grayland

Whoaaa......pretty close to a underserved personal attack. Why????

UNITED959

It's not an attack, it was an explanation to a question posed to me by the OP.

Call me crazy, but I don't think "love" in this case was used in the altruistic sense...

luv2ctheworld

I don't quite understand all the hubbub is about. I've been following this since lucky first posted.

I'd like to throw in a few thoughts here:
1) The IAD RCC matron was wrong for not giving lucky his chits
2) Lucky could have probably approached the scenario better (everyone has their own style)
3) There is no reason the matron should have threatened him with calling security
4) Whatever fallout the matron receives, she has to deal with as a consequence for treating a customer in such a bad way.

Forget the fact lucky may be younger looking than your typical RCC customer; forget the possibility that the RCC matron may have been having a bad day; forget the approach lucky made with the matron because it sounded like he was looking for a fight (prepared with the RCC Admit Policy).

The bottom line is:
A customer came into the RCC lounge; the employee refused to give the customer proper benefits of being in the lounge; the customer "throws the book" at her, which was not well received; the employee escalates by calling security.

That is fundamentaly what happened. Age isn't the issue (if it was, the matron should have said it in the beginning). Having a bad day isn't the issue (or else anyone can claim a bad day to not do their job). Being confrontational/aggressive with the matron isn't the issue (not every customer is going to come in "happy and peppy", it is the job of the matron to deal with it).

I do not hope the RCC matron is fired; but I certainly hope she learns and understands that she needs to properly address and treat customers by the regulations stated by the employer.

A general CS rule: you can always treat a customer better than you are supposed to, but never worse.

heffa

I've always gotten drink chits for my kids at IAD. Last time was yesterday, so it's working fine.

Of course I don't get offered any drink chits first, but when I say that being a *G and traveling on international business entitles one to drink chits they give one each. Only after I remind them that it should be two per person, I get the correct number.

It seems to me that they definitely knows the rules, but plays dumb (or similar). I think they might have orders from above to hinder ppl to come in to the lounch and/or not handing out drink chits. There are too many emails and letters that we have sent to RCC regarding the IAD matrons (and getting replies) - just to a thread search - that there must be a strategy behind this.

l etoile

From the rules Lucky printed out:

TWO DRINK CHITS SHOULD BE PROVIDED AT GATEWAY TO 63NS/ *TRANSOCEANIC* TRAVELERS ONLY

Anyone else see an out here? "Should" can be a direction or duty, but even in legal writings it does not necessarily mean it is mandatory. Show me current rules where it says drink chits WILL or MUST be provided and that state laws don't apply in the case of those who are underage and then I will agree Lucky deserved the chits.

luv2ctheworld

Fair point, but the wording makes it a positive statement; it doesn't say "optional" or "discretionary". I define "should" as an affirmative.

As for the age, unless Lucky's ID was asked and verified he was underaged and the point specifically made of such, he still should have the chits.

MyPorch

While in a strict legal parsing of the text "should" does not carry the same weight as will, must or shall, I can't believe that anyone in a customer service position should get into legalistic argument just because semantics allows it. Especially when it is clear that the intent of the rule is to reward certain types of cusotmers.

I don't think there is any excuse for bad customer service in any setting, yet given the way that UA employees and most other major carriers in the US have been treated by their management, it should come as no surprise that the agents take it out on customers.

Of course it is a vicious cycle that does no one any good. UA employees won't begin to get the compensation they deserve until UA's profitability returns. However, if the folks on UA's front lines and UA in general continue to have a "customer is always wrong" mentality it is hard to imagine how profitability will ever return.

On top of all of this, I think that the DC metro area has the worst customer service in the US. It doesn't matter if you are at the doctor's office, the drug store, or the airport, customer service in DC sucks. People often talk about New Yorkers being rude, but when it comes to bad customer service DC takes the prize.

l etoile

I don't see that this would be a legal argument, but an argument over exactly what the rules that Lucky wanted her to read do in fact promise or not promise. (And it's been mentioned here before that this is not a published benefit.) That agent could have read the rules as Lucky asked and said, "Yes, I SHOULD provide you with certs, but it does not say I MUST provide you with certs and so I take that to mean it's my choice. Sorry."

Sometimes the rules can come back and bite you.

stevenshev

I concur. I also have other issues with the entire scenario, from the legal perspective. Seems as if I'm putting law school to good use .

SASfan

* * * PRIORITY PASS * * *
116NA/ VALID ONLY AT BOS/BWI/DCA/DFW/EWR/HNL/LGA/MCO/MEL
117NA/ MEX/MSP/PDX/PHL/PHX/SAN/SNA/BOS/MEL/SEA/SYD/SFO INTL CLUB
118NA/ A VALID PRIORITY PASS MEMBERSHIP CARD IS REQUIRED
119NA/ TWO GUESTS...ALL CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE TRACKED AND
120NA/ CARD HOLDER AND GUESTS SHOULD BE CHARGED.

Gimme a break on the "should" bit. I guarantee you the RCC employees won't forget to charge someone to enter the club. There are a lot of 'shoulds' in the rules, probably to give UA some leeway if someone states they did not get a drink cert.

Unfortunately, there probably needs to be a line in the rules that states the Red Carpet Club Employees should provide outstanding customer service to all UA Mileage Plus and Star Alliance members.

beamMeUp38

Good find! ^

l etoile

Should be tracked? When have you been tracked? And I most definitely have had RCC agents let me in without charging me and without me having a pass. There's a lot of leeway in the rules. A customer's attitude can go a long ways in how an agent decides to use that leeway.

UNITED959

If a customer who's obviously completely drunk stumbles into the club, SHOULD he be given drink tix?

MyPorch

You are right, the agent COULD have read the rules and made that determination, but even if she was right on a technicality she was wrong about the intent of the rule which is to reward certain types of customers.

SHOULD a customer service agent really be that petty with a customer even IF the customer is being petty?

SASfan

Well, since you asked the question, when I used to have the Priority Pass card back in the late 90s (before my FT days), I was tracked every time I entered a lounge with it. I don't know if you know how it works, but there are 3 different levels with PP. The most basic (Standard Membership) requires that the cardholder pay per visit. See below:

http://www.prioritypass.com/Join/What-It-Costs.cfm

So, really not a great deal, lounge-wise.

What I was using this verbiage from the UA lounge rules to illustrate is that in the case of the Priority Pass program, should = track and charge the customer if their card level and the situation warrants it, just like the "two drink chits should be provided at gateway" statement.

Nowhere in my post did I mention a customer's attitude. Of course, all of us have gotten free drinks, lounge access, upgrades, etc., etc. by being nice, friendly, and interested in the club agent.

But I think this should discussion is grasping at straws, a bit.

Maybe the rules need to be clarified, but this should be common sense.