3 ms·

As someone who works for a company focused on relentless customer service, I agree that that would be ideal. So far there hasn't been a profitable entrant into

As someone who works for a company focused on relentless customer service, I agree that that would be ideal. So far there hasn't been a profitable entrant into the airline business that's focused on customer service (EDIT: with the noteworthy exception of Southwest Airlines in the U.S.). Customers are notoriously price sensitive when it comes to non-business travel and unfortunately it's a race to the bottom. And you can't offer the lowest prices if you make the refund process easy.

Hnrobert42 6y ago
Of course, YMMV, but Southwest Airlines is very focused on customer service, and it is very successful.
- otterley 6y ago
  Indeed! But they rarely have the lowest prices anymore. Certainly not the kinds of bargains you find on RyanAir or easyJet. SWA also doesn't give refunds unless you fly unrestricted, which is usually 3x the price of a restricted fare. To their credit, they don't charge change fees. The way I think of RyanAir or easyJet or the like is a bit like gambling. Maybe 90% of the time you'll get a super cheap flight and everything will go fine, but the other 10% you'll lose your money. In the long term, though, it's a good deal for the passenger.
  - wrs 6y ago
    The point is, Southwest doesn’t have the lowest prices, does focus on customer service, and is profitable, so it’s the counterexample to the “race to the bottom” argument. (Or it was—who knows what post-2020 airlines will look like...)
- underseacables 6y ago
  I disagree. Southwest engages in a lot of white washing and PR to project this image of an airline that “cares” but in actuality they’re no better than any others. On airlines it’s not YMMV it’s “dignity comes with a price.”
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    On SW, they don’t charge baggage fees. They don’t charge change or cancellation fees up to minutes before departure. Their staff has always been more cheerful and humorous than AA or United or really any other carrier than maybe VietJet. So I don’t know by what standard you are evaluating them as no better, but by both the objective and subjective standards I propose, they are better.
Nextgrid 6y ago
> there hasn't been a profitable entrant into the airline business that's focused on customer service > Customers are notoriously price sensitive Is the current system actually cheaper, or is the current system just-as if not more expensive than doing business honestly, except that money is currently being spent on various inefficiencies caused by the current system (PR, customer service having to talk to angry customers, litigation, etc) but "fixing" it is not possible/politically viable as it would put a lot of people (maybe some of the decision-makers themselves) out of a job? If the law says you have to pay, it seems to me like it would be cheaper to just pay rather than spend money on all kinds of different people trying to work their way out of paying, but since they have those people already it's easier and less politically damaging to keep the current system as-is instead of letting those people go even though they don't actually provide any value (overall they provide negative value, as these people are paid to annoy/lie/waste the customer's time).
underseacables 6y ago
Would that not depend on what your definition of customer service is? I think the problem with airlines is that they have fallen into this myth that good customer service will lead to customers demanding more good customer service, and that’s something they can’t always guarantee. So like Starbucks and burned coffee beans, in order to standardize across the airline, many have opted for the most basic level of customer service.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  I think it's misguided to be considering this issue as "customer service". This is about following the law/regulation. Customer service can indeed be variable, and it's up to the company to pick their approach (terrible/no CS and low prices or very good CS and higher prices). When it comes to complying with the law/regulation, if your company is bound by those laws then it should comply just like every other company does. "Following the law" shouldn't depend on how much you pay; the companies expect the customer to follow the law, so the reverse should apply too. The problem seems to be that the current law/regulation isn't up to scratch and allows companies to act in bad faith and get away with it (the author is indeed correct that all of this can be made easier through automation and the airline not doing so should be considered obvious evidence of bad faith).
  - otterley 6y ago
    I think of customer service as going over and above what the law strictly requires. The law sets a floor, not a ceiling.
lifeisstillgood 6y ago
The problem with that is that regulation is there to keep the airlines operating at a "decent floor level" (ie safety) If they show they can happily ignore certain regulations (ie compensation) they we must assume they will ignore / avoid all other regulations. And that has safety implications in short, like the navy, enforce all the regulations vigorously - or remove regulations you won't enforce. Maybe it is not possible to operate a well regulated airline that can fly you to Geneva for less than a coach ride to the airport. And this is why we like science and nature. There is no VC capital approach to disruption of Gravity.
AlphaSite 6y ago
You should try airlines outside of the US, they’re near universally higher quality and often cheaper than any comparable service inside the US. And there are plenty of high quality long/medium haul airlines in general. Singapore airlines is a good example, but in general most Asian flag airlines are rather high quality.
- otterley 6y ago
  The story is about easyJet which is definitely not a US carrier. There are always exceptions to the rule, of course. But we're talking about domestic travel in general. AirAsia, for example, is a different beast than Singapore Air or EVA Airways.

Hnrobert42 6y ago

Of course, YMMV, but Southwest Airlines is very focused on customer service, and it is very successful.

otterley 6y ago
Indeed! But they rarely have the lowest prices anymore. Certainly not the kinds of bargains you find on RyanAir or easyJet. SWA also doesn't give refunds unless you fly unrestricted, which is usually 3x the price of a restricted fare. To their credit, they don't charge change fees. The way I think of RyanAir or easyJet or the like is a bit like gambling. Maybe 90% of the time you'll get a super cheap flight and everything will go fine, but the other 10% you'll lose your money. In the long term, though, it's a good deal for the passenger.
- wrs 6y ago
  The point is, Southwest doesn’t have the lowest prices, does focus on customer service, and is profitable, so it’s the counterexample to the “race to the bottom” argument. (Or it was—who knows what post-2020 airlines will look like...)
underseacables 6y ago
I disagree. Southwest engages in a lot of white washing and PR to project this image of an airline that “cares” but in actuality they’re no better than any others. On airlines it’s not YMMV it’s “dignity comes with a price.”
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  On SW, they don’t charge baggage fees. They don’t charge change or cancellation fees up to minutes before departure. Their staff has always been more cheerful and humorous than AA or United or really any other carrier than maybe VietJet. So I don’t know by what standard you are evaluating them as no better, but by both the objective and subjective standards I propose, they are better.

Nextgrid 6y ago

> there hasn't been a profitable entrant into the airline business that's focused on customer service > Customers are notoriously price sensitive Is the current system actually cheaper, or is the current system just-as if not more expensive than doing business honestly, except that money is currently being spent on various inefficiencies caused by the current system (PR, customer service having to talk to angry customers, litigation, etc) but "fixing" it is not possible/politically viable as it would put a lot of people (maybe some of the decision-makers themselves) out of a job? If the law says you have to pay, it seems to me like it would be cheaper to just pay rather than spend money on all kinds of different people trying to work their way out of paying, but since they have those people already it's easier and less politically damaging to keep the current system as-is instead of letting those people go even though they don't actually provide any value (overall they provide negative value, as these people are paid to annoy/lie/waste the customer's time).

underseacables 6y ago

Would that not depend on what your definition of customer service is? I think the problem with airlines is that they have fallen into this myth that good customer service will lead to customers demanding more good customer service, and that’s something they can’t always guarantee. So like Starbucks and burned coffee beans, in order to standardize across the airline, many have opted for the most basic level of customer service.

Nextgrid 6y ago
I think it's misguided to be considering this issue as "customer service". This is about following the law/regulation. Customer service can indeed be variable, and it's up to the company to pick their approach (terrible/no CS and low prices or very good CS and higher prices). When it comes to complying with the law/regulation, if your company is bound by those laws then it should comply just like every other company does. "Following the law" shouldn't depend on how much you pay; the companies expect the customer to follow the law, so the reverse should apply too. The problem seems to be that the current law/regulation isn't up to scratch and allows companies to act in bad faith and get away with it (the author is indeed correct that all of this can be made easier through automation and the airline not doing so should be considered obvious evidence of bad faith).
- otterley 6y ago
  I think of customer service as going over and above what the law strictly requires. The law sets a floor, not a ceiling.

lifeisstillgood 6y ago

The problem with that is that regulation is there to keep the airlines operating at a "decent floor level" (ie safety) If they show they can happily ignore certain regulations (ie compensation) they we must assume they will ignore / avoid all other regulations. And that has safety implications in short, like the navy, enforce all the regulations vigorously - or remove regulations you won't enforce. Maybe it is not possible to operate a well regulated airline that can fly you to Geneva for less than a coach ride to the airport. And this is why we like science and nature. There is no VC capital approach to disruption of Gravity.

AlphaSite 6y ago

You should try airlines outside of the US, they’re near universally higher quality and often cheaper than any comparable service inside the US. And there are plenty of high quality long/medium haul airlines in general. Singapore airlines is a good example, but in general most Asian flag airlines are rather high quality.

otterley 6y ago
The story is about easyJet which is definitely not a US carrier. There are always exceptions to the rule, of course. But we're talking about domestic travel in general. AirAsia, for example, is a different beast than Singapore Air or EVA Airways.