sbams

And with that I agree too. I see it happen (despite Max Rate's post above) and it should not happen. Hopefully the new regulations will start to cut this favoritism out.

johan rebel

Here's the thing: I have no issue whatsoever with non-revs in C class who have been allocated a seat as per IPB regs. I do, on the other hand, have an issue with all those who somehow end up in a C seat they are not entitled to. We all know that happens, and I'm not only talking about KL employees.

When the mother of an FA working in economy class on the main deck suddenly plonks herself down in the upper deck seat next to me; when that seat had been blocked for me (used to be an unpublished RoyalWing perk); when the senior purser then greets that mom as my wife because she had not even been informed of the illegal upgrade; then there's definitely something wrong, and of that something I do not approve.

When an FA greets the pax who takes 1A seconds before the doors close as a colleague, and starts to explain that she unfortunately won't be able to offer him first choice of meals, only to be interrupted by the pax, who explained that he was no colleague of hers, but had purchased that seat a very short time ago at full fare, then there's definitely something wrong. Apparently, the default assumption is that any pax who takes a C seat at the last minute and is not listed on the manifest is a colleague, or the dad, sister, neighbor or lover of one.

I could go on for a while, I've got over half a century's worth of anecdotes in store.

As regulars on this forum know, I'm very familiar with both sides of the coin. Traveling as a IPB ummetje I would invariably end up in Royal Class, despite the minimum age of 12 for travel in F. Clearly against the rules. Traveling as a family, F was the default option, and an official entitlement. If enough F seats were not available on KL, we would be booked in F on another airline. All very nice, but that was in the days of the cosy IATA cartel and flag carrier oligopoly. Making money came second to waving that flag, promoting the national interest, and looking after employees (at least the upper echelons) and their families. Times have changed, commercial aviation has become competitive, airlines need to sell every seat the can to revenue pax (including gate upgrades, which I suspect only very rarely go for as little as € 250). As far as I'm concerned non-revs are then welcome to any leftover seats, provided the are allocated strictly in accordance with KL's regs.

As for jealousy, that doesn't even come into it. I pay for my longhaul J tickets out of my own pocket. There's nowhere to upgrade me to, I'm not competing for seats with any non-revs. I get what I paid for.

Finally, I have no issue with non-revs introducing themselves to the cabin crew, provided it is done discreetly. The gentleman who on a flight not long ago stepped on board and said "Are you the purser? I'm asking for an upgrade", obviously didn't get it (but he did get the upgrade, as did his son). I also don't really see the need for chocolates or other gifts as "a token of appreciation". Cabin crew are there to serve all pax, and treat them all equally, whether revenue or non-rev. That's what they are paid for, it is not a profession where tips are given or expected. A "token of appreciation" is open to interpretation, and I've seen such tokens go the other way in the form of barf bags full of huisjes, bottles of wine, etc. Plenty of times. Doesn't make a good impression.

And oh, welcome to FT! Keep posting, an insider perspective is more than welcome.

Johan

glennhaak

Exactly this.

johan rebel

I'm really curious to know to how great an extent pax engage in that kind of speculation.

For starters, I suspect that a sizeable percentage of C pax are traveling on their company's or customer's dime, and have limited say when it comes to class of travel. As for those who are free to book whatever they want, the type of speculation you are referring to would (in the case of longhaul travel) entail buying a cheap coach ticket in, say, the € 600 range, and then hoping to score upgrades for around the same amount (I can't image that € 250 upgrades are the norm) each way. That comes to around € 1,800 in total. With a bit of planning and foresight, discounted J class tickets should often be available for only € 300 or € 400 more. That guarantees a seat in J, with all the perks that come with it, including extra Frequent Flyer program miles. Buying an upgrade at the gate doesn't get you an extra checked bag, for example, and you never know whether any upgrades will be offered at all, nor whether somebody else will beat you to any such upgrades. So . . . how many pax are systematically willing to take a chance on buying up to a diluted product for the sake of saving a few hundred Euros? I honestly don't know, but can tell you that I am not.

I should also like to believe that KL yield management have looked at this issue very carefully, and that they strive to set upgrades prices to maximize revenue, continually adjusting them and finetuning upgrade offers (e.g. by offering such upgrades at different prices to different (categories of) passengers, based on thorough data analysis). As a professional business, the airline employs experts to make and evaluate the business case for various upgrade schemes. Pilots, on the other hand, they employ to fly aircraft, not to criticize business decisions outside their field of expertise.

Yes, I do understand that discounted upgrades reduce the number of C seats available to non-rev pax. From the latter's perspective that sucks, from mine it is just tough luck! If you really want to fly in C, there's nothing to stop you from buying a buying a business class ticket. Anybody is free to do so, even those employed by KL. I know for a fact that there are KL employees who never fly non-rev, because they've told me so. They don't want to deal with the hassle and the stress of flying standby, so when they want to go somewhere they buy a ticket just like anybody else, on whatever airline will get them there.

Johan

arjen05

Besides getting paid a fair salary (especially those who have been around for so many years that they have C rights) for the work they do, you mean? It's not that they're full time volunteering for the Red Cross, and that this is their yearly Christmas present, as a token of appreciation of hundreds of hours of un(der)paid work.

San Gottardo

Not worth answering every point, others have done so already, but just to address a few


Can you please state in a simple phrase what it is that I am jealous of?

I intellectually understand the rationale, as you explain it very clear and easy to follow. It's what I think of that rationale that is not in line with your thinking. So be it.

What on earth are you talking about? I expect a free upgrade? Where did I say that? To where? Seriously, have you only found me to accuse of chasing free upgrades, when I sit upfront most of the time anyway?

I do however agree with you that people should get what they pay for. If a passenger pays for a seat in Y, let him sit in Y. If a non-rev pays for a seat in Y, let him sit in Y. It's when op-ups become necessary then that op-up should go to the paying pax, not the non-rev. And non-rev should not be upgraded when no op-ups are necessary, but they should follow the rule you just stated: get what you pay for.

Or are airline employees excepted from the "get what you pay for" rule? Why?

I see it very rationally, even mathematically. Example, for a flight on same plane type on same route on two subsequent days:

Salary for a purser on flight 1, which has 100 paying passengers: X Eur.
Salary for a purser on flight 2, which has 50 non-revs and 50 paying passengers: X Eur.
Conclusion: same salary. So, rationally, why do they work for free?

Exactly!!! Tell that to all the airline employees who do all kinds of tricks to get a seat further in front despite no op-ups being necessary. They should get what they pay for. Just like everybody else.

Thysk

Looks like Max Rate has been duped by several complaints and now has to act lowkey within and around the airplane when on IPB travel, while he was used to showing off his captain rank. The horror...
With this, he suspects that this all has to do with jealousy of the paying pax, who actually should say nothing and just behave like a walking bag of money.

He does not realize that it actually has to do with the fact that several of his colleagues without the correct IPB C/M rights have gotten favorable treatment in the eye of several passengers and that this is not a one-off occurrence. Hence the wording "parading from Y/W to J" and the fact that KL/AF already has a code of conduct released for its employees (that has been neglected multiple times).

Especially when flight loyalty comes into play, this is a thorn in the eye for various frequent flyers (ie. Fb plat ultimate). This has nothing to do with jealousy, just with unfairness in an already skewed level-playing field, plus with taking care of your highest valued customers (remember, those are actually bringing those bags of money in).

Anyways, welcome to the forum and thanks for showing your point of view! It was interesting to read. Please refrain from lashing out with "jealousy" in the future if people don't agree with you.

NickB

There are a few debatable observations in your post but this one is utterly surreal. As pointed out by San Gottardo in post #66, cabin crew are paid the same salary regardless of the revenue generated by individual pax. If the salary of cabin crew was docked for each non-rev pax on board, then it would be the case that they would be working for free (and, in that case, a gesture from non-revs in return for the salary sacrifice of their colleagues would be rather appropriate) but of course this is not the case as neither KLM nor any other employer would have such a bonkers scheme

So no: staff are not working "for free" or "more or less for free" for non-rev pax: they are working in return for the salary they receive from KLM, which is the same regardless of the number of non-revs on board. KLM or their shareholders may well receive less money but that is a different issue and the idea that cabin crew should receive a token of appreciation in return for KL's or its shareholders loss of income is rather more "difficult to comprehend" than you seem to assume, at least for my simple mind.

johan rebel

Luchtvaartnieuws reports that KLM recently fired an employee who earlier this year twice tried to upgrade her sister and company on an AMS-DXB flight. The employee sued, but the court decided that KLM was entitled to fire her, and did not owe her any severance pay. She was also ordered to pay costs.

The employee was not an FA, and made the mistake of trying to amend the booking in the reservation system, which turned out to be a dumb thing to do.

Johan

CyBeR

Not just that, on the first attempt she tried to do it at the expense of six(!) paying business class customers who would have seen themselves downgraded.

BA850

I'm flabbergasted.

irishguy28

At least she had the presence of mind to access the booking on several occasions under other employee's logins while helping with boarding KLC flights.

b12e

Which potentially is even more worrying than the fact this one employee tried to abuse it.

These computers at the gates are accessible by anyone when the gate is deserted, and apparently it's quite common for interns or other employees to "forget" to log out of their computer when they head to their next gate of assignment. Under GDPR, this may even mean a (data) breach.

CyBeR

if I remember correctly it's not that they 'forgot to log out' but more that they don't constantly switch accounts when processing a flight with multiple people.

b12e

from the transcript:
translated: