Ace71

It's not a first world problem but the passenger is not flying on a budget airline but on CX which advertise "Enjoy an immersive experience with StudioCX®—our state-of-the-art in-flight entertainment system—presented on your own touchscreen TV."

Some passengers may not be able to afford iPads/Tablets, those that do may not have brought one along because there is IFE.
Some passengers may be travelling with young children, unless the children are sleeping or eating some form of entertainment is expected if not they may scream or shout and disturbed other passengers.

Nicoolio

I think overall companies today are much more tuned in to compensating customers even when there are small deficiencies. I think it's because a lot of companies no matter what they are selling try to present it as an experience, so customer satisfaction goes beyond saying we got you from A to B. I have a friend who has a Lexus or BMW - not even sure - and when his car needed to go to back a month after he bought it because of something small they picked it up and offered him either a replacement car or $100 a day in Uber credits. When he got it back he had a note in the front seat from the GM of the dealership with some type of certificate for two free nights at a Ritz-Carlton. A couple years ago I had to pick up my Dunhill briefcase that had been repaired and while they were getting it ready for me they invited me to a private lounge with an open bar. The manager came down to say how surprised they were the handle would break. While I was having a drink he asked me if I had seen their new ties which I really hadn't. I thought he was going to drag me to sell me something, but he came back with one gift wrapped and said if I didn't like his choice I could exchange it.

I do agree it's unlikely CX or another airline would compensate for the type of toilet paper or hand gel they provide, but I think many airlines sell inflight entertainment as part of the experience and a reason to choose them, which is reflected by CX giving essentially $100 in cash via the vouchers. For CX they probably ended up with good PR and word of mouth.

LondonElite

They're nice anecdotes, but I don't buy superior customer service over yesteryear (is that even the point?)

Nicoolio

Sure - there are tons of free return options when you buy things -- less and less of the all sales final approach. And the point is CX views not providing entertainment as missing a key part of the experience they are selling, so they compensate generously when not provided.

Plenty of airlines compensate complainers well beyond EC rules.

carrotjuice

Indeed. There are passengers who travel LCC who can jolly well afford iPads - they simply choose to fly the LCC. In doing so, they set their expectations that there'll be no in flight movies.

Likewise there are passengers who travel CX who can't afford (or don't wish to buy) iPads. Or they may have their iPads but choose not to bring them on their trips - after all there's a certain joy in discovering unexpected movies rather than one's own staid collection. But in selecting CX, they pay a premium along with that comes the sold expectation that in flight movies are integral to the flight experience, regardless of what the CoC says.

I personally, due to lack of time while on the ground, choose to forgo visits to the cinema - because I expect to catch up on them while I'm flying.

Incidentally prior to this flight I had researched the night before what movies would be available, and was actually looking forward to mindlessly watching humans being devoured by dinosaurs (Jurassic World) - hence was disappointed that I didn't get to.

One may argue that with an extra US$100 compensation I can make more than half a dozen trips to the cinema... it's more than generous (and a costly effort by CX).

Perhaps it's down to managing passenger expectations. I was originally annoyed when CX announced at the gate that "We apologise entertainment is unavailable on this flight, and appreciate your understanding" (i.e. tough luck, your flight will be less pleasant and there's nothing you can do about it, so suck it up). In my view, if CX had already intended to compensate for the absence of entertainment, the original announcement could've been better rephrased "We apologise entertainment is unavailable, but we ask you to choose a small gift from our onboard duty free instead". Am sure passengers would be less unhappy at the latter announcement.

carrotjuice

Great examples. It's in turning a potential detractor to a longlasting customer with faith that the company would do the right thing - I'd personally be a lifelong Lexus / BMW and Dunhill client if those had happened to me!

Dr. HFH

Is there any service or product failure for which you think that compensation is not necessary?

LondonElite

What are EC rules, how are they relevant on a regional CX flight, and when have these ever applied to something abstract such as IFE?

LondonElite

I get your frustration, but CX doesn't promise that you'll be in a mobile cinema for four hours. They promise to get you from A to B more or less on time. A service recovery is certainly appropriate, of course, but let's not read more into it than that.

Nicoolio

I was quoting from your reference to EC261 so you can let us know --

Rivarix

Doesn't it? It's been about a year since I last flew CX (will fly with them again in Jan so I will probably find it out myself) but doesn't CX still provide those glossy inflight magazine highlighting new movies that month/quarter, what movies available on certain routes, language/subtitle, etc etc? It may not be in T&C (which everyone is fond of) or any convention but isn't that a form of advertising showing what one can expect on board a CX flight?

Rivarix

Things that are not within CX's control. I know it's a bit abstract but if it is something that CX controls and regularly features on a particular route, it is reasonable to expect it on the next flight. A working IFE is within CX control. It is something that CX offers on HKG-SIN route regularly so it is reasonable for a passenger to expect a working IFE when one steps onboard a CX plane on this route.

They promise to carry you from A to B and that's about it. I've noticed people in general (on FT) becoming way too willing to accept mediocre product for the premium price that many FSCs are charging (and that somehow expecting a product/service that matches the premium price tag as first world problem). I don't see a non-working IFE as first world problem when flying CX (expecting lots more canto vs. western movies or vice versa is ). If people are willing to accept non-working IFE on this route as reasonable, next thing you know it will become the norm on this route.

You should expect what you pay for. That seems to be the favourite phrase here on FT when someone paying Y expecting to be upgraded to J. I'd turn it around and say this: one pays a premium to fly CX on this route (whether Y or J) so one should expect what one pays for.

And no, I'm not a snob (at least I don't think so ). Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with BA Club World which is trashed by everyone. But I do believe there's a minimum level of service/product that one should expect an FSC to provide (and an LCC should not be the baseline).

global happy traveller

i can so use that voucher to buy some duty free airplane models

Cambo

Yes, though as long as economy is booming, planes are (nearly) full, the financial motivation to do so is limited. Only once the economy goes down again and the fight for every passenger resumes, these trickle things do gain importance again. Sadly.

On the other hand, better no IFE, then a delayed flight, tbh.

LondonElite

There is no such thing as EC rules. EC261, which is what I was quoting as a reference bar for real complaints, is a European Union law framework setting out compensation in the eve of denied boarding, downgrades, cancellations, and delays. It has nothing to do with IFE and so forth. This is why I'm perplexed that this is raised.