." And in the same way West Jet's current ads suggest "were not Air Canada" AC could say things like "Unlike other airlines, are prices are real/accurate/honest/etc."

Remember my tirades on the difference between "low cost carriers" and "high value carriers?" Or my economics lesson on the dangers of competing on price alone? Need I say more?