Budley

A rather large generalisation, I think. I didn't overly "go out of my way to chase status" on UA, but when I hit 2MM I was most pleasantly surprised, with lifetime Premier Platinum status (Star Gold) and the same for my partner.

So putting in a few extra miles to get status might not be exactly a bad thing...

And I'm still EK Gold, but not for much longer.

eternaltransit

RadioGirl - I totally understand your point about encountering poorly trained, or perhaps more accurately, poorly briefed staff who have been given conflicting information by their own managers.

However, I would probably classify the issues you encountered under service recovery, not a situation where the airline is being asked to do something that seems reasonable to the customer.

You had rude staff and contradictory information - the latter of course can't be blamed directly on the staff in front of you (and when it comes to lounge access, I'm afraid the receptionists have the final discretion on access in all cases anyway, no matter one's status and ticket!), but being treated poorly is of course unacceptable. I think that is much more an issue of how staff communicate a company's decisions though - in the original case about common-sense-defying airline decisions, my point was that the seemingly inadequate explanation masks the unpalatable (and indeed counter to marketing) truth that passengers aren't valued and special and premium, but just revenue points in a database somewhere (to the people who have made these operational policies in the first place).

None of this is an excuse for being spoken to unprofessionally, no matter the employment status (contracted or otherwise - I fully agree that if you wear the uniform, you represent the company, so be professional: indeed, I think any decent ASM keep tabs on their contractors) - and that would be a cause for service recovery, in my book.

Regarding your issues about changes, I think if I illustrate the reasoning behind the various policies (seat selection and ticket issuing), then the computer-says-no responses of various frontline staff might make more sense, rather than they give you the "actual" reason.

Cheap tickets are not changeable simply to preserve the existence of the more flexible and expensive ticket classes - it is revenue and product protection. The justification is that flexibility has value and so it should be priced in, but really, it's reflective of the fact that some people have the capacity to pay the higher fares.

By offering anyone the chance to change to an earlier flight no matter the ticket class, then you disincentivise the purchase of high margin fares (and similarly undercut yourself the value of flexibility - and since QF have a profitable domestic network, then it follows that there is demand out there for those fares. I'm sure they have modelled the effects on profit flow-through if x% of people switched from full Y to cheaper fares and it probably isn't pretty.

However - what kind of image does it send out if you tell your customers, "no, I'm afraid you can't change that ticket, because it undermines our more expensive products". Most customers are going to be sceptical of that because they have no background in revenue management - but nevertheless it is true. But perception is reality in hospitality, so it is much better for all concerned simply to say, "I'm sorry, but that ticket is inflexible".

None of this excuses an agent being rude to you whilst explaining this though.

And in your second point about why you have to go back through your agent - in brief, because agents and carriers in the vast majority of cases issue tickets through the IATA system. Now, historically, a paper ticket actually reflected your actual right to travel on the various specified carriers, within the restrictions of the published fare data (and the conditions of IATAs multiline agreements). So, when e-ticketing came about, you had the legal questions of, if a ticket is in digitised form and held in a private database operated by a carrier, so you still own the ticket? In fact, what is the digitised equivalent of the paper ticket?

In short, very real but arcane questions arose regarding title and ownership and rights when introducing digitised tickets across multiple systems providers: airlines had their own systems, travel agents had their own and then there are GDSs etc. All of them had to preserve the idea that any agent, anywhere, could issue one ticket for travel across all member carriers - easier to do when it was in paper form as the ticket was the key. But now where is the key?

Fast forward to today - when an IATA agent issues a ticket on behalf of a carrier, they (the agent) are said to own/control the ticket. Other IATA members can view the records but are not allowed to make any changes - logical given the many thousands of IATA agents in the system and people who could access your booking information. After the first segment is flown, then the airline's whose 3 number code appear on the e-ticket is also allowed control over the ticket. Now, the ticket may have other carriers involved on the itinerary, but the 3 number code reflects which IATA member's account with IATA BSP (Billing and Settlement Plan - a central airline clearing house for interline issues) is going to be primary - as in, receives revenue etc. (see: plating carrier).

So, if you want to make changes, you have to go through the initial agent pre departure - after the first segment is flown, you can also go to the carrier indicated on your ticket (usually the first carrier you flew with - although technically, I could get any IATA carrier to issue all of my EK tickets, but they would be perfectly able to charge me what they want to do so!).

Which brings me back to my original point: a customer may get irritated at why the airline can't make a change to a ticket for travel on its own code and metal, and why they are being referred to an agent - but do airlines have the time (or even the knowledge - because I bet most airline employees don't know the history of e-ticketing and IATA) to explain all of what I just wrote?

eternaltransit

Indeed a generalisation - but I'm referring specifically to travelling only for the purposes of achieving status: I assume that a lot of your travel of 2MM was for purposes other than mileage runs! (I appreciate that also at the time you were travelling you likely already had the usual UA statuses at the time which might have tipped your decision to travel *A).

SuiteFlight

Some valid points RadioGirl, I think we have to make a distinction between discussions regarding how airlines are supposed to operate going off their formal and public policies, procedures, and marketing versus discussions that seek to provide insight as to why certain things go wrong just so people understand that it's rarely personal (known problems and issues), and whether you're just butting your head against a wall trying to resolve things at a certain service point (because it's not engineered or structured to provide for any resolution/assistance). My posts here in this thread, for example, have been on the latter not the former to help ground expectations without waiving what duties airlines should met as per those policies, procedures and marketing representations.

I also highlight one particular point raised by you, which was the danger of inferring motives/intentions of others based on very limited snapshots (attribution bias) - whether they be about airline staff or passengers. It's always unwise.

Unfortunately those lounge access situations you outline are not rare, and humans being humans mistakes and errors of judgement happen (from both sides), especially when you are using airline status that is not the lounge operator's home scheme (just because they deal with it less). Should these kerfuffles happen? No. But will they anyway? Yes, so sometimes you just have to try and navigate through as best as you can (because what else can you do?). I think you adopted strategies to overcome this that were optimal given the circumstances - sometimes you have to do ridiculous things just to tick a box, even though ideally you shouldn't.

These issues are sometimes Gordian knots, seemly simply but multi-factorial messes when you take everything and every influence into account. Again, no excuse, it's just is what it is (I suppose like eternaltransit's references that airline staff will lie to you from time to time about whether something is really possible or not just because it's an easy cop out to the alternative).

NoStressHere

I was thinking hard to come up with a good response. This one is pretty good.

It is just not worth using up any more time on this whole thing. I am sure some folks at EK are very happy this week and can now return to running their business.

irishguy28

I saw an article from an Aussie travel journalist today, who rated SQ Y as better than EK J....

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/singa...-qantas-j.html

subject2load

Hmm. Yes, that's how he rated it, fair enough.

BUT - at the (considerable !) risk of getting hung up on semantics - I do think it would be unfair to conclude that Singapore Y is therefore 'better' than EK J.

I say that because one of the quoted criteria was 'value-for-expenditure' - and IMHO, once you bring hard cash into the equation it all gets very messy.

Sure, price is a key factor and it matters to everyone but the ridiculously wealthy ; but my reverse analogy would be that a Bentley will provide a much better overall experience than a Ford Focus. However ..... whether or not the Bentley represents better 'value-for-expenditure' is a totally different matter.

SuiteFlight

If you were looking primarily at value for expenditure Economy would always come out on top of Premium Economy, Business and First. After all, Economy fares are sometimes sold at a loss, and very often are sold on the thinnest of profit margins (expect for last minute or fully flexible fares) so they are the penny pinchers dream. Premium cabin seats, by comparison, are sold with fat margins and never approach the bare bones profit of most Economy fares.

You don't buy Business or First because of value (because it'll never make sense), it's strictly a comfort/luxury purchase. Buying my clothes at the op shop would provide great value for example, but most of us are willing to pay more to buy something more premium.

Such comparisons as the travel writer made are therefore rather pointless.

eternaltransit

I want the 2 minutes of my life that I spent skimming that article back

On the one hand, he talks about IFE on SQ (293 movies!) and QF (Q entertainment system one of the best around!) but absolutely nothing about ICE

Gets exit row (44A) on SQ Y because of Velocity Gold and forgives "poor pasta salad entree", but EK is slated for "poor gastronomic offerings".

First paragraph talks about "flying at the pointy end" but last paragraph includes the fact he was irritated at getting delayed in DXB and not even "Qantas' luxurious pods" can make up for it - QF J and QF PE duly come 4th and 5th on his list of CX F, SQ Y, EK J, QF J and QF PE.

saint77

that is complete rubbish that SQ economy is better than EK business

if nothing else EK can be incredibly generous regarding offers of food, drinks and amenities despite any of their deficiencies, I never got that impression on SQ

SQ is certainly a great product, just rather sterile and not overly fun IMO

SuiteFlight

What's terribly suss about that travel class comparison article is that the reviewer raves about storage space with Qantas Business (A380 Skybed Mk II pod) seat but doesn't mention that he's sitting in a widow seat with access to a couple of window storage bins. The Qantas Skybeds themselves have a dearth of storage space compared to other airline seats, so there's a huge difference between window seats and aisle seats (of which there are more of). As articles go, someone with no knowledge of the airline products he comments on could be badly misled.

Forrest Bump

Totally.
For that matter SQ Y (and its grumpy FAs) is much worse than ME3 and most EU carriers.
At least in my experience over 8 flights on a 777.

Hugo1975

In general I am very satisfied with Emirates' service (I flew both economy and business class) but they are heavily overpriced for those who reside in Dubai. They are probably competitive if you travel between West and East with connection / stop-over in Dubai, but any ticket with departure in Dubai is on average 50-100% more expensive than market rates outside the region (Etihad and Qatar Airways charge very similar rates).

I work for a large multinational (European roots) with big office in Dubai, which allows to convert the annual return ticket to the point of original into a cash equivalent. So the majority of my Western colleagues are using alternative options especially when it comes to the summer holidays. The most popular version is to purchase initially a single way ticket out of Dubai and they purchase an annual return ticket with departure in USA/Canada/Europe. Last summer I paid 550 euro per person (family of 6) for a return-ticket from Europe (return scheduled 30th of June 2016) whilst the same route with departure from Dubai with Emirates was 900 euro. I even heard from English colleagues that a return ticket London-Dubai via emirates.co.uk is on average 30-50% cheaper than a return ticket Dubai - London.

They probably get away with it as many companies in the region just pay an annual return ticket for their employees, so people cannot be bothered as they don't pay for it themselves. But few of my expat friends/colleagues with children use Emirates for their private holidays.

m3red

I try to route all my tickets ex uk, getting first for the price of j ex Dxb or better

RadioGirl

eternaltransit and Suiteflight, thank you both for your thoughtful posts. I really do appreciate it and I'm not arguing with you (really!). Some more thoughts, though.
TBH, in the experiences I described, it's difficult to distinguish (at the time) whether what I'm asking for is reasonable or not. For example:
I understand that reasoning completely. But Qantas had been operating for years with the opposite approach - that it was better business to move a passenger, regardless of fare class, onto the earliest possible flight and open up a later seat which might be sold. Then, obviously, some bean-counter had worked out that leaving me with the Shiraz for three hours in the Qantas Club whilst hoping my boss would pay $70 more for the flexible ticket in future was a more effective financial strategy. Perhaps (over all customers) it was. As you say, QF makes a profit.

But after years of "would you like the earlier flight?" when I'm told "we can't move you", I don't know whether (a) the policy has changed, (b) whether the previous staff were wrong, or (c) whether this agent is wrong. The fact that FT has the acronym HUACA is testimony to this uncertainty!

When the EK J lounge attendant wouldn't let me in with the QC membership, I was sure I was right. She was sure she was right. She wasn't.

With the QF lounge/EK Gold issue, I still don't know who's right. And the part of the airline that says "yes" refuses to talk to the part that says "no." So I keep trying.

But in every case, the airline employee - right or wrong - has the power. They can refuse to change the flight or refuse entry to the lounge. This is where I think a Dept of Common Sense might help customers.
Actually that's pretty much what she said: "If we allowed changes on the cheap (!!) tickets, no one would buy the expensive ones."
Well, with QF you get that part for free.
Now that is news to me and no, I don't think most airline staff would know or be willing to explain it.

But in the most recent example I had already flown the first segment (that morning) and was trying to change the return flight with the QF staff at the airport so I'm not sure whether this applies. And most of the years when they were eager to move me to earlier flights were after e-tickets were introduced.

I'm grateful for your insights and I don't want to prolong this if you feel we've covered all the ground we can. But in summary I wish airlines had someone I could call who could (a) explain in more detail and (b) resolve these conflicts when the rules have become too convoluted.