Sweet-talking your way into the CCR - unacceptable
Jan 17, 2019, 1:49 am
#151
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT; QR GLD; Bonvoy LT TIT
Posts: 12,742
I mostly agree[d] with this until I got to, "oh ok then, but don't tell anyone!" I have no problems with making exceptions. You know, "We usually don't make exceptions, but seeing as it's your birthday, Happy Birthday from British Airways, and welcome!" But as soon as we get into staff knowingly breaking the rules and asking passengers to keep it secret from the employer, that doesn't really feel comfortable to me. Slippery slope. How does this not eventually find its way to asking for admission when not entitled and slipping the gatekeeper a $/Ł 50?
Jan 17, 2019, 2:29 am
#152
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,499
But where does that responsibility come from? It seems to me that you treat an airline as if it were a public authority. There is no general obligation of transparency or fairness on private agents. If you posit it as a moral/ethical imperative applicable to everybody as a matter of ethics, I do not see why one should accept proceduralism (which, unless I am mistaken, seems implicit in the vision you put forward) as the lynch-pin of fairness. It is but one particular aspect of one particular conception of fairness.
Practically, I think that there is much to be said for discreetly greasing the wheel at times rather than strictly abiding by the rules in a "computer says no" attitude. While there undoubtedly are advantages to transparency and there are certain contexts in which transparency should be demanded, there are situations where too much transparency can be counter-productive. You could counter-argue that giving discretion to an agent is not incompatible with transparency. That is true on paper but less so in practice, ime. As soon as you increase transparency, the pressure for identical treatment of all situations increases, the result of which is usually harmonisation to the lowest common denominator.
Here, I think you make me argue for something I am not. Indeed, I explicitly mentioned that giving agents discretion would be entirely possible, and while you argue that it may be difficult in practice, I note that BA promised to do just that in some other respects with their new customers relations approach. I am all in favour of discretion. I am not in favour of a system that favours those who shout louder and do not take no for an answer which, rightly or wrongly, I see the people mentioned in post 1 as.
Let me return the question to you differently. Do you think that the lounge agent's decision described in post 1 represented either the letter or the spirit of the airline's position on access? Do you think that it is something that they would be happy to report to their supervisor saying "Ok, I know it is not strictly the rules but because of x and y I thought that in this case it was the right decision, I hope that's ok"? If it is, I am actually fine with it, but frankly, from the description in the OP, I don't. I think that this was just a lazy agent who did not exercise discretion because there were circumstances where they were trying to right a wrong and adapt to specific circumstances, but just rather who turned a blind eye because the passengers were insisting and he/she could not be bothered. That, to me, is not acceptable, this is not what discretion is about, and that is not the criteria ("least bother") I would like anyone in a position of authority to use.
In other words, as I mentioned in my earlier post, this is not about discretion that could easily be integrated in the way to make decisions, this is about a rogue agent and letting those who insist more/speak louder get what they want.
Jan 17, 2019, 4:29 am
#153
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 1,076
I don't think "sweet-talking" one's way into the CCR is any better or worse than sweet-talking one's way into CW/F/CE, wild on-board upgrades for family members, passengers on staff travel, etc. This happens all the time and it's just part of the reality.
Jan 24, 2019, 10:05 am
#155
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
I agree with the OP, it feels fundamentally unfair when people are given something they aren't entitled to even if it doesn't directly affect the OP.
On Christmas Day I was at the RDU Admirals Club. Both early flights to LGA were delayed (shocker I know). A passenger on one of the delayed flights came in and began an appeal for entrance. He mentioned being AA Gold (OW Ruby) and having the "Gold American credit card" (Worthless) and said how he spent a lot of money on American and had spent a lot of money on this trip and wanted to be let in. The agents didn't budge and eventually he went away. I went up and thanked the agents for turning him away. Everyone has a story, everyone has an excuse why the rules should be broken for them and the best practice is to enforce them universally.
On Christmas Day I was at the RDU Admirals Club. Both early flights to LGA were delayed (shocker I know). A passenger on one of the delayed flights came in and began an appeal for entrance. He mentioned being AA Gold (OW Ruby) and having the "Gold American credit card" (Worthless) and said how he spent a lot of money on American and had spent a lot of money on this trip and wanted to be let in. The agents didn't budge and eventually he went away. I went up and thanked the agents for turning him away. Everyone has a story, everyone has an excuse why the rules should be broken for them and the best practice is to enforce them universally.
Jan 24, 2019, 10:36 am
#156
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,369
Yes, I do that the moral obligation applies to the notion of authority regardless of the agent hence my examples above of the way parents treat their children (and no, of course, I am not talking about a legal obligation here).
Here, I think you make me argue for something I am not. Indeed, I explicitly mentioned that giving agents discretion would be entirely possible, and while you argue that it may be difficult in practice, I note that BA promised to do just that in some other respects with their new customers relations approach. I am all in favour of discretion. I am not in favour of a system that favours those who shout louder and do not take no for an answer which, rightly or wrongly, I see the people mentioned in post 1 as.
Let me return the question to you differently. Do you think that the lounge agent's decision described in post 1 represented either the letter or the spirit of the airline's position on access? Do you think that it is something that they would be happy to report to their supervisor saying "Ok, I know it is not strictly the rules but because of x and y I thought that in this case it was the right decision, I hope that's ok"? If it is, I am actually fine with it, but frankly, from the description in the OP, I don't. I think that this was just a lazy agent who did not exercise discretion because there were circumstances where they were trying to right a wrong and adapt to specific circumstances, but just rather who turned a blind eye because the passengers were insisting and he/she could not be bothered. That, to me, is not acceptable, this is not what discretion is about, and that is not the criteria ("least bother") I would like anyone in a position of authority to use.
In other words, as I mentioned in my earlier post, this is not about discretion that could easily be integrated in the way to make decisions, this is about a rogue agent and letting those who insist more/speak louder get what they want.
Here, I think you make me argue for something I am not. Indeed, I explicitly mentioned that giving agents discretion would be entirely possible, and while you argue that it may be difficult in practice, I note that BA promised to do just that in some other respects with their new customers relations approach. I am all in favour of discretion. I am not in favour of a system that favours those who shout louder and do not take no for an answer which, rightly or wrongly, I see the people mentioned in post 1 as.
Let me return the question to you differently. Do you think that the lounge agent's decision described in post 1 represented either the letter or the spirit of the airline's position on access? Do you think that it is something that they would be happy to report to their supervisor saying "Ok, I know it is not strictly the rules but because of x and y I thought that in this case it was the right decision, I hope that's ok"? If it is, I am actually fine with it, but frankly, from the description in the OP, I don't. I think that this was just a lazy agent who did not exercise discretion because there were circumstances where they were trying to right a wrong and adapt to specific circumstances, but just rather who turned a blind eye because the passengers were insisting and he/she could not be bothered. That, to me, is not acceptable, this is not what discretion is about, and that is not the criteria ("least bother") I would like anyone in a position of authority to use.
In other words, as I mentioned in my earlier post, this is not about discretion that could easily be integrated in the way to make decisions, this is about a rogue agent and letting those who insist more/speak louder get what they want.
As I see it, there's a big difference between an agent using discretion involving something that could cost the company money but does not negatively impact any other customers and an agent redistributing benefits from one customer to another customer, with little if any direct cost to the company. For example, to apologize for IROPs, an airline can provide a small voucher or declare that F&B will be free in coach during the flight without negatively impacting other customers (unless the flight becomes rowdy due to the drinking) but it would be wrong to decide that the delayed passenger should be given a particular seat (or an upgrade) that has been given to another customer, whether paid or with higher priority according to published program rules. If an airline messes up or wants to do a favor, the real or monetary cost or the gesture should not be paid by some other customer rather than the airline or employees/agents. It's largely a matter of whether the additional benefit or exception is zero sum or not.
In the case outlined by the OP, if the lounge was quite empty, the agent could have decided that admission would not negatively impact others, but in fact it did, due to bad behavior by those customers. So the kind gesture in retrospect should not have been offered, although obviously the agent was unable to predict this at the time, assuming that the customer asked in a polite way and seemed to be decent, with no kids likely to cause a disturbance.
In the case outlined by the OP, if the lounge was quite empty, the agent could have decided that admission would not negatively impact others, but in fact it did, due to bad behavior by those customers. So the kind gesture in retrospect should not have been offered, although obviously the agent was unable to predict this at the time, assuming that the customer asked in a polite way and seemed to be decent, with no kids likely to cause a disturbance.