Parker: "Industry puts too much focus on the customer"
May 13, 2009, 9:22 am
#121
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CLT
Programs: AA-EXP, MR-PP
Posts: 3,440
Sure it would be nice to have if US agent would pick up the phone but it is an A&B situation where any good one would do it (provided there is not a huge line of people waiting already). However to blame US for what UA screwed up in the first place? The original comment seemed that poster was ok with UA screw up and will continue to fly UA but when US didn't go A&B on UA screwup he will hold US accountable?
May 13, 2009, 9:32 am
#122
Moderator: American AAdvantage & Marriott Bonvoy
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: PHX
Programs: American ExPlat; Marriott/SPG Lifetime Plat; Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 8,116
That very view is the root of the problem here.
May 13, 2009, 9:24 pm
#123
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Commuting around the mid-atlantic and rust-belt on any number of RJs
Programs: TSA Random Selectee Platinum, * Gold, SPG/HH/MR mid-tier, and a tiny bag of pretzels.
Posts: 9,255
If I treated my customers of any of our joint ventures like this, I'd have a broke joint-venture.
May 14, 2009, 3:18 am
#124
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CLT
Programs: AA-EXP, MR-PP
Posts: 3,440
UA screws up and all US agent did is not call on behalf of the pax and US gets all the blame and UA gets the praise?
May 14, 2009, 3:22 am
#125
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CLT
Programs: AA-EXP, MR-PP
Posts: 3,440
Poster didn't mention how busy the line was. If he was the only one there, perhaps US agent picking up the phone would make sense. If line was huge, then what is (s)he supposed to tell other passengers waiting for their service? ("Sorry, UA screwed up this guy/gal's ticket and if I don't fix it (s)he will blame everything on US and say we have a poor customer service. If any of you in the line are inconvenienced, sorry..."?!?!)
May 14, 2009, 6:13 pm
#126
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Upstate NY or FL or inbetween
Programs: US former CP Looking for a new airline to love me
Posts: 1,674
So let's see. UA screwed up by not properly endorsed the ticket. Made you go all the way to US counter and back and you somehow blame US for this?
It makes zero sense. You are asking TA to basically give you free ticket w/o proper financial backing and (s)he could get in serious trouble for it. You could as well pick up the phone yourself and call UA to fix it so you didn't have to walk back across the airport. But you chose to convince yourself this was US TA job to do for you to correct what UA messed up and you were unwilling to call to fix?
This is messed up!
It makes zero sense. You are asking TA to basically give you free ticket w/o proper financial backing and (s)he could get in serious trouble for it. You could as well pick up the phone yourself and call UA to fix it so you didn't have to walk back across the airport. But you chose to convince yourself this was US TA job to do for you to correct what UA messed up and you were unwilling to call to fix?
This is messed up!
So you would suggest that US agent would risk his/her job and put him on a plane w/o properly endorsed ticket?
Poster didn't mention how busy the line was. If he was the only one there, perhaps US agent picking up the phone would make sense. If line was huge, then what is (s)he supposed to tell other passengers waiting for their service? ("Sorry, UA screwed up this guy/gal's ticket and if I don't fix it (s)he will blame everything on US and say we have a poor customer service. If any of you in the line are inconvenienced, sorry..."?!?!)
Poster didn't mention how busy the line was. If he was the only one there, perhaps US agent picking up the phone would make sense. If line was huge, then what is (s)he supposed to tell other passengers waiting for their service? ("Sorry, UA screwed up this guy/gal's ticket and if I don't fix it (s)he will blame everything on US and say we have a poor customer service. If any of you in the line are inconvenienced, sorry..."?!?!)
More facts?
The US counter was not busy at all. Shrug and send back seemed to be the M.O.
Since much of my travel comes from Upstate NY, I'm quite familiar with interlining, transfers and endorsements, and these arrangements are often messed up by the original airline. That's not unusual. What I would find unusual in a customer centered organization is the inability to recognize a virtually certain revenue stream and brush off the warts it came with, so making the revenue a lock. I rarely see that attitude at US, and I conclude from my experience it's not likely to be seen because the organization has difficulty welcoming unexpected revenue or customers. A sourness seems to pervade most ground employee to customer (or potential returning customer in this case) interactions.
Your false choice for the TA between accept the unendorsed ticket and risk her job or send the potential customer packing is just that, a false choice. Pick up the damned phone and mutually fix it with the sending airline.
May 15, 2009, 6:07 pm
#127
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NorCal
Posts: 658
I wonder if Parker will notice the raised middle finger from the people that spend a lot of money on a yearly basis and wonder if picking up the occasional $99 fare to FLL is worth the trade off. Oh well.
But let's take a look at what he said:
This is code word for "the closer we get to a duopoly, the better the industry will be." You think?
Any fool can run a business in the absence of competition. Takes some acumen to run one in a competitive industry.
I'm sure the pilots at a well run airline, say, Southwest, would wonder what he's smoking. It's also somewhat silly for Parker to say this--he's operated with his major unions under bankruptcy era contracts for the past 5-8 years. His solution is to simply not move forward, which will eventually bite him. This is posturing for his own unions, nothing more.
Right. They should be beating the customer up.
There are airlines that deliver bags ontime and roll that into the cost of their ticket. That US can't do it and make money might just mean the US model is broken. Naw. Can't be.
On this point, he's absolutely right. In fact, the government is actually part of the fragmentation problem.
By giving government cheese to airlines like America West, US Airways, and United post 9/11, the government artificially kept failing business models running. The proper move would have been to let HP, US, and UA fold. That would've solved the fragmentation problem nicely as well as reduced the number of seats flying around.
You will note that Parker was fully in favor of the government cheese at that point.
Crux of the problem. He really thinks that this whole thing will work.
A CFO can run a thrice-bankrupt airline with two ATSB loans for a little while. Heck, a monkey could do it. But if Parker really wants to act "like other businesses," he better look squarely at Dallas--because the airlines that consistently make money don't act like they are run by CFOs.
What he did not say is that if the CFO's run it, it deteriorates to a truly commodity business. His acumen has shown that he can't compete on cost in a commodity business. Checkmate.
Parker is like Bernie Sanders in the senate, really--rails against the current model but if you look under the covers he really does not have a workable solution either. And most of the world looks at as if to say "what a loon."
But let's take a look at what he said:
This is code word for "the closer we get to a duopoly, the better the industry will be." You think?
Any fool can run a business in the absence of competition. Takes some acumen to run one in a competitive industry.
I'm sure the pilots at a well run airline, say, Southwest, would wonder what he's smoking. It's also somewhat silly for Parker to say this--he's operated with his major unions under bankruptcy era contracts for the past 5-8 years. His solution is to simply not move forward, which will eventually bite him. This is posturing for his own unions, nothing more.
Right. They should be beating the customer up.
There are airlines that deliver bags ontime and roll that into the cost of their ticket. That US can't do it and make money might just mean the US model is broken. Naw. Can't be.
On this point, he's absolutely right. In fact, the government is actually part of the fragmentation problem.
By giving government cheese to airlines like America West, US Airways, and United post 9/11, the government artificially kept failing business models running. The proper move would have been to let HP, US, and UA fold. That would've solved the fragmentation problem nicely as well as reduced the number of seats flying around.
You will note that Parker was fully in favor of the government cheese at that point.
Crux of the problem. He really thinks that this whole thing will work.
A CFO can run a thrice-bankrupt airline with two ATSB loans for a little while. Heck, a monkey could do it. But if Parker really wants to act "like other businesses," he better look squarely at Dallas--because the airlines that consistently make money don't act like they are run by CFOs.
What he did not say is that if the CFO's run it, it deteriorates to a truly commodity business. His acumen has shown that he can't compete on cost in a commodity business. Checkmate.
Parker is like Bernie Sanders in the senate, really--rails against the current model but if you look under the covers he really does not have a workable solution either. And most of the world looks at as if to say "what a loon."
I'm not so eloquent. My mind immediately only came up with a one word response to his statements: Southwest.