Any chance of AA becoming America's Singapore Airlines?
Jan 5, 2003, 11:37 am
#31
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,748
The biggest mindset change US airlines will have to do is to change from "Service costs money" to "Service makes money". Very similar to the shift from "Quality costs money" to "Quality makes money" shift US automakers had to do in 80s.
An interesting article in NY Times business section today (5 Jan 2003)on Emirates Airlines and its increasing market share based on service.
A brief telling excerpt:
Of course, the article points out that the Emirates has some advantages such as no income tax, no unions or anti-discrimination laws and can hire people from any country and can provide a probationary hiring period of 3 years to see how they work out just as it mentions it is also flying from an area that does not make most people feel safe.
A point about anti-discrimination laws in the US. The laws protect only when the job description does not require the attributes being discriminated against. And this is what keeps the US airlines saddled with FAs with people incapable of good service because their job description is primarly for "safety". Note that their union refers to them as Inflight Safety Professionals. So it is easy to show age discrimination, etc. (Although I have strong suspicion that some of the FAs I have seen would be liabilities than help in emergencies). What is needed is for the US airlines to define a job description for its custsomer-facing personnel that involves customer service. Job descriptions do not have to be written with physical characteristics.
Certain restaurants, TV news shows, fashion industry, etc., have little problems in who they hire even in the US (and have even won age-discrimination lawsuits) because the job description includes aspects of customer satisfaction and expectation.
While a pretty FA (of course that being highly subjective) can get a break sometimes, a competent FA that knows what good service is, is much more likely to garner loyalty and appeciation. The majority of airline customers are not testosterone-laden males. While a "hooters airline" might create some market hype, it would hardly be a sustaining advantage.
So the only choice is not the extremes of "sully matrons" or "pretty faces" but a total service experience where people that are capable of good customer service thrive in the company and poor performers in this area or weeded out quickly.
Yes, this can certainly be done in the US but it needs someone brash like Richard Branson who is not constrained down by conventions to pull it off. The existing airlines cannot do this even if they wanted to.
I suppose one can see this as evolution (if not free-market principles) in action where some airlines with certain characteristics get selected and others die. If that means the death of US airlines, then so be it.
[This message has been edited by venk (edited 01-05-2003).]
An interesting article in NY Times business section today (5 Jan 2003)on Emirates Airlines and its increasing market share based on service.
A brief telling excerpt:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
"In an era of penny-pinching, no-frills flying, the experience in the Emirates' passenger cabins is stunning. Its female flight attendants wear elegantly cut jackets and skirts in the crisp tones of the desert, and crimson hats with trailing white gossamer scarves. The men wear double-brested blazers.
On a mid-December flight from London to Dubai, one attendant paused at an economy passenger's armrest. "Good Evening, sir," she said. "How are you feeling tonight? Sir, tonight we are offering a choice of chicken in tandoori paste or rack of lamb. Which would you prefer? Certainly, sir. Can I bring you another glass of wine?"
Compare that with the ambience on a Delta Air Lines flight a week later from Rome to New York, as sullen flight attendants in a navy skirt and light blue blouse shuffled behind a food cart, barking, "Chicken or pasta? Chicken or pasta?"
</font>
"In an era of penny-pinching, no-frills flying, the experience in the Emirates' passenger cabins is stunning. Its female flight attendants wear elegantly cut jackets and skirts in the crisp tones of the desert, and crimson hats with trailing white gossamer scarves. The men wear double-brested blazers.
On a mid-December flight from London to Dubai, one attendant paused at an economy passenger's armrest. "Good Evening, sir," she said. "How are you feeling tonight? Sir, tonight we are offering a choice of chicken in tandoori paste or rack of lamb. Which would you prefer? Certainly, sir. Can I bring you another glass of wine?"
Compare that with the ambience on a Delta Air Lines flight a week later from Rome to New York, as sullen flight attendants in a navy skirt and light blue blouse shuffled behind a food cart, barking, "Chicken or pasta? Chicken or pasta?"
</font>
A point about anti-discrimination laws in the US. The laws protect only when the job description does not require the attributes being discriminated against. And this is what keeps the US airlines saddled with FAs with people incapable of good service because their job description is primarly for "safety". Note that their union refers to them as Inflight Safety Professionals. So it is easy to show age discrimination, etc. (Although I have strong suspicion that some of the FAs I have seen would be liabilities than help in emergencies). What is needed is for the US airlines to define a job description for its custsomer-facing personnel that involves customer service. Job descriptions do not have to be written with physical characteristics.
Certain restaurants, TV news shows, fashion industry, etc., have little problems in who they hire even in the US (and have even won age-discrimination lawsuits) because the job description includes aspects of customer satisfaction and expectation.
While a pretty FA (of course that being highly subjective) can get a break sometimes, a competent FA that knows what good service is, is much more likely to garner loyalty and appeciation. The majority of airline customers are not testosterone-laden males. While a "hooters airline" might create some market hype, it would hardly be a sustaining advantage.
So the only choice is not the extremes of "sully matrons" or "pretty faces" but a total service experience where people that are capable of good customer service thrive in the company and poor performers in this area or weeded out quickly.
Yes, this can certainly be done in the US but it needs someone brash like Richard Branson who is not constrained down by conventions to pull it off. The existing airlines cannot do this even if they wanted to.
I suppose one can see this as evolution (if not free-market principles) in action where some airlines with certain characteristics get selected and others die. If that means the death of US airlines, then so be it.
[This message has been edited by venk (edited 01-05-2003).]
Jan 5, 2003, 11:47 am
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Programs: OWEmerald; STARGold; BonvoyPlat; IHGPlat/Amb; HiltonGold; A|ClubPat; AirMilesPlat
Posts: 38,187
"Why even go that far for a comparison? I'd like AA's service to be even as close as AIR CANADA.
"But one thing for sure, once the upgrades goes, there will be a riot. Something which Air Canada has taken away for most fares even with their top elite tier members, and not much of a peep is to be heard.
"AIR CANADA operates mostly airbus widebodies on their trans-con routes. They even have snacks on short flights, give out free headsets on domestic routes (AA too, but only recently).
"It's a pity that AC doesn't fly within USA. I'd certainly take them all the time. "
While I don't disagree with your sentiments, GuyBetsy, the grass is always greener, and the AC Forum has been up in arms for two years over the reduced upgrading opportunities on AC [from lowest fares]. And demanding US carriers be permitted to fly within Canada so those posters can fly them instead of AC. [And you forgot free newspapers in the front cabin of domestic and transborder flights, and the back if any are left from up front.] And free drinks on overseas flights.
But there are too many cultural values that people have alluded to, but blamed other "forces like governments and unions" for undermining. C'mon guys, grow up. The day of the woman in the work force in NAmerica and Europe being eye candy is long over. And decent living salaries a harsh fact of life. Women are not taking FA jobs to snag a rich hubby who will keep them at home once the FA job is tossed in their early 30s. These are lifetime careers with real potential to make a living wage. Asian carriers can continue the male myth of the "fly girl", but it was not just government that ended the reign of the Braniff fashion plate.
In another decade, even women in Singapore and mainland China, will be looking at their work world differently, and it is bound to affect how SQ and others treat their FAs. Just as people don't fly NAmerican carriers for this fantasy image of femininity any more, nor do they expect it. This is still a marketing tool/and image Occidentals have of the Asian woman, for it is acceptable to capitalize on it.
Yes, NAmerican carriers have an older FA workforce, and thus higher pay scales. Over the decade, this will change as the retirements -- not just forced -- alter significantly the seniority levels and demogs. Younger crews will emerge on this side of the world.
But I stick to my original comment and analysis. To a degree SIN may be protected, but there are more different airline tails at that airport than you are likely to find at most US ones. Only a handful of gateways have such competition, and when one compares per capita numbers, it is the US that comes out as the most protective airline market in the world. No foreigner can own a US airline, or more than 25% of one. No foreign carrier can fly within the USA, but there are many countries that have offered the USA reciprocity: you can fly within our country, if we can fly within yours. Thus far Washington remains silent on the subject.
Remember, fares on SQ and CX are generally higher than on their competition, yet the planes are filled and there is no need to match things like UA's SINRun fares. Their customers are willing to pay a premium, while Americans are not. Even those who want to benefits of flying up front, want to do it on FF upgrades from the cheapest fare possible. Few are upgraded from low fares on SQ or CX, and there is a reason: such levels of service require a certain level of profitability. These carriers maintain this profitability, and low flight crew fares is just a small slice, because they can charge slightly more.
It's a matter of Americans wanting to have their cake and eat it -- and buy it at COSTCO -- while the rest of the world are prepared to pay the cost of premium service, but in doing so expects levels of service that are exemplary.
"But one thing for sure, once the upgrades goes, there will be a riot. Something which Air Canada has taken away for most fares even with their top elite tier members, and not much of a peep is to be heard.
"AIR CANADA operates mostly airbus widebodies on their trans-con routes. They even have snacks on short flights, give out free headsets on domestic routes (AA too, but only recently).
"It's a pity that AC doesn't fly within USA. I'd certainly take them all the time. "
While I don't disagree with your sentiments, GuyBetsy, the grass is always greener, and the AC Forum has been up in arms for two years over the reduced upgrading opportunities on AC [from lowest fares]. And demanding US carriers be permitted to fly within Canada so those posters can fly them instead of AC. [And you forgot free newspapers in the front cabin of domestic and transborder flights, and the back if any are left from up front.] And free drinks on overseas flights.
But there are too many cultural values that people have alluded to, but blamed other "forces like governments and unions" for undermining. C'mon guys, grow up. The day of the woman in the work force in NAmerica and Europe being eye candy is long over. And decent living salaries a harsh fact of life. Women are not taking FA jobs to snag a rich hubby who will keep them at home once the FA job is tossed in their early 30s. These are lifetime careers with real potential to make a living wage. Asian carriers can continue the male myth of the "fly girl", but it was not just government that ended the reign of the Braniff fashion plate.
In another decade, even women in Singapore and mainland China, will be looking at their work world differently, and it is bound to affect how SQ and others treat their FAs. Just as people don't fly NAmerican carriers for this fantasy image of femininity any more, nor do they expect it. This is still a marketing tool/and image Occidentals have of the Asian woman, for it is acceptable to capitalize on it.
Yes, NAmerican carriers have an older FA workforce, and thus higher pay scales. Over the decade, this will change as the retirements -- not just forced -- alter significantly the seniority levels and demogs. Younger crews will emerge on this side of the world.
But I stick to my original comment and analysis. To a degree SIN may be protected, but there are more different airline tails at that airport than you are likely to find at most US ones. Only a handful of gateways have such competition, and when one compares per capita numbers, it is the US that comes out as the most protective airline market in the world. No foreigner can own a US airline, or more than 25% of one. No foreign carrier can fly within the USA, but there are many countries that have offered the USA reciprocity: you can fly within our country, if we can fly within yours. Thus far Washington remains silent on the subject.
Remember, fares on SQ and CX are generally higher than on their competition, yet the planes are filled and there is no need to match things like UA's SINRun fares. Their customers are willing to pay a premium, while Americans are not. Even those who want to benefits of flying up front, want to do it on FF upgrades from the cheapest fare possible. Few are upgraded from low fares on SQ or CX, and there is a reason: such levels of service require a certain level of profitability. These carriers maintain this profitability, and low flight crew fares is just a small slice, because they can charge slightly more.
It's a matter of Americans wanting to have their cake and eat it -- and buy it at COSTCO -- while the rest of the world are prepared to pay the cost of premium service, but in doing so expects levels of service that are exemplary.
Jan 5, 2003, 5:13 pm
#33
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York, NY
Programs: AA PLT; SPG G
Posts: 383
For anyone who doesn't think SQ has plenty of competition, see how much it costs to fly per mile (edited to add: business class) across the Pacific versus across the Atlantic.
For example, LAX-SIN on SQ is $4,545 unrestricted for 17,520 miles.
Erstwhile partner UA charges $7,916 unrestricted for STL-FRA for 9,176 (FF) miles. Ouch!
------------------
...or passengers swim.
[This message has been edited by Engines turn (edited 01-05-2003).]
For example, LAX-SIN on SQ is $4,545 unrestricted for 17,520 miles.
Erstwhile partner UA charges $7,916 unrestricted for STL-FRA for 9,176 (FF) miles. Ouch!
------------------
...or passengers swim.
[This message has been edited by Engines turn (edited 01-05-2003).]
Jan 5, 2003, 6:00 pm
#34
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: arlington, va
Programs: AA Gold, UA Silver, Marriott Plat
Posts: 660
Underscoring this last point: Probably 75% of the passengers in SQ C paid something like $4,545 to fly from LAX to SIN. While it's a lot of money to pay, it's not outrageous. $7,916 across from the Midwest to Europe is outrageous, especially considering the facts that (1) the service stinks and (2) at least 75% of the passengers probably paid more like $791.60 (if that) and used miles or SWUs to upgrade.