ryan182

I also KNOW that there is NO REASON and its NOT BS, what is BS is the "examples" that somehow make it so FAs can do what every they want and not give the information required to hold them accountable.

I went to Best Buy today, everyone's name tag had first name, last initial. then I went to a fast food restaurant, AGAIN I get names.

EVERYONE in every service industry I've ever seen has names or some distinct identifiable # that a customer can get. So now we have the FA:
1) Don't want any sort of manager on board to supervise them
2) Don't want to give any information to a CUSTOMER that can be used to identify them if they are performing poorly. And you know AFA wont allow any discipline unless you can 100% identify the employee
3) Pull out the "security" card whenever they want

Hmmmm.....and just where is the BS in this?

ryan182

[Deleted personal remarks directed at another member]

For the record, there is no reason, at least no valid reason, not to provide a customer your name. Since you'd like to get all technical, the validity of the reason is determined by me, the customer, not the employee.

Oh, and get Firefox it has spell check built in, and if your worried about security (from your earlier post) you should know better than to use IE.

Liz

I was going off of what my FAA CSI told me.

Liz

Correct. As I've said MANY times on FT, the Op Specs of the carrier supercede (spelling?) the FAR's. This is why you will see variables from carrier to carrier.

Thunderroad

Debates about this matter resurface repeatedly on FT. I tend to agree with ryan182. But I think the real problem is that UA has never bothered to make clear what its policy is regarding what if any ID info employees are required to supply customers. AFAIK, other airlines don't state their policies either.

Prompted by one such debate some time ago, I emailed UA to ask what the policy is and, IIRC, got back and posted a response stating that employees must supply their full names. But an FA (Liz???) on FT questioned it, correctly pointing that the nature of the response made it seem like the person sending it was just winging it (so to speak) and not really articulating company policy. I didn't pursue the matter any further.

TravelManKen

The only way I'll take another flight on UA in Int'l FC will be on an op-up or because there is absolutely nothing else available for a particular routing/schedule. After years of being with UA I finally took my first two IFC flights - SFO-PEK in May and PEK-SFO last week. The bed was great, the product not so much. On both flights the FA's were courteous, however they all disappeared about 2.5 hours into my PEK-SFO flight last week.

Last week, FC had three revenue customers, myself in 1A and two GS fliers in 2A/J - the other three people (3A/4A/5A) in the cabin were United employees (with I.D. cards). The wine was so horrible that I took one sip and gave it back to the FA, she then told me that the guy behind me had the same reaction. I didn't finish either one of my meals (duck and some breakfast thing) because of the taste.

I'm with the OP, my experience in UA IFC is a big

das

Did the F/A offer you an alternative wine choice? Normally they load two whites and two reds in First, and two different reds and two different whites in Business.

TravelManKen

Both I and the other guy in FC tasted all of the wines they loaded, the wines in Business were actually better than those in F.

Ibarra

Sorry but this post is too exaggerated I think. Perhaps if you paid full fare F I could understand the shocking realization.

I guess I am confused at the apparent amazement about UA F's mediocrity. The truth is that there is nothing new here, and some of the expectations around here are definitely skewed when one considers how unrestricted this product is. This product has been cheapened, period. This is a product that people, as evident around here expect to be upgraded into, not pay, a product that is open to employees, not exclusive to revenue, heck, a product that some even expect C passengers ought to be operationally upgraded into, just so people from Y could be bumped up!

If I am paying full F, then of course I'll avoid any N. American carriers, but with a SWU, miles, small cash, UA F is still a heck of a deal, anytime. Give me a flat seat and get me to my destination and everything else is really inconsequential in my opinion.

TravelManKen

Where did I say I didn't have a choice of airlines or received an op-up to F? The point is that I'll only take F on UA in the future IF it's because I receive an op-up from C or the routing/flight time is the only thing that works for me in my schedule. My comparison is strictly UA Int'l C vs. F and there should be a significant lift between the two products. The F product stinks, maybe that's why that's why people "expect" (as you say) to receive it for an op-up or via use of a SWU vs. purchase. Kinda like the Red Carpet Club, people like me are not renewing memberships because it's only worth it if the entrance if free while traveling Int'l.

jhayes_1780

Yes, I do "KNOW" that in a customer service context there is absolutely no reason the company representitive should not be ready to present thier first and last name, or SOME sort of identifier (badge number, employee number, operator number, etc.). I am not asking for blood type, social security number, home address etc. but as I have advised in other threads... Walmart employees seem to have no trouble idenitfying themselves, McDonalds employees have given me thier names, I went to Krogers and had a bad expierence and got the employees name. My Bennigans waitress was excellent, so I got her full name for the comment card.^

Yea, so lets throw out the baby with the bathwater.....good idea: no names or badges... wait we could even come up with a program that all FA's could be able to wear masks, that way there would be no way to even describe them, that way every FA will be "secure" and sleep well at night knowing that they will not get a reprimand for telling a mother to drug her baby (I know it was on CO connection not UA).

Mountain Trader

I agree with your observation that FC (and C) have been cheapened by the factors you mention. This might explain UA not spending the amount of money it might on amenities, wine, etc. But if you read most of the complaints (including the original post in this thread), they surround in one way or another employees not optimizing the customers' experiences. That stuff just shouldn't happen, no matter how you got up front.

As for the post that expressed doubt about the effectiveness of a survey, I think it's obvious that having a survey drafted to seek info about customer service on the flight would certainly cause encorage most employees to work hard to be rated well, and note the oes that do. And as my earlier post stated, it would allow UA to learn of and isolate the ones that don't.

HonestABE

There are two distinct issues when a customer perceives that the service they have received from a company employee is unsatisfactory.

The first is the appropriate compensation the customer should receive for the substandard service; the second is how the company should respond internally (corrective employee action).

The appropriate compensation is an issue between the company and the customer. The corrective employee action is none of the customer's business. That's up to the company to deal with in the context of the employment contract.

Therefore, given you can provide UA with an accurate physical description of the employee along with specifics (class of service, flights, dates, etc.), UA ought to be able to figure out who the employee was. The name, therefore, is not necessary.

Even if you were to get the employee's full name (or badge number, or whatever), it is still up to UA to internally decide what action it will take with respect to the employee. There is no guarantee that UA (or any other company) would proceed any differently if they were given a name as opposed to an accurate physical description.

In any event, the customer is not entitled to know what action the company chose to take with respect to the employee, nor is it appropriate for the customer to even suggest an appropriate action.

ryan182

Agree completely its none of our business what (if anything) is done, but as one should expect they will be unable to address any complaints without being 100% sure who the individual in question is.

On a wide body long haul flight, a simple physical description probably wont work, many FAs look alike or close enough that given that description they won't be able to be 100% sure. Also if you were the "offending" employee and all there is to go on is a rough physical description, are you going to own up to it? Or play the, "must be someone else" card.

So I suggest snap a photo on your camera phone (in flight mode of course )if they won't give up a name, send the photo with the letter. Should solve the problem.

creativity55

It's getting harder and harder to justify first on almost any carrier when Business offers 90% of the amenities for much less money.