vernonc

Passengers with young children, with strollers, disabled passengers, etc all have a different level of service. Wheelchair passengers board first. People with very young children board before general boarding. So in effect the airline does provide a different level of service to these passengers.
Having a stroller delivered to you at the gate in not a magical act of God, it is SOP. Sometimes it is delivered at baggage claim when they screw up. You can choose to disregard the disabled part or the poop part but the standard of service did not meet the airlines own SOP.

YEG_SE4Life

I believe that the flaw in this logic stems from the fact that the airlines, and from what I have been reading AC is included, do handle strollers in a different manner than they do other baggage, or carry-on items that must be gate-checked. Because of this, the thought is that having the stroller at the bridge is not treating this passenger different because of a disadvantaged child. Having said that, I am not sure that it is so much a slippery slope. After all, the airlines do, as a normal part of business, treat passengers who have mobility challenges differently. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a zone 2A.

The fact that the child is disadvantaged may add to the inconvenience, from the customer's stand point (and that does make it a valid concern, at least in MHO), because the child may require carrying, at a more advanced age (and weight) than another child. And, because the stroller was not available at the plane, nor was it located after the passenger had been sent, carrying her child, to different locations.

That nobody was able to give her a straight answer as to where her stroller was, and that she was sent to different locations to retrieve the stroller that doesn't appear to have been where they were sending her, makes the treatment of the passenger unreasonable. It also, in the minds of some, it would appear, makes it newsworthy.

It's also possible that, to those that are waiting to bash the airline, the fact that this news story broke after AC officials have acknowledged that this is a problem and that they are investigating it internally, also makes it newsworthy because, to this group of people, it is evidence that the airline actually admitted fault to something.

kb9522

I'm talking about the quality of customer service when something goes wrong. A reasonable person would have understood that. I understand certain classes of passengers are treated differently when they fly, in accordance with the laws in whatever jurisdiction controls that. I fly too, I'm not oblivious to what goes on around me.

YEG_SE4Life

I am not sure that anyone is suggesting she should have received any service, beyond what one would consider normal, after the stroller was not located. In fact, I believe that folks are suggesting that the service she received, at this point, was below what even AC execs would like to believe is normal. I tend to agree, based on what I am reading.

yulred

Feel free to demonstrate how delivering a stroller on the jetway/resolve this issue in a timely fashion will adversely impact any airline's ability to improve "more important things". Until then, false dichotomy.

You make "par for the course" folk sound like complete pushovers looking for ways to excuse poor customer service. Which is probably why airlines treat customers as poorly as they did here.

Also, you appear to be suggesting that it's okay to deliver poor customer to some people, as long as they constitute a minority of customers. Is that an accurate interpretation?

kb9522

Delivering a stroller to the jetway in a timely manner does not prevent larger issues from being addressed. Sensationalist headlines and faux public outrage over a corner case occurence that is, like it or not, a trivial issue to an overwhelming majority of people means a disproportionate amount of time and resources must be spent to address a marginal issue. I can't tell if you're just feigning ignorance to preserve your desire to be outraged or if you truly are incapable of comprehending this otherwise simple idea.

IMO, It is absolutely okay to deliver poor customer service to some people as long as they constitute a very small minority of customers AND it means issues that affect a larger subset of customers are more easily resolved.

godsquare

Forgive me if I am wrong but being mad at the airline is no longer "trendy" after the Dao incident.

Rather, IMHO, being a dick has become so trendy instead.

Diabeetus

God forbid we look after disabled or children in our society, or gasp, the self-entitled combination of disabled+children = disable child.

This slippery slope will lead to further atrocities like:

• Bigger and closer handicap parking spaces
• Bathrooms and stalls for these folks
• Ramps and elevators
• Slowing down in playground zones
• Having to stop when school buses stop

And without making them pay more for it?
And if it would inconvenience us able bodied folks?



Let's make disabled children sit in their own feces for hours, and we'll make them pay for it too... and then make them build the wall to prevent them from boarding our airplanes, and then make them pay for that too!

#MakeAirtravelGreatAgain




(S)He's suggesting that delivering poor service to some people, as long as they are disabled and/or children is okay, and don't slow down the able bodied folks.

ffsim

A reasonable person would also understand that the way you fix poor customer service is by not sweeping these kinds of events under the rug. Regardless of how you set your �priorities�.

kb9522

The parent chose to allow the child to sit in their own feces, the airline did not make her do that.

And no, you're not special because you're disabled. You should not be afforded any service beyond what you have paid for or is legally required to be provided. Of course that only makes sense if you think using logic instead of wild emotions.

yulred

From the linked story in the original post (not yet contradicted by AC):

"The pair was also told not to leave the ticket counter if they wanted help even though Kinley desperately needed to be changed after soiling her diaper prior to passengers getting off the plane.
...
Instead, Kinley who has cerebral palsy � a neurological disorder � was forced to sit in her own feces for 45 minutes before a bathroom break was allowed."

I can only guess that you're arguing that the parent "chose" to follow airline staff's instructions and is therefore in the wrong.

Begs the question though: was the staff wrong in giving those instructions in the first place, or do you prefer to just ignore that aspect.

As for the rest, to the best of my knowledge, airlines aren't legally obligated to pre-board families with small children and people requiring assistance. I suspect they do it because it's logical, not out of wild emotion. And I don't think the majority minds that level of special accommodation during boarding, in the jetway, or at the luggage counter (with the apparent exception of ...well...you).

Walk away. Before you wreck your credibility.

kb9522

She could have gotten back in line after changing the child's diaper. If after doing that she was explicitly refused service because she left, then perhaps the sensationalist headlines would be warranted.

I never said my opinion is what is currently happening. I simply stated what I believe should happen. Yet another case of people in this thread changing my words to fit their narrative.

I had no credibility with this group to begin with since I wasn't triggered by this sensationalist article. I'm not out much if I continue to use logic instead of emotion to form rational thoughts.

yulred

- In essence, she was wrong to follow airline staff's poor instructions.

- BUT pointing out that the airline staff's instructions were poor amounts to seeking a trigger for one's pent up faux outrage. Because faux outrage at airlines is "cool".

- What words did I misinterpret?

- I'm not convinced that being triggered by faux outrage at sensationalist articles is better in any way than being triggered by sensationalist articles. Hence the credibility problem.

vernonc

I think your main point is that to hell with the minority so long as the majority are looked after well ?
So the airline did not deliver the stroller at the plane disembarkation. Then they ignored her. Then they told her to wait. But you think she should have disregarded their instructions, walked to a washroom with the kid and bags, changed the diaper and come back and stand in line again ? Obviously all the passengers fault.

kb9522

Yes.

No, it's the delusion in this thread that what happened is somehow way more egregious than it really is what comes across as faux outrage. And the only reasonable conclusion I can make is either sheer ignorance (unlikely considering the forum) or jumping on the airline hate bandwagon.

You pointing out that preboarding is not a legal burden that airlines must meet shows that you did not understand I wasn't describing the current state of things, but rather what (I believe) should happen.

Fair. But we could also argue that one is more reasonable than the other though. The latter detracts from the ability of carriers who are the subject of grossly exaggerated criticism to make sweeping corrections to real issues. Won't go into much more detail than that (logical conclusion) since I'm not very well versed in ACs corporate goals and targets, for the obvious reason that I don't work for them.