Transpacificflyer

I don't understand some of you folks. Often, you voice some legitimate concerns, and they are even touched on again in this thread, with the references to the state of cleanliness, quality of food etc. Yet, when the airline puts a person on board to see how the customers are taken care of, to observe the delivery of service, and the state of the cabin and meals served, some grumble. Please give this a chance.

This initiative is part and parcel of delivering what Calin and his C suite minions call Onboard Customer Service Excellence. When you see the special "agent" share with him/her your concern as to the quality of the flight you are on. I would have loved to have one of these people on my most recent TPACs.

I would have taken the piece of shoe leather AC served me and asked this person to have a gnaw on the gristle and sinew and asked why the airline served industrial grade stewing beef described as prime steak. I would have shown the agent my filthy tray table. When I went to use the disgusting airborne latrine/outhouse 6 hours in, I'd have invited the agent to come and enjoy the invigorating aroma of gooey feces with an overlayer of pungent urine.

The airline needs to have these managers onboard so that they can see first hand how poor the F&B is, the state of the cabins and of course, appreciate that there is just so much an under staffed cabin crew can do.

djjaguar64

I don't think its "us folks" who find this to be an absurd approach, it's going to be AC's onboard staff who will rebel against this as being spied on while they "work".
And its not about understaffed cabin crew, it's really more about how disciplined the cabin crew is actually!

Sopwith

Fair comment, but you know what? I don't remember ever having an on board experience I would rate as bad. But dealing with AC before and after the flight, or during IRROPS can be infuriating! They should have these people try getting an agent on the phone to sort out a problem that can't be fixed on line. Or track down a bag. Or make a rebooking after a misconnect. Or try to book a reward with AE. Or get a refund processed because of an IDB or a/c change that negated a seat assignment. Or... or... or...

If they truly think it's the on board service that's a problem they're obviously just as screwed up as I thought they are.

jaysona

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the OSM. Most of the FA's don't feel like they're being "spied on" and some like the fact that the OSMs are there so management can get a view of just how some pax monopolize the time of some crew members, which adversely impacts the service given to all the other pax in the cabin.

There is something to be said about some crew not following SOP properly, but sometimes this is due to a small number of pax making unreasonable request of of certain cabin crew members and those crew members not knowing how to periphery handle those requests that results in an overall poor impression of the service levels in general.

All-in-all I think the OSM are well received - as long as it results in a more consistent service level for the pax and a more predictable and consistent work routine for the cabin crew.

canadiancow

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with you, but...

One of my best flights ever was on AC (which is different than "one of my best AC flights ever") had crew visibly and obviously chatting in the galley.

Blah blah blah chat chat chat. Constantly.

One of my best. flights. ever.

Amazing service, even with the obvious, constant, chatting.

DNAwizard

I had the pleasure of having an OSM on 2 flights in the past 2 months, both to/from Europe. And I have to say that on those flights, the service was more consistent and yes better. The cabin crew did not seem bothered at all though (and I don't think they should).

I had the pleasure to exchange with the OSM on each flight and share some of my experience and concerns. They are very keen to learn about onboard service/experience, what could/should be improved, but also comparisons with other airlines. All very objectively and factually. Very nice experience.

I personally think this is a good thing and a sign that AC wants to have a consistent offering/service throughout its network. So kudos to AC ^

jazzsax

Maybe they should extend these to also be at the check in lines, and wandering in the lounges...

jaysona

I was just repeating what I have had to endure during many rides from/to the airport with friends of mine where I end up having my ears talked off by the un-ending barrage of complaints about things that happened on the previous 3 - 5 days worth of flights.

The most common thing I hear is that while a PAX is talking up the FA, after a minute or two all the FA is thinking is something along the lines of "Fuuuuuuuuuuu.......... I wish this person would just shut-up let me get back to work, I have a ton of stuff (a word other than stuff is used ) to do"

canadiancow

Sorry, I meant the crew was chatting amongst themselves.

It wasn't a passenger taking up their time.

24left

Further to comments in the Poor AC Crews thread...





When we were discussing the new role/position, one of the things said by an OSM on my flight was "If you're familiar with the ISMs on Cathay and others, the OSM concept is similar"

I'm being pedantic about it...because details matter to me

OSM - Onboard Service Manager and "onboard" is one word.

So in the AC universe, Onboard became On Board.

Were all their business cards changed too?

Diabeetus

May I proposition that the sneaky B was a Freudian slip that stuck?

canadiancow

This should be OBSM. It's hard to search for when the thread title doesn't match what anyone at AC uses.

I have one onboard AC 846 tonight.

rehoult

For anyone interested, the Union's grievances over the OBSM program were heard last summer and the ruling was issued on Monday: https://gallery.mailchimp.com/6c7637..._2_Rulings.pdf

In sum, the program is allowed to continue, subject to some modifications on union representation and scoring disclosure.

24left

@rehoult
Really fascinating document and read. Thanks so much for posting.

These lines stood out for me:

* "There are almost 1600 active Service Directors" - I had no idea actually

* "(although some Service Directors declined feedback)" - I wonder why

* "Of the 1382 Service Directors assessed as of July 3, 2018, 1142 met standards while 268 exceeded standards.....86 did not meet standards on the initial assessment flight. Only 18 Service Directors did not meet standards on the second assessment flight (16 of whom were demoted)"

So, 82.6% of SDs were just doing their job, 19.4% exceeded standards, 6% did not meet standards on initial assessment and 1% did not on the second assessment.

I don't work in HR or with unions. Are these statistics representative of the industry? Is that data even tracked.

* "The union further took the position that no real corrective training was offered: Simply referring the Service Director to the 15 Touch Points, and various other materials, some of which had a peripheral, at best, connection to the sought after service standards, did not 7 come close to achieving the company’s professed intention of helping Service Directors succeed."

Does anyone know what the corrective training is defined as?

As for the phrase "Touch Points", it is over-used in my industry ("Consumer touch-points"). While I understand why the customer-service business likes it, I've seen some lists where the items are not even realistic. Not judging AC or the SDs, just saying.

tracon

Some math isn't adding up.
1382 assessed does not equal 1142+268+86.
If the 268 exceptional SDs are included in the 1142 that still doesn't = 1382.

24L your percentages = 107%