Reisen

As a customer service executive, it absolutely boggles my mind reading this, and the other comments that supported the GA. Granted, you are in the minority, most people either disapproved or pointed out there might be a second side to the story. But the line of thinking you posted (and ludicrously called someone else out) is just mind blowing.

What on earth would make you think that a company employee can retaliate against a customer for giving negative feedback of the service they provided?

Sure, the companies provide official ways to provide complaints, but customers are by no means required to use them. They are free to comment on their experience to their friends, their coworkers, the people standing in line next to them... And OF COURSE they are free to write about it on social media.

Can you imagine what would happen if airlines let employees kick passengers off flights every time they complained about poor service, either in person, or online? No public company is going to tolerate that kind of behavior from its employees, whether or not the guy posted on social media, whether or not he named the employee.

I guarantee you SouthWest execs are face-palming over this right now, and preparing memos to their workforce reminding them when it is and isn't appropriate to deny a passenger boarding.

Non-NonRev

I understand your point. Not criminal (IANAL) - but consequences can certainly extend to a company choosing not to seek your business (as long as the decision is not based on a "protected class" type of factor).

I'm usually one who by instinct favors the consumer over corporate entities, but increasingly you see people gaming the system and expecting rules to be broken just for them. In general, I feel that well-written rules will have plenty of "bend" in them, but will also protect the employee when the rules are broken in such a clear way.

Reisen

I can promise SW does monitor tweets, and I can also promise they don't use that monitoring to remove people from planes. Even beyond the creepy aspect of that strategy, the logistics would be impossible.

FindAWay

Not necessarily - if it happened, perhaps the GA didn't want a father traveling with his children arrested and thought that removing them from the flight might be appropriate enough.

Again, I'm not saying what did or didn't happen. I'm simply pointing out that there are plausible opposing scenarios (and the truth probably is in between).

CarolinaCoopers

^
I hope the GA gets a promotion.

LAtraveler1

Let's see - the passenger was already boarded and flying AWAY from "rude" agent. She feels so physically threatened that she then goes to engage him and DEMAND that he delete a tweet (that is his opinion of her behavior - that she is rude) before allowing him to fly.

If I feel physically threatened, I am not going to engage the person - especially one who is leaving. She should have let this roll off her back instead she went on a power trip.

While I do not know for 100% certain that the pax didn't physically threaten her - I can do a pretty good job of surmising that RUDE agent wasn't afraid of him.

LAtraveler1

IMHO your scenario is hardly plausible. Said agent pulls him off the flight to make him delete a tweet and threatens to call the cops in front of his children but then has so much compassion for the pax that she doesn't want him arrested????? Really?

Remember - WN gave the pax $150 of credit so it appears they are none too proud of their agent's actions.

ursine1

^

FindAWay

As pointed out by others more than a single person from WN was involved. So, it wasn't necessarily the same GA later engaging the pax.

LAtraveler1

She poured gas on a fire and it blew up in her face. So now WN marketing team gets to clean up the mess.

Nice to know that you think that her actions are defensible, because as I said before WN wouldn't have given away vouchers if her actions were deemed stellar. Me doubts that she will be elected employee of the month.

trouble747

Perhaps the point of requiring the tweet be removed was primarily because the GA felt "threatened" not by the man himself but by her name and location being tweeted with a negative comment?

Probably an overreaction, but maybe that was where the alleged concern came from (surely people tweet negative comments about/to Southwest and every-other airline all the time--I know I have regarding Southwest).

FindAWay

I have asked an officer to not arrest someone who has physically assaulted me (when I worked in residential property management) because I thought it better; so, I think it is entirely plausible.

If this was the scenario, I think the GA's compassion would probably have been more towards the 6- and 9-year old children being separated from their only present parent.

I don't read too much into WN's $50/pax compensation offer as I doubt anyone investigated his complaints before the compensation was offered considering how low it is. I've received greater compensation from a front line CSR before.

LAtraveler1

One last item - I copied this from the news article

"In an email to Watson, Southwest apologized for the incident."

My guess is that there wasn't a physical threat given that WN APOLOGIZED.

flyventure

Where did I say the employee was in the right with the way they behaved? Never said that. What I did say is that people should never be shocked when there is a reaction to what they say. You really think memos are going to go out to the work force? You are clueless to how the company operates. The employee in question will probably have a hearing and get a reprimand, but otherwise the situation won't get much more attention than that.

What should do the GA have done? Simply denied allowing the A-List pax to board early with the kids and say he can go with them later at their spot or they can board separately. When he started getting an attitude with the GA, she should have just referred him to Customer Relations if he isn't happy with the policy. They would have gave him a voucher to make him feel like a special snowflake and move on to the next person.

FindAWay

I never posted that I think anyone's actions were in fact defensible. PLEASE point out where I did!?

I simply pointed out that we have only a skewed account of the incident and not the whole story. I, therefore, reserve judgment.